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.
2016/10/15 01:26:18
Subject: 40k Fan 8th Edition: A much simplified game
So the last couple weeks have been a lot of discussions on where 40ks missteps are and where it might be going and how best it could get there. The ideas are spread across a bunch of threads over a range of subjects. I wanted to try to condense a lot of the most recent/best ones that keep cropping up and see if we might be able to slap together something that could be play tested on a small scale (1000 points or less) and expanded as we go. I will keep this OP updated with the most recent rules and ideas. Lets see if we can get a really fun game out of 40k!
Change Log. Updated 11/8/16
Spoiler:
11/8/16 -Added a list submitted for Tau. First pass at a conversion for Supporting Fire rule. Requires testing and probable adjustment. Please provide feedback. ore lists incoming.
11/3/16 -Small fixes to assault phase text. Added separate explanation of Tactical Retreat. A Tactical Retreat no longer has to move towards table edge. A unit that chooses to break away from a combat may head in which ever direction they wish. Also explained Consolidate. You now Consolidate at 1/2 M but must ensure coherency.
11/1/16 -Changed how WS functions. -Updated Nid and Necron Lists to reflect new stat lines
10/28/16 -Tightened up some language around the various sections. -Added 800 point lists for Necrons and Tyranids to replace block of testing stat lines.
10/27/16 -Added Steady! to Orders. -Added Combat Speed! to Orders. -Added Cruising Speed! to Orders. -Changed Sv to Av. Since that save represents your armor save all models now have a "Armor Value". Functions the same just a rename. -GREATLY Updated Unit types - Mostly Vehicles. -Updated Status Flying - Renamed to Airbourne. Functions the same. Now "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Airbourne" as opposed to "Aircraft Vehicles that are Flying are considered Flying". I think that sounds better. -Changed M attributes on play test units to reflect new phase of testing. This is a increase from previous M attributes across the board.
10/25/16 -Added the section "Weapon Types". -Added "Turbo Boost" to Unit Actions. -Added "Turbo Boost!" to Orders. -Added the section "Unit Types" -Mentions Bulky (*) Special Rule - Clarification in Notes
Notes: This reduces the number of weapon types greatly. Only one Weapon type will prevent charging into assaults, 2 weapon types will reduce BS if the model moves before shooting. Things like salvo and rapid fire will be a part of the basic weapons profiles in the form of variable range and # of shots. As a result you can have a rapid fire assault weapon (Weapons like a assault rifle or Uzi) and rapid fire heavy weapons (I am thinking something like a SAW). The intent is to greatly simplify the need to look up the various weapon rules by placing more information on the weapon profile and making the restrictions each weapon type imposes much simplified and easier to memorize.
As of this Update the following have been cut from the game.
Unit Types Cut: Jetbikes (Now just Bike (Skimmers)), Artillery, Jump, Jet Pack, Beasts, GMC, Chariots, Heavy, Fast, Super Heavy Walkers, Super Heavy Tanks.
Turbo Boost introduces the concept of Mounted Weapons on bikes. It notes that Mounted Weapons are immune to the BS penalties for moving. I want to clarify how this functions here.
A model suffers a -1 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model has moved. A model suffers a -1 BS if it Runs as part of it's move action. This means a model would suffer a -2 BS when using a Heavy Weapon as part of a shooting attack if that model moved during the move action and was part of a unit that Runs.
A bike with a Heavy Weapon mounted on it can move without suffering the -1 BS penalty. It would STILL suffer the -1BS if the unit Runs. In this case the penalty is not coming from the fact that the model Moved (that penalty is negated by the fact that it is mounted) but is instead coming from the Run action itself. Likewise a Unit of bikes that Turbo boosts will Suffer a -1 BS and if it chooses to run could end up with a -2 BS.
If, somehow, there was a bike unit that had a heavy weapon that was not Mounted that Turbo Boosts and Runs it would fire that heavy weapon at -3 BS. If this brings the units BS to 0 or less it would be unable to fire the weapon.
The Bulky Special Rule is being changed to Bulky #. Instead of 3 different Bulky special rules there will be 1 with a number. The number is the number of models the model with this special rule counts as for determining transport capacity. Bikes in this example are Bulky 3 and thus each single bike counts as 3 models for transport purposes.
Vehicles are not done yet. I will finish it up tomorrow. I found some issues with Ramming which is kind of the new and only "tank shock" that needs to be adjusted.
10/19/16 -Added the section "Unit Actions". -Changed "The Game Round and Player Turn". Now there are orders you can give to an activated unit. These orders determine the permissions granted to a unit during their activation. -Moved "Psychic Powers" into "Unit Actions" -Updated "Assault" to reflect the way information is distributed across the rules. -Added a "Special Thanks!" section for contributors of mechanics! Thanks everyone!
Core design goals.
Spoiler:
Simple Tight Rules: There should be as little looking up special rules as possible. The game should be easy to learn over the course of a couple games. Depth of game play should come from interactions. We want to reduce resolution methods. Reduce unique special rules to the things that actually need them. Fix complexity where ever we can find it.
I would like us to gut the game here if needed. Every mechanic is up for scrutiny. If something seems good enough lets rip into it and see if we can make it better.
Simple Army Construction: There needs to be a simple and effective way for people to build their army list. That starts with the FoC and logical restrictions to maintain a balance. I would like to start with the 30k method. I will expand on that more below. But returning to design goal 1, this is free to be torn down and rebuilt as something else entirely if there is a easier better way to do it. Nothing is sacred here.
No Immunity to Basic Mechanics Things like Fearless and ATSKNF are widespread in 7th. Whole parts of core mechanics don't function for large swathes of the armies out there. None of that. If Fearless exists it exists rarely. Moral needs to play a part in the game for all forces.
Active Game Play and Tactical/Strategic Counter Play Too much of 40k as it is now involves lots of down time and waiting while the other player takes their many actions. You often have no choice but to watch barrage after barrage come your way with little to no answer but whatever ends up weathering the storm to dump onto them when it's your turn. Too many mechanics are closed systems that leave players incapable of reacting to them. As much as possible we need to open up options for counter play. Players need to be able to react reasonably to the other player to allow for a more active game of risk and reward.
That is it. Lets not start the simple game with complicated goals.
Unless changed here, use the base line 7th ed rules to fill in any gaps in the game play for the time being. The goal will be to fill those gaps as we go.
There are a few important things to note. -That single image with the primary and secondary detachments is all you get. There are no multiple FoC charts. No formations. No Decurions. Everyone gets the one. -LoW cannot be taken in games below 2k points per army and cannot cost more then 25% of your total army value. -Each army will have a special rule that allows access to Rites of War. Units that have this special rule will be limited to 1 for every 1k points in your army. RoW will be different for each faction. Preferably with a few generic options and then some unique to specific sub factions. For instance there will be generic space marine RoW and then ones unique to different chapters.
For the opening of this play test we won't worry about RoW just yet. As we start to expand and convert units I would love to add more to them.
Agents of -BLANK-
Some sub-factions and mini-dexes and sometimes just data slates will be Agents of -Faction- (Example: Agents of The Imperium). These units can occupy the allied detachment or LoW detachment for any faction that they are a part of. Imperial Knights are not their own faction. You cannot JUST play knights. They are Agents of the Imperium and can be taken as a LoW choice for any of the Imperium of Man factions. Knights may also be Agents of other factions. There is an Imperial Knight that has been corrupted by a Genestealer Cult. There will be a data slate for his knight as a "Agent of the Cult".
The Stat Line (I.E. Attributes)
Spoiler:
Weapon Skill (Ws) Now functions like BS. A WS of 3 hits on a 4+. No comparing attributes to determine success.
Ballistic Skill (Bs) As 7th.
Strength (S) As 7th.
Toughness (T) As 7th.
Attacks (A) As 7th.
Wounds (W) As 7th.
Movement (M) This stat represents the number of inches the model can move during the movement phase. If the model decides to run it can run half movement value, rounded up. If a model decides to charge it can charge the full value. (As a rough example things like jump packs will add +2" to a models movement and allow them to ignore the effects of difficult terrain, Difficult terrain would reduce a models movement by 2".)
Armor Value (Av) This will function in parallel to BS.
The idea here is that it's no longer the only stat working in reverse from all the others. Also, because it is not represented by the roll, abilities can add or subtract from the various save types to represent better or worse rolls. A 2+ save does not need to go to a full rerollable 2+ save. It can instead be a 2+/6+ when you improve a Armor Sv 5 to 6.
Leadership (Ld) As 7th.
Unit Actions
Spoiler:
Move: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to their M attribute. If a model touches terrain at any point during it's move it immediately suffers any effects of the terrain. The model gains any of the terrains benefits so long as it stays in contact with the terrain. A unit that makes a Move action counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Run: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to 1/2 their M attribute. The entire unit suffers a -1 to BS until the units next Activation Step. A unit that Runs counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Shooting Attack: As per the Shooting Phase in the BRBpg.30 with some exceptions. The unit may target units locked in combat.
Charge Action The player must declare a valid enemy unit that it wishes to Charge. In order for the enemy unit to be a valid target at least one model in your unit must be able to reach base to base contact with a model in the target unit by moving up to a number of inches equal to it's M attribute by the most direct path possible. A unit that charges gains +1 A. A unit that charges begins an Assault.
Some times a unit may need to make a Disorder Charge. A Disordered Charge functions exactly like a Charge Action but the unit does not gain a +1 A and cannot benefit from any special rules that effect Charge Actions and Assaults.
Over Watch: A unit on Over Watch may, during an enemies activation, interrupt their turn to make a Shooting Attack at 1/2 range. The controlling player may choose to do this before or after any actions the enemy player makes with their unit. If you choose to interrupt a unit that is charging into assault the enemy unit is not counted as being locked in combat for the purpose of this shooting attack. If you choose to interrupt a Embark action the player may make their Shooting Attack before the unit is removed from the table. If you choose to interrupt a Disembark action the player may make their Shooting Attack after all models from the Disembarking unit have been placed on the table.
If the Over Watch unit Goes To Ground or moves for any reason (including Falling Back) they are removed from Over Watch. All units deployed at the beginning of the game begin the game on Over Watch.
Embark: The player must declare that the unit will embark upon a valid transport vehicle. In order for the Transport Vehicle to be valid the unit must be able to move each model a number of inches equal to it's M attribute to within 3 inches of one of the vehicles access points. At least one model must make base contact with the transport vehicle or it's base. Move each model a number of inches up to it's M attribute as close as possible to the access point. Remove the unit from the table making sure it is clear to the opponent that the unit is embarked upon the vehicle. A unit that Embarks counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Disembark: The player places each model from the disembarking unit within 3 inches of the access point of the Transport Vehicle they are Disembarking from. A unit that Disembarks counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Turbo Boost: The unit may move each model up to a number of inches equal to their M attribute x2. The entire unit suffers -1 to BS until their next activation phase. If a model touches terrain at any point during it's move it immediately suffers any effects of the terrain. The model gains any of the terrains benefits so long as it stays in contact with the terrain. A unit that makes a Turbo Boost action counts as having Moved until it's next activation phase.
Manifest Psychic Powers: A unit that is capable of manifesting psychic powers may attempt to manifest each power it knows once with certain limitations. Manifesting Psychic Powers requires a Ld test. This test is modified by the Warp Charge cost of the power and the number of powers they have attempted to manifest so far.
If the Ld test is passed the power is manifested successfully. If the test is failed the power fails. If the caster rolls doubles the model or models that attempted to manifest the power suffer Perils of the Warp.
Example: A Ld 10 model that attempts to manifest a 2 WC power would require a roll of 8 or less. But if they attempted to manifest a second power at 2 WC it would require a roll of 7 or less.
Deny the Witch Any unit may attempt to Deny the Witch for any power that it is being cast upon it. If a model is capable of Manifesting Psychic Powers it's unit may attempt to Deny the Witch for any power that is being generated by a model, or is targeting a unit, that is at least partially within 12" of the Psyker model. Each power may only be denied by a single unit.
Deny the Witch requires a roll of 2d6. If the unit attempting to Deny rolls a 11+ the unit succeeds This roll is modified by the difference in mastery levels. If the roll is successful the power is canceled and fails to manifest. If the Deny roll fails the power is successful and manifests according to the power.
Example: A mastery level 2 Psyker attempts to Deny a power manifested by a Mastery level 1 Psyker. Because he is 1 level above the enemy he gains a +1 to his roll. He rolls a 10 and because of the +1 succeeds. The power has been denied and fails to manifest.
Each Witchfire and Nova power counts as a single weapon for the purpose of determining how many weapons the model can fire in a Shooting Attack.
If a infantry model can fire 1 weapon in the shooting phase it can choose to manifest any benediction or malediction powers it knows and a single weapon.
Weapon Types
Spoiler:
Every weapon will have a type that explains how it may be used. May types may place restrictions, penalties, or maybe even benefits depending on the actions of the unit.The various Weapon Types will be detailed below.
Melee weapons will always use the A attribute of the model for it's number of attacks. Shooting weapons will have a number after it's type that dictates it's number of attacks. Some weapons will have a variable number of attacks based on different ranges. When this is the case the number of attacks will be presented with both numbers corresponding to the variable ranges.
-Melee Melee weapons can be used as part of any combat using their listed profile. Their number of attacks is equivalent to the A attribute of the model wielding them.
-Pistol Pistol weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. Pistol weapons count towards your melee weapons for the purpose of determining number of attacks in combat.
-Assault Assault weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile.
-Heavy Heavy Weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. If the model moved during their current activation they suffer a -1 BS when firing Heavy Weapons until their next activation phase.
-Artillery Artillery Weapons can be used as a part of any shooting attack using their listed profile. If the model moved during their current activation they suffer a -2 BS when firing Artillery Weapons until their next activation phase. If any model in a unit attempts to fire an Artillery Weapon in their activation the unit cannot make a Charge Action.
-Bomb Bomb Weapons can be used as a part of any Move action using their listed profile. A Flying Monstrous Creature must be swooping to use a Bomb Weapon. A Flying Vehicle must be Zooming to use a Bomb Weapon. No other model types are capable of using a Bomb. A Bomb Weapon can only target a model that the attacker passed over while moving.
The Game Round and Player Turn (Why the hell GW calls both of these a turn is beyond me)
Spoiler:
-A single Game Round encompasses each player activating each of their units until both players no longer have any units to use. At this point a new Round begins. (Round 1, Round 2, etc etc..) A Game should generally be no longer than 6 Rounds but players can make them longer or shorter as they desire.
-A player turn involves the active player selecting a single unit to activate and completing the following steps of their activation in order.
--Step 1: Activation: For most models this phase will mean nothing. But some models may have abilities that trigger or go away at the beginning of their activation. This is when those effects take place. Units that begin the round in Reserves that are activated roll to see if they arrive from Reserves during this phase and deploy if successful.
--Step 2: Orders: The player chooses one of several orders to issue to the unit. The active player must declare to his/her opponent which order is being used and then complete any of the actions it allows. Some orders may only be available under certain circumstances and depending on the situation some orders may be restricted. The different orders you may choose and the circumstances under which they may be used are as follows.
-Hold Position!: The unit may make a Shooting Attack at +1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Advance!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack. The unit may make a Charge Action after Shooting but must make a Disordered Charge.
-Assault!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. The unit may make a Charge action after it has Moved.
-Over Watch!: The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. At the end of it's activation the unit enters Over Watch. Place a token next to the unit to indicate that it is on Over Watch.
-Disembark!: A unit must be embarked upon a Transport to be issued this order. The unit may make a Disembark action. The unit may make a Run action as part of the Disembark. The unit may make a Shooting Attack after it Disembarks. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack. The unit may make a Charge action after Disembarking but must make a Disordered Charge.
-Embark!: If the unit is capable of embarking upon a Transport the unit may make an Embark action. The unit may choose to Run as Part of it's Embark. The unit may make a Shooting Attack before or after it's Embark. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Turbo Boost!: Only units composed entirely of Bike models may be issued a Turbo Boost order. The unit may make a Turbo Boost action. The unit may make a Shooting Attack after it's Turbo Boost. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Steady!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Steady! order. The unit may make a Shooting Attack firing each of it's weapons. 1 weapon has a +1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Combat Speed!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Combat Speed! order. The unit uses it's Combat Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved firing up to 3 of it's weapons. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Cruising Speed!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Cruising Speed! order. The unit uses it's Cruising Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The Unit may make a Shooting Attack after it has Moved firing up to 3 of it's weapons. 2 weapons fire at -1 BS. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers as part of it's Shooting Attack.
-Ram!: Only units composed of vehicles may be issued a Ram! order. The unit uses it's Cruising Speed M attribute for all actions until it's next Activation Step. The unit may make a Move action. The unit may choose to Run as part of it's Move. The unit may Manifest Psychic Powers after it has Moved. The unit may make a Ram Action after it has Moved.
Each player takes turns activating a single unit until all units have been activated. Then a new Round begins.
Assault
Spoiler:
An assault is when two units begin melee combat. An assault is composed of a number of rounds of combat that begins with a Pile In.
-The Pile In: Starting with the active player, each player selects one model that is not in base contact with an enemy model and moves it up to 3" to get into base contact with an enemy model. If they cannot reach an enemy model they must move as close as possible. Each model can only be moved once this way.
-The Combat: Combat consists of 3 rounds of attacks. Quick Melee, Melee, and Slow Melee. Each model that is in base contact with an enemy model is considered "Engaged in Combat". Each model in a unit participating in the assault that is Engaged in combat, or is within 2" of a model that is Engaged in Combat may attack with a single weapon. Most weapons are standard melee weapons (listed as Melee in their profile). Some however are Quick or Slow (listed as Quick Melee or Slow Melee in their profile). Quick Melee always strikes first and slow melee always strike last. If two weapons would strike at the same time the attacker strikes first. At the end of each round of combat there is a new pile in move.
Example. The active player (player a) successfully charges player b. They each have 5 models in their unit with weapons that are classified as Melee weapons but player A has one model with a power fist (a Slow Melee weapon). Player A attacks with the 4 models that do not have slow weapons. Player B removes any models that have no remaining wounds. Player B attacks with any remaining models and Player A removes his models. There is a pile in. If Player A's model with the power fist is still alive it now gets to attack.
-The Winner, Moral, Locked in Combat, Tactical Retreat, Fall Back, and Sweeping Advance
Determine who won the combat by adding up the total unsaved wounds inflicted by each side. The side that inflicted the most wounds is the winner. In case of a tie the combat is a drawn and the units are Locked in Combat.
Locked in Combat: A unit that is Locked in Combat has two options. First they may choose to stay in the combat. This will leave the unit where they are and they will be unable to be issued orders until they disengage. A unit that is activated while locked in combat may attempt to Manifest some psychic powers. A unit that is locked in combat will, after attempting to manifest psychic powers, initiate a new round of combat. The unit may also choose to make a Tactical Retreat. Units locked in combat have a Cover Save of 3 (4+). If a unit chooses to target a unit that is locked in combat during the shooting phase any to hit rolls of 1 hit friendly units in the combat instead. Wounds are allocated to the closest friendly model first and continues to the next closest. If two models are tied for closest model the enemy chooses which model wounded next.
The unit that lost the combat must either make a Tactical Retreat or must attempt to pass a moral check same as 7th. If the moral check passes the unit is Locked in Combat. If the moral check fails the unit must Fall Back and must now check for a Sweeping Advance.
Tactical Retreat: If a unit chooses to make a Tactical Retreat that unit must test for Sweeping Advance as though it failed it's Moral Test. After removing any casualties the unit many then make a single move up to it's M attribute. Unlike a normal sweeping advance the unit may move in any direction.
Sweeping Advance: Each unit rolls 1d6+M. If the Unit that is attempting to Fall Back wins they make a fall back move = to their M attribute and must head by the most direct path possible towards their deployment table edge. If their movement takes any models off the table edge those models are eliminated from the battle.
If the unit fails the Sweeping Advance they suffer a number of unsaved wounds, that cannot be negated by any means, equal to the difference of the rolls. If the unit is incapable of moving legally the Fall Back roll is considered to have failed by the lowest possible result (1+M) even if the unit passed.
Consolidate: After a unit that was Engaged in Combat becomes unengaged either because their opponent choose to make a Tactical Retreat, made a Fall Back Move, or was eliminated, the Remaining unit may Consolidate. The unit may move up to 1/2 M but must end their move with the unit in coherency.
-Charging into units Locked in Combat and Charging Multiple Units
If the target you declare is Locked in Combat or if reaching your target would place you into combat with multiple enemy units you are making a Disordered Charge. A disordered charge functions similar to a standard Assault except that the charging unit gains no benefits for charging. Any special rules the unit may have and the bonus attack for charging are negated by the fact that the unit must keep track of many more enemy combatants or move their way around their allies as they enter the fray. If charging multiple units each model may choose a model from either unit to attempt to get into base contact with. The unit must be in coherency at the end of the charge. If models from only one enemy unit end up in base contact then the charge against the second unit fails. You are now in a combat with only a single enemy unit but still loose all benefits due to making a Disordered Charge. It may occur that you declare a charge against a single unit, but because of their close proximity to a second unit you end up in base contact with the second unit as well. This retroactively becomes Charging Multiple Units and thus becomes a Disordered Charge.
Model Types
Spoiler:
Core Model Types - Infantry Infantry can shoot a single weapon as part of a Shooting Attack, Move M as part of a Move Action, run 1/2 M as part of a Run Action, and move M as part of a Charge Action. Other unit types act as Infantry unless otherwise noted.
-Bike Bikes ignore the M penalty of terrain but treat all terrain as Dangerous. A bike can fire one weapon for each rider on the bike. Some bikes have weapons that are Mounted on them. A model may fire a mounted weapon without suffering any penalties for moving. Bikes may be issued a Turbo Boost Order. Bikes have the Hammer of Wrath, Jink, and Bulky 3.
-Cavalry Cavalry ignore the M penalty of terrain. Cavalry have the Hammer of Wrath special Rule.
-Monstrous Creature MC may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A MC reduces the M penalty from terrain in half. MC may never Go to Ground. MC have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash special rules.
-Flying Monstrous Creature A FMC may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A FMC may have up to 2 M attributes separated by /. (Example A Flying Hive Tyrant has a M attribute of 8/24). When a unit containing at least 1 FMC makes a Move Action It must decide if it will be using the first or second attribute.
If the FMC chooses to use the first attribute it is Considered Gliding. A Gliding FMC uses the first attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step (Run, Charge, Fall Back etc etc..). A Gliding FMC can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However if it begins or ends it's move in dangerous terrain it must make a dangerous terrain test.
A FMC that chooses to use the second M attribute is considered Flying. A Flying FMC must use the second attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step (Run, Charge, Fall Back etc etc..). A Flying FMC may pivot the model up to 90* before it moves and must otherwise move in a strait line a minimum number of inches equal to the first M attribute. If a FMC has only a single M attribute it is always Flying. A Flying FMC is considered Airborne. FMC have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless, Jink, and Smash special rules. If a FMC is Flying suffers more than one unsaved wound in a single activation it must make a grounding test.
Grounding Test: Roll 1d6. On a result of 5+ The FMC is grounded. It is treated in all ways as though it was Gliding and suffers a str 9 hit with no cover or armor saves allowed.
(Example: A Flying Hive Tyrant is activated. The player chooses to Advance!. He decides that the FHT will be swooping. He can choose to pivot the model up to 90* and then must move it somewhere between 8 and 24". If he chooses to Run the FHT he may continue along the same strait line up to 12" further.)
Status: Airborne- A model that is considered Flying may not be targeted with a Charge Action and may not make Charge Actions themselves. If a unit attempts a Shooting action against a unit that is Flying they do so at -2 BS (to a minimum of 1).
-Vehicles Vehicles have a couple unique characteristics that separate them from other model types. These characteristics are listed below.
---Front/Side/Rear AV: Vehicles have 3 separate Save Values representing different facings on the vehicle. These Sv are separated by / and represent Front, Side, and Rear AV (Example: A Leman Russ has a Sv of 5/4/3) representing A model must fire at the nearest facing during a Shooting Attack.
---Movement: Most Vehicles have 2 M attributes separated by /. The first number represents their Combat Speed. The second number represents their Cruising Speed. A vehicle makes use of these variable speeds depending on it's orders. If a Vehicle has only a single M attribute then it may only move at Combat Speed and cannot be issued orders that require Cruising Speed.
---Vehicle Orders: Vehicles are restricted to a specific list of orders that are mostly unique to vehicles. The Orders that can be issued to Vehicles are as follows.
Steady!
Combat Speed!
Cruising Speed!
Ram!
---Mounted Weapons: Any weapon listed as part of the wargear for a vehicle is considered Mounted. Mounted Weapons do not suffer BS penalties for having moved.
---Vehicle Damage Chart: If a vehicle suffers more than one wound in a single activation the vehicle must roll on the Vehicle Damage Chart.
1-3 - Nothing Happens 4 - Shaken (-2 to BS (to a minimum of 1) for the vehicle and any unit that is Embarked upon it and 1/2 M until the end of the units activation in the next Game Round). 5 - Weapon Destroyed (Select one weapon at random from the wargear of the vehicle. That weapon cannot be used again for the rest of the game while it remains destroyed) 6 - Immobilized (The vehicles M attributes are reduced to 0. It may not pivot.) 7 - Explodes! The Vehicle is destroyed
If the result is 4 and the model is already shaken it becomes a 5. If the result is 5 and there are no more weapons to destroy the result is 6. If the result is 6 and the model is already immobilized the result is 7. Each unit suffers a str 4 ap - hit for each model it has within d6" of the exploding model.
-Walker A walker is issued orders and behaves as though it was Infantry instead of a vehicle. A walker may fire up to 2 weapons as part of a Shooting Attack. A Walker reduces the M penalty from terrain in half. A walker may never Go to Ground. Walkers have the Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Relentless and Smash special rules.
-Aircraft: Aircraft treat their M attributes differently then other models. Some Aircraft have 2 M attributes separated by /. When Aircraft make a Move Action It must decide if it will be using the first or second attribute. If the Aircraft chooses to use the first attribute it is considered Hovering. A Hovering Aircraft uses the first attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step A Aircraft that chooses to use the second M attribute is considered to be Flying. A Flying Aircraft uses the second attribute for all effects related to the M attribute until it's next Activation Step. A flying Aircraft may pivot the model up to 90* before it moves and must otherwise move in a strait line a minimum of 12" up to it's M attribute. If a Aircraft has only a single M attribute it is always Flying. Flying Aircraft are considered Airborne. Aircraft can only be issued the Combat Speed! Order.
Model Sub-Types
-Skimmer A Skimmer can move freely over all terrain treating it as open ground. However if it begins or ends it's move in dangerous terrain it must make a dangerous terrain test.
-Transport A Transport has Transport Capacity listed in it's profile. In order for a unit to attempt to embark upon the Transport the entire unit must not exceed it's transport capacity. Only a single unit may be embarked upon a Transport at a time. Many Transport vehicles have Firing Points. If a unit embarked upon a transport vehicle makes a Shooting Attack they must draw Line of Sight from the Firing Points on the vehicle.
-Open Topped Open Topped Vehicles count their entire hull as a single Firing Point and embarked units may draw Line of Sight from anywhere on their hull. If an open topped vehicle rolls on the Vehicle Damage Chart add +1 to the result. If an open topped vehicle is charged in an assault and has a unit embarked upon it, the embarked unit is engaged in the combat but cannot make Pile In moves. Each model in the embarked unit is considered to be in base contact so long as the Vehicle is in base contact. A unit engaged in combat with a Open Topped Vehicle with a unit Embarked upon it may choose to target the Vehicle or the Embarked Unit in combat.
-Assault A unit that disembarks from an Assault vehicle that attempts a Charge Action does not have to make a disordered charge and may instead Charge as normal gaining all the benefits and making use of any relevant special rules.
Marine Stat Lines for testing
Spoiler:
For the sake of testing ATSKNF does not do what it says. Instead... "Any model with ARSKNF may use their unmodified highest Ld when, resisting Pinning and Fear tests,and when Regrouping".
Captain/Chapter Master Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd / Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 6 4 3 5 4 3 6 4 10 / 6 4 4 5 4 4 6 4 10
Librarian Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 5 4 2 4 4 2 6 4 10
Tactical Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 4 9
Scout Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 3 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 3 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 3 9
Assault Squad Infantry Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 4 1 6 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 4 1 6 4 9
Scout Bike Squad Bike Ws S A Bs T W M SvLd 4 4 1 4 5 1 9 4 8 Sergeant 4 4 1 4 5 1 9 4 8 Veteran Sergeant 4 4 2 4 5 1 9 4 9
Power fists are slow weapons. Terminator Armor reduces M by 1 Hit and Run allows you to Tactical Retreat without suffering a sweeping advance. In case it was missed above - Jump Packs are +2 to M and ignore difficult terrain. They also give the model Deep Strike, Hammer of Wrath, and Bulky 2.
I am not the MOST familiar with SM wargear. I think that is enough to test with. Try to fill any logical gaps.
A Call for More Lists! If you are interested in trying out the mechanics, playing a game, participating in the play test, just want to see how units might come out the other side of this, Submit a List!
Submit a 800 point list either here or through PM and in a day or 2 I should be able to convert the units stat lines and war gear to the new system and post it here. The units and point costs may not be the best balanced against each other at this phase but it's more about testing the general game play at this stage. Codex rewrites will happen at a later phase. But the more lists we have the better we can see how it all works. Submit a List!
Special Thanks!
Spoiler:
Special Thanks to... Backspacehacker ScarVet101 Charistoph Imateria
...and anyone else I may have forgotten so far!
This message was edited 63 times. Last update was at 2016/11/09 08:09:33
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Well, it's pretty bare-bones so far. But the highest praise I can think to say is this-once this thing is done, I would play it. But for now, it really needs some actual units so we can see how it works in action.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I want to make sure the basic interactions function well before we begin to build exceptions and adjustments in the form of special rules.
A HQ, a couple Troops, and maybe a Fast Attack or Elite option for Necrons, Tyranids, and Space Marines will be up within 24 hours so it can start to be tested.
As stated, use the 7th ed rules that exist now to fill in any gaps in this bare bones basic structure. Those gaps will get filled as we go.
I intend to ask players of Codex's I am not super familiar with to help build their Army List Entrys once we get there.
Glad to have someone willing to try it out and provide feedback.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/15 06:47:45
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
First post updated with unit stat lines for a few units for Marines, Necrons, and Tyranids so we can play a couple games and see how the mechanics play out. Please let me know if you try it and provide feedback on anything that feels good, bad, a little wonky. Try to ignore any unit or army imbalances for the moment. I need feed back on core mechanics. Does the new stat line work? How does the movement stat feel? Are assaults quick and intuitive?
Thanks!
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I have no real issue with using the AOS game mechanic similar to early 40k mechanics and I was keen to see the movement stat restored as a numerical value - until I saw the movement numbers you have planned.
Four inch Space Marine movement, eight for a bike. Nids with six inch movement and halved run range.
I hope you plan on crippling shooting as well because you've just turned pretty much all melee armies into clay pigeons.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I have no real issue with using the AOS game mechanic similar to early 40k mechanics and I was keen to see the movement stat restored as a numerical value - until I saw the movement numbers you have planned. Four inch Space Marine movement, eight for a bike. Nids with six inch movement and halved run range. I hope you plan on crippling shooting as well because you've just turned pretty much all melee armies into clay pigeons.
The numbers I have now are based on information I got in a thread about the numbers used in an earlier edition of 40k. They are not the "movement numbers you have planned". They are place holders while the core mechanics get checked. They, like everything up there, are up for change. Using the numbers that were explained to me gives me a chance to see how those numbers play out. If it doesn't work it gets adjusted or scrapped.
Reacting to it by saying I am crippling something isn't quite fair. Not only because of the points above, but because it hasn't been fleshed out or fully tested yet. I did mention those stat lines were not balanced against each other and that those stat lines existed to test the core mechanics. I would appreciate suggestions for how you would implement the M attribute instead. While I am sure you dislike these numbers, I don't know what numbers you think would be better or why. Please elaborate!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/16 03:30:24
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I'd change the armies you're using for testing for a start. You're running tests on a melee army, an all rounder tactical army and a durability all rounder army. Until you put a properly shootie army into the mix you're going to have results that seem alright but will need to be rehashed as soon as a shootie army is put up.
Why do I think the movement suggested is a crippling? Because it is less than what they have now and Tyranids now rarely make combat, even against semi-shootie armies like Necrons and Space Marines. I can tell you that without even bothering with a playtest.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'd change the armies you're using for testing for a start. You're running tests on a melee army, an all rounder tactical army and a durability all rounder army. Until you put a properly shootie army into the mix you're going to have results that seem alright but will need to be rehashed as soon as a shootie army is put up. Why do I think the movement suggested is a crippling? Because it is less than what they have now and Tyranids now rarely make combat, even against semi-shootie armies like Necrons and Space Marines. I can tell you that without even bothering with a playtest.
I agree I could have other army stat lines in there. These are the armys I personally am most familiar with so these were the 3 I used to start. More will be coming.
In case part of this was not clear, there is nothing restricting you from charging in assault any more. At no point in any of the rules for any phase does it say a unit that runs cannot charge. The only penalty for running is -1 to Bs. While vehicles and deep striking are not yet on the lists up there let me clarify, you can charge when you get out of a vehicle or on the turn you arrive via deepstrike. The charges will be disordered charges unless you have a special rule that would, in normal 40k, allow you to charge at all (assault vehicles) at which point it will be a normal charge.
Average charge distances are 7" currently (2d6). Average run is 3-4". Move is generally 6". But you cannot generally do all 3. The effective threat range for assault is, for basic infantry, an average of 13" from start of turn to declaring your charge.
Hormagaunts can move 6, run 3 and charge another 6. An effective range of 15".
In the current rules for 40k an assault marine with a jump pack can either move 6 or 12" and then attempt to charge 2d6. If they move 6 they can reroll their 2d6. That is an effective assault range of 8-18" if they save their jump pack for assault and 14-24" if they do not.
Assault marines with jump packs can do the same as those hormagaunts. M 4 +2" from jump pack = 6 move 3 run 6 charge. 15" threat range. That is better then the average threat range of normal 40k jump infantry who use their jump packs in the assault phase when they get the most bang for their buck out of it and still pretty damn good for the game in general.
This is an overall much better threat range than most units accomplish now.
A Bike can move 8, run 4, and charge 8. That is a 20" threat range for assault with no random distances. That seems pretty significant to me.
Necrons have a harder time charging. But they also have good armor saves and RP to keep them alive. Their dedicated assault units are either hyper durable (Lychguard), Jump infantry (Preatorians), or will have a higher M attribute (Flayed Ones - probably M 4). Their lower M attribute also means they fall back slower and their overall higher Ld means they will be doing it less. Without transports Necrons will be the slow moving unstoppable zombie gun line they are represented as in the fluff.
Finally, keep in mind that the rules above present alternating activations. If one opponent moves their first unit forward they are now that much closer to the unit you are activating next. Which in turn places your unit that much close to THEIR next activated unit. You get the chance to react to each unit as they do things. You are not moving your entire army forward and then waiting for their entire army to blast at you before you get another chance to move.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 06:05:26
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
@Lance845.
I am in total agreement with what you are trying to achieve. (I think most 40k players are,).
However, it important to try to objectively look at the core rules to see what issues are there first.As this then allows slight changes in the foundation of the game to prevent the rules needing things to patch up the gaps and prop up the mechanics later.(Special rules and additional systems.)
The movement values from 2nd ed with a base movement of 4", was from a game with an average force size of about a quarter of what is currently fielded.(So most units had to move into weapons range, not just assault units.)And most importantly there was a 'fiddle factor' to reduce the effectiveness of shooting to get balance with assault attacks.(To hit modifiers.)
If you use the alternating phase game mechanic from LoTR/A.O.S. which I think is a massive improvement in player interaction , that causes a minimum amount of friction.
You can model 'simultaneous actions', each phase very simply.(Leave casualty removal to the end of the phase.)
And this allows the removal of a lot of pointless complication from the rules.
To get balance between shooting at assault, you need to balance the resolution methods.Currently shooting is far more effective at killing things than assault.
I am not saying to go back to to hit modifiers, but if you use comparative values in a table for assault,why not do the same for shooting?
Replace the redundant Initiative stat with a 'Size stat' , that you compare the the BS value to give the chance to hit.
(Cover can add to the targets stat to make it harder to hit.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 07:41:31
Deepstrike assault and more vehicles that can be charged out of...you're definitely catching my attention as a Space Marine player, as a Nids and Space Wolves player I know I'm currently getting the better mobility, by mixing ICs and units I can consistently get better range before decurions and formations even come into the equation.
Ranged armies aren't actually better at killing things than melee armies the issue is that they get more attempts because melee armies are forced to cover the distance to get inside gun range and most simply don't cover it fast enough. If mele units can't make melee by turn two they're going to die before striking a blow.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Lanrak wrote: @Lance845. I am in total agreement with what you are trying to achieve. (I think most 40k players are,).
However, it important to try to objectively look at the core rules to see what issues are there first.As this then allows slight changes in the foundation of the game to prevent the rules needing things to patch up the gaps and prop up the mechanics later.(Special rules and additional systems.)
This is exactly what is above. As is stated up there and will be restated here. Nothing up there is sacred. I am not tied to any of it. I want to see some feed back from people who get a chance to play with it a little to let me know how any of it works. Are the M ranges too small? Is the assault phase a complicated mess? There are literally an infinite number of ways that everything up there COULD be. I would like some more feedback on how it IS. That is why only a couple units have the new stat line and special rules have not been touched yet.
The movement values from 2nd ed with a base movement of 4", was from a game with an average force size of about a quarter of what is currently fielded.(So most units had to move into weapons range, not just assault units.)And most importantly there was a 'fiddle factor' to reduce the effectiveness of shooting to get balance with assault attacks.(To hit modifiers.)
If you use the alternating phase game mechanic from LoTR/A.O.S. which I think is a massive improvement in player interaction , that causes a minimum amount of friction. You can model 'simultaneous actions', each phase very simply.(Leave casualty removal to the end of the phase.) And this allows the removal of a lot of pointless complication from the rules.
I have seen the arguments for alternative phases and alternative activations and all of that. My preference is alternating activation. The problem with phases is the longer range shooting armys can just step back while the slower shorter range armys try to step forward. They can do this in response to you. Tau WANT to go second, because they want to watch you move first and reposition accordingly before you begin your army wide shooting phase. You then have all the same problems of Alpha strikes which occur primarily when the entire army gets to do all it's shooting at once, potentially wiping entire units off the board before they have had a chance to do anything.
I am aware you suggested leaving model removal until the end of the phase. Marking that could be as simple as tipping a model over, but some models are massive or do not tip well and that creates book keeping when goal #1 is keep it simple.
With alternating activations each player is only capable of the maximum damage potential of a single unit and then the other player gets to respond. MSU maintains an advantage in more activations with a better potential ability to react. But larger units are capable of capitalizing on each activation better. There is a method to the madness and a lot of Pros to the system above. I am not saying it's perfect or that it's incapable of being changed. I am saying try it and tell me what happened, the good and the bad. I need to know what doesn't work the most but it would be great to know what does work as well.
To get balance between shooting at assault, you need to balance the resolution methods.Currently shooting is far more effective at killing things than assault. I am not saying to go back to to hit modifiers, but if you use comparative values in a table for assault,why not do the same for shooting? Replace the redundant Initiative stat with a 'Size stat' , that you compare the the BS value to give the chance to hit. (Cover can add to the targets stat to make it harder to hit.)
I have seen your arguments for multiple comparative stats before. Part of the reason right now assault is still the core games assault rules while Bs is still using the flat value rules is because I am partially undecided in which direction to go. Assault compares on a chart (which I am trying to do away with for simplicity sake) while Bs just functions at a glance. Ws may go to a flat value like Bs is for the sake of simplicity and brevity of game play. I don't know yet! As above, nothing is sacred. It is all in flux. Those resolution methods can very easily change. While the precise method of resolving an attack is certainly a core mechanic it is also currently in a state of tried and true tested mechanics. The game turn and what basic options are available to every unit of every army is not. I am sure a lot of ideas for resolving assaults and shooting can crop up in the time it takes to hammer all of that out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakka Wolf wrote: Deepstrike assault and more vehicles that can be charged out of...you're definitely catching my attention as a Space Marine player, as a Nids and Space Wolves player I know I'm currently getting the better mobility, by mixing ICs and units I can consistently get better range before decurions and formations even come into the equation.
I cannot stress this enough. Decurions and Formations will not exist here. Currently Rites of War will be the method of adjusting and customizing the FoC. If you are unfamiliar with RoW and want to see some good examples of what RoW are capable of, maybe even start brain storming some ideas for an effective RoW for your army, look up the 1d4chan tactica page for space marines 30k. They will have a MASSIVE list of them.
Also please note the M attribute is on the stat line of the Model. If, say, you added a Bike or cavalry IC to a unit of foot sloggers, each model will move it's M attribute. The bike cannot make the rest of the unit faster.
Ranged armies aren't actually better at killing things than melee armies the issue is that they get more attempts because melee armies are forced to cover the distance to get inside gun range and most simply don't cover it fast enough. If melee units can't make melee by turn two they're going to die before striking a blow.
I agree. Lets try to spell out a scenario with 2 space marine armys. Good all around armys with units that specialize in either shooting or assault and are often at least capable in both.
Deployment zones measured 1 foot back from the center line of the table. That means if both players place units at the line there is a 2 foot gap to get across. Player 1 activates a unit of... say... scout marines deployed at the line. They move 4 and run 2. Player 1 wants to get the scouts out front to be an initial target for player 2. These scouts now have a maximum of 18" between them and the enemies deployment zone (the same thing they would have now btw.)
Player 2 now has a choice. He can respond by activating and moving up a decoy of his own. Some Tac Marines or Scouts... Or he can grab his Bike unit he placed on the line and just shoot and charge them. They are well within the 20" effective charge range of the bike. He will have to run to do it (barely) which will drop his BS by 1 and make his shooting attempts go from a Bs 4 to a 3. A 2/3rd chance of success to a 1/2. He also has to realize that over extending those bikes this early in the first game Round means he is taking the target unit player one has given him instead of holding back to take his choice of targets latter in the round. Also that he has made his bike a much easier target for the rest of player 1s army. But if player 1 uses all, or even a good chunk, of round 1 to kill these bikes... well.. that is an entire round of unmolested advancement for the rest of your army.
This scenario does not factor in Deepstrike, Outflank, Scout Moves, Infiltrate, or vehicles. I do not think Round 2 assaults will be a problem. I also think both players have a lot more options on the table to weigh risk and reward.
Thank you for your skepticism. I want people poking holes in this. But I would also ask that you give it a fair shake and let me know what you liked and didn't like and as best as you can explain it "why". Right now the test is set up for a real brief game with a small amount of units. It's quick and dirty for gathering some data. Please, give it a go.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 14:15:45
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
@Lance 845
The argument that shooty armies just run away from assault armies, is the argument that gets trotted out in defense of the alternating unit activation game mechanic.
If you can win a war game by running away there is some thing horribly wrong with your concept of a war game. (Most war games require objectives to be met to win.No objective should be keep your force alive by routing off the table. )
My objection to alternating unit activation is that it keeps the 'time warp effect' of one player performing multiple actions while the opponents just watches.And most players want an additional system in place to negate the worst excesses.(Along with much better unit balance than 40k has ever had.)
This ends up with far more effort required to balance individual units rather than entire forces. And the additional systems add complication to the game turn the alternating phase game turn simply does not need.
If you want to keep alternating units activation , just be aware of these issues.
I would suggest you start by defining the type of war fare you want to cover.(The scope of the game play.)
As this will determine how mobility ranged attacks and close combat attacks should be loaded in terms of importance.
40k has got this very wrong, and this disjoint is where all 40ks game play issues start...
I have participated in these discussions with you before Lanrak. I am well aware of design principles and the design process seeing as how it's what I have my BA in. In the first post I outline a FoC chart that details a point restriction before a LoW can be used and how the game scales up to RoW by allowing those units to be taken 1 for every 1k in the army. Based on the current 40k rules you should have a pretty decent sense of scale for the game. I am still utilizing unit to unit interactions. It's very easy to see what type of game I am proposing. I disagree that it is where all of 40ks game play issues start. 40ks issues are many and wide spread and it comes from many places including making use of design conventions from 30 years ago.
I am happy to discuss the mechanics at work above. I am open to suggestions for any mechanic that does not seem to be working. I would LOVE for you to give the current phase of testing a go and give me your feed back. I am NOT interested in repeating several other threads you have started or been in.
Please try to stay conscientious of what you are bringing to the thread. I do not want to begin redesigning your game here and I would appreciate you not derailing this discussion by doing that. I simply ask for you to discuss THIS design and THESE mechanics. If that is not the discussion you want to have I ask you to leave this one alone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/16 22:59:50
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I'm in agreement with Lanrak that an alternating activation system is probably not ideal for a 40K sized game, certainly not when you get to the point that 5 or 6 units would be the average for an all rounder army (i.e. one that is neither elite nor MSU), say around 1000 points for where the game is currently. After that point the number of units each player can field can start to vary massively and an elite army is at a distinct disadvantage against MSU. It would also mean one of your stated aims cannot be met, a Grey Knights player against Genestealer Cults or even Dark Eldar venom spam will still find themselves sitting around for long periouds of time after they've moved their 5 units waiting for their opponent to activate their remaining 10+.
For this reason I am much more in favour of alternating phases, though it's far from perfect as you've already explained. However, one thing 30K has that could help mitigate against that is it's variety of scenarios that set out objectives to win the game. Suddenly if you need to get across the board, sitting back and reacting to your opponents actions with the sole intention of shooting them off the board doesn't work because you'll be forcing them to castle up and handing the game away. I also suggested a few months ago an alternate set up to Maelstrom, where rather than randomly drawing cards each turn both players start the game with 12 pre-selected cards. If both players have a game plan then it wont take long before people are developing strategies to counter their opponents game plan as well as successfuly implement their own. Obviously several of the current cards, both general and faction specific, will need to be changed to work in that system, but I think it would give us a much more strategic game.
As for giving everything a Movement stat, I am completely in favour of this, but I think it would be best to set Space Marines as a 6" move and use that as a base line to work others around, so Eldar also having 6" but Guard 5" movement and so on. Tyranids would be the difficult one to work out given the huge variety in their units, Hormagaunts should be really fast, say 8" movement, but something like an Exocrine should be really slow like 4" movement, though that can't be taken as Infantry= fast and monstrous creature= slow as a Carnifex should be pretty quick whilst Zoanthropes and Hive Guard should be slow. One other thing though, how would you represent Flyers and FMC's/FGMC's as many of the former and all of the latter have two movement types?
Imateria wrote: I'm in agreement with Lanrak that an alternating activation system is probably not ideal for a 40K sized game, certainly not when you get to the point that 5 or 6 units would be the average for an all rounder army (i.e. one that is neither elite nor MSU), say around 1000 points for where the game is currently. After that point the number of units each player can field can start to vary massively and an elite army is at a distinct disadvantage against MSU. It would also mean one of your stated aims cannot be met, a Grey Knights player against Genestealer Cults or even Dark Eldar venom spam will still find themselves sitting around for long periods of time after they've moved their 5 units waiting for their opponent to activate their remaining 10+.
Thank you for the good feed back! I have a kind of answer for this that the test has not reached yet.
MSU has a number of advantages inherent to it. You don't waste shots. You can take each unit and fire at different targets. Mobility. All great.
Less large units has only one or two advantages. Maximizing kill power in a single activation and durability/less kill points to give up in a kill points game.
30k has a great way of costing units. Many unit wide upgrades come at a flat cost instead of points per model and expanding the units size costs less then the base line unit. A group of 3 nid warriors costs 90 points base, each addition warrior costs 30 points. By the 30k method each additional warrior would cost about 22.
Currently Hormagaunts can buy adrenal glands for 2ppm with a base unit size of 10 models = 20 points. For a full sized unit of 30 Gaunts thats 60 points. By the 30k method that upgrade would just cost a flat 20 points and as you continue to expand the unit size larger and larger you get those upgrades at a premium. A bulk discount if you will. Players now have to choose between the advantages of MSU and the cost efficiency of expanding the units they have. The most effective list building will probably end up someplace in the middle, but it is a choice that impacts how you can play and will make the "no brainer" that MSU is now something that needs to be seriously taken into consideration.
You mention Grey Knights. In all honestly grey Knights as they are now do not seem to really be a force unto themselves. When I get to Grey Knights I see them as either a Agents of the Imperium built to supplement other forces or to be combined with an Inquisition force that would expand on their very narrow and very limited capabilities at the moment. It is true that Grey Knights basically exemplify the MSU with their high costs and small unit sizes. That is a more an issue of the force then the mechanics and all things being balanced should not be a problem when we get there.
Does this effect your thoughts on MSU and it's impact on the game?
For this reason I am much more in favour of alternating phases, though it's far from perfect as you've already explained. However, one thing 30K has that could help mitigate against that is it's variety of scenarios that set out objectives to win the game. Suddenly if you need to get across the board, sitting back and reacting to your opponents actions with the sole intention of shooting them off the board doesn't work because you'll be forcing them to castle up and handing the game away. I also suggested a few months ago an alternate set up to Maelstrom, where rather than randomly drawing cards each turn both players start the game with 12 pre-selected cards. If both players have a game plan then it wont take long before people are developing strategies to counter their opponents game plan as well as successfuly implement their own. Obviously several of the current cards, both general and faction specific, will need to be changed to work in that system, but I think it would give us a much more strategic game.
I like that game type!
It's fair that different scenarios can force a army to stop back stepping if they want to win. But it's not exactly back stepping that is the problem. The problem is player 2 ALWAYS has the advantage of favorable positioning. They can ALWAYS take their vulnerable units that player 1 tried to line up shots on and place them behind other units for protection. Player 1 has to reveal his hand every round and hope any of his positioning pays off while player 2 can make the most of the board and min max his positioning and effectiveness. This is especially damaging to assault based armys. If player 1 tries to move a unit into position to target a particularly weak to assault unit, player 2 can simply move something more durable... maybe a tarpit... in the way while moving the vulnerable unit back. Player 1 now either has to hope they can charge around this obstacle unit or find some other target. Meanwhile, player 1 has moved his units up to attempt to find favorable positions for shooting. Player 2 can deploy HIS assault units whereever they will be most effective and player 1 has no recourse but to watch it happen. Player 1 is always at a disadvantage. ALWAYS. And the core mechanics of that system hard wire that situation.
If you have suggestions for how to implement alternating phases that eliminates that massively damaging effect I am all ears.
As for giving everything a Movement stat, I am completely in favour of this, but I think it would be best to set Space Marines as a 6" move and use that as a base line to work others around, so Eldar also having 6" but Guard 5" movement and so on. Tyranids would be the difficult one to work out given the huge variety in their units, Hormagaunts should be really fast, say 8" movement, but something like an Exocrine should be really slow like 4" movement, though that can't be taken as Infantry= fast and monstrous creature= slow as a Carnifex should be pretty quick whilst Zoanthropes and Hive Guard should be slow. One other thing though, how would you represent Flyers and FMC's/FGMC's as many of the former and all of the latter have two movement types?
The movement attributes are not set in stone. What I have up there is just a base line to test out the basic game structure and the phases. Those numbers can very easily change and very likely will. I absolutely agree that an exocrine should not be as fast as a hormagaunt. If you notice I dropped the Zoanthropes speed down. They are not fast units like the Hormagaunts are. For the moment I ask that we worry less about the actual speeds and more about how the move/run/charge interactions function.
I have ideas for Flyers/Vehicles/FMCs. The idea I have knocking around that I think I like best is to have 2 values. For example a Flyrant might be M 8/20. Up to 8 inches the unit is considered gliding, up to 20 it is swooping. A Landraider might be M 10/30 with 10 being able to fire all weapons and up to 30 all but 1 snap shots.
Of course, again, those numbers are meaningless for the moment. But it would allow different vehicles to have different effective speeds and keep the difference between different speed values simple and easy to remember.
This point actually reminds me of another reason I dislike the alternating phases. You would need to have each player go through every movement before they shoot. Even if it's 6 units per side that is 12 units and maybe 10-15 minutes where everyone needs to remember who moved, who ran, who didn't for the purpose of firing weapons and BS and any other effects that might come into play. That issue and the time frame becomes worse and worse with each additional unit. It either becomes an exercise in frustration or book keeping that needs to be handled. With alternating activation everything that impacts that unit happens in within the space of that single activation. A single unit should take no more then a few minutes with both players being active participants during any shooting and assault and possibly even during movement if units are on over watch.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 01:07:12
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Imateria wrote: I'm in agreement with Lanrak that an alternating activation system is probably not ideal for a 40K sized game, certainly not when you get to the point that 5 or 6 units would be the average for an all rounder army (i.e. one that is neither elite nor MSU), say around 1000 points for where the game is currently. After that point the number of units each player can field can start to vary massively and an elite army is at a distinct disadvantage against MSU. It would also mean one of your stated aims cannot be met, a Grey Knights player against Genestealer Cults or even Dark Eldar venom spam will still find themselves sitting around for long periods of time after they've moved their 5 units waiting for their opponent to activate their remaining 10+.
Thank you for the good feed back! I have a kind of answer for this that the test has not reached yet.
MSU has a number of advantages inherent to it. You don't waste shots. You can take each unit and fire at different targets. Mobility. All great.
Less large units has only one or two advantages. Maximizing kill power in a single activation and durability/less kill points to give up in a kill points game.
30k has a great way of costing units. Many unit wide upgrades come at a flat cost instead of points per model and expanding the units size costs less then the base line unit. A group of nid warriors costs 90 points base, each addition warrior costs 30 points. By the 30k method each additional warrior would cost about 22.
Currently Hormagaunts can buy adrenal glands for 2ppm with a base unit size of 10 models = 20 points. For a full sized unit of 30 Gaunts thats 60 points. By the 30k method that upgrade would just cost a flat 20 points and as you continue to expand the unit size larger and larger you get those upgrades at a premium. A bulk discount if you will. Players now have to choose between the advantages of MSU and the cost efficiency of expanding the units they have. The most effective list building will probably end up someplace in the middle, but it is a choice that impacts how you can play and will make the "no brainer" that MSU is now something that needs to be seriously taken into consideration.
You mention Grey Knights. In all honestly grey Knights as they are now do not seem to really be a force unto themselves. When I get to Grey Knights I see them as either a Agents of the Imperium built to supplement other forces or to be combined with an Inquisition force that would expand on their very narrow and very limited capabilities at the moment. It is true that Grey Knights basically exemplify the MSU with their high costs and small unit sizes. That is a more an issue of the force then the mechanics and all things being balanced should not be a problem when we get there.
Does this effect your thoughts on MSU and it's impact on the game?
For this reason I am much more in favour of alternating phases, though it's far from perfect as you've already explained. However, one thing 30K has that could help mitigate against that is it's variety of scenarios that set out objectives to win the game. Suddenly if you need to get across the board, sitting back and reacting to your opponents actions with the sole intention of shooting them off the board doesn't work because you'll be forcing them to castle up and handing the game away. I also suggested a few months ago an alternate set up to Maelstrom, where rather than randomly drawing cards each turn both players start the game with 12 pre-selected cards. If both players have a game plan then it wont take long before people are developing strategies to counter their opponents game plan as well as successfuly implement their own. Obviously several of the current cards, both general and faction specific, will need to be changed to work in that system, but I think it would give us a much more strategic game.
I like that game type!
It's fair that different scenarios can force a army to stop back stepping if they want to win. But it's not exactly back stepping that is the problem. The problem is player 2 ALWAYS has the advantage of favorable positioning. They can ALWAYS take their vulnerable units that player 1 tried to line up shots on and place them behind other units for protection. Player 1 has to reveal his hand every round and hope any of his positioning pays off while player 2 can make the most of the board and min max his positioning and effectiveness. This is especially damaging to assault based armys. If player 1 tries to move a unit into position to target a particularly weak to assault unit, player 2 can simply move something more durable... maybe a tarpit... in the way while moving the vulnerable unit back Player 1 now either has to hope they can charge around this obstacle unit or find some other target. Player 1 is always at a disadvantage. ALWAYS. And the core mechanics of that system hardwire that situation.
If you have suggestions for how to accomplish alternating phases that eliminates that massively damaging effect I am all ears.
I was using a rather extreme example, but it's not the only one, I've built an Haemonculus Covens army with less than 35 models in it and about 8/9 units at 2000pts. Can be rather effective as well. Whilst MSU is always going to have the advantage of efficiancy whilst highly elite armies want to maximise defence and killing power I don't think it'll ever be possible to properly balance them out, but my main concern was with the downtime for players where elite armies face off with extreme MSU. (As an aside, I've been thinking that an Agents of the Imperium codex with the Ecclesiarchy, Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Death Watch and Grey Knights all together and the ability to build lists around the Ecclesiarchy and Ordo's would be the best way to implement that part of the Imperium into the game rather than a series of mini codexes, particularly given the crossover in several of the units between the Inquisition and the Ecclesiarchy).
As for the problem of alternating phases, Lord of the Rings and Age of Sigmar uses a Priority roll off at the start of each turn so that there's no guarantee on who will go first each time and I've seen it suggested that running the phases so that the players go ABBAABBAAB is the fairest way to do it. I like the idea of players alternating who goes first each phase but I could see games where people forget who's turn to go first it is because ABABABABAB is so engrained into most game systems. Personally I think having it alternate each Game Turn on who goes first would be better, so if you win the roll off to go first turn 1, you go second turn 2.
As for giving everything a Movement stat, I am completely in favour of this, but I think it would be best to set Space Marines as a 6" move and use that as a base line to work others around, so Eldar also having 6" but Guard 5" movement and so on. Tyranids would be the difficult one to work out given the huge variety in their units, Hormagaunts should be really fast, say 8" movement, but something like an Exocrine should be really slow like 4" movement, though that can't be taken as Infantry= fast and monstrous creature= slow as a Carnifex should be pretty quick whilst Zoanthropes and Hive Guard should be slow. One other thing though, how would you represent Flyers and FMC's/FGMC's as many of the former and all of the latter have two movement types?
The movement attributes are not set in stone. What I have up there is just a base line to test out the basic game structure and the phases. Those numbers can very easily change and very likely will. I absolutely agree that an exocrine should not be as fast as a hormagaunt. If you notice I dropped the Zoanthropes speed down. They are not fast units like the Hormagaunts are. For the moment I ask that we worry less about the actual speeds and more about how the move/run/charge interactions function.
I have ideas for Flyers/Vehicles/FMCs. The idea I have knocking around that I think I like best is to have 2 values. For example a Flyrant might be M 8/20. Up to 8 inches the unit is considered gliding, up to 20 it is swooping. A Landraider might be M 10/30 with 10 being able to fire all weapons and up to 30 all but 1 snap shots.
Of course, again, those numbers are meaningless for the moment. But it would allow different vehicles to have different effective speeds and keep the difference between different speed values simple and easy to remember.
This point actually reminds me of another reason I dislike the alternating phases. You would need to have each player go through every movement before they shoot. Even if it's 6 units per side that is 12 units and maybe 10-15 minutes where everyone needs to remember who moved, who ran, who didn't for the purpose of firing weapons and BS and any other effects that might come into play. That issue and the time frame becomes worse and worse with each additional unit. It either becomes an exercise in frustration or book keeping that needs to be handled. With alternating activation everything that impacts that unit happens in within the space of that single activation. A single unit should take no more then a few minutes with both players being active participants during any shooting and assault and possibly even during movement if units are on over watch.
It was meant as more of a general observation than actualy imputs on what their ranges should be. I was thinking the same sort of thing with having the two values for Movement as being the best way to represent it. One thing I might be concerned about is that units can move, run and charge in the same turn, several powerful units are goin to have a very good chance for a turn 1 charge under the current system, let alone with alternating phases or activation.
My idea for alternating unit activations is that at the start of the game, both players contribute with as many cards (or wooden counters), as they have units in the game. This could be conventional playing cards, or wooden counters in a drawing bag, the idea is that the cards themselves do not refer to any particular units.
When your colour is drawn, you decide which unit to activate and then perform a complete turn with it, after which the unit is marked with a counter. This continues until every unit has either performed a turn or been eliminated from the game. At the end of the turn, if any units were eliminated before they could carry out a turn, there will still be cards left in the deck. These cards are discarded, and a new deck is prepared for the next turn, which should also take into account units arriving from reserves. Alternatively, you could use wooden counters in a draw bag, or glass tokens or cardboard chits. Some components have the advantage that they can also function as markers.
I haven't tried it yet, but I've discussed my idea with my most regular and experienced opponent (we've both played 40k on and off since the 90's), so I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.
Because the activations are randomised, the player with the most units does not gain any unfair advantages, other than the increased likelihood of his units becoming activated. Also, with every activation being randomly drawn, this should lead to some interesting situations, where you're forced to adapt to the actions of your opponent, and where neither player's actions take place in a vacuum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/17 01:54:21
I was using a rather extreme example, but it's not the only one, I've built an Haemonculus Covens army with less than 35 models in it and about 8/9 units at 2000pts. Can be rather effective as well. Whilst MSU is always going to have the advantage of efficiancy whilst highly elite armies want to maximise defence and killing power I don't think it'll ever be possible to properly balance them out, but my main concern was with the downtime for players where elite armies face off with extreme MSU. (As an aside, I've been thinking that an Agents of the Imperium codex with the Ecclesiarchy, Sisters of Battle, Inquisition, Death Watch and Grey Knights all together and the ability to build lists around the Ecclesiarchy and Ordo's would be the best way to implement that part of the Imperium into the game rather than a series of mini codexes, particularly given the crossover in several of the units between the Inquisition and the Ecclesiarchy).
As for the problem of alternating phases, Lord of the Rings and Age of Sigmar uses a Priority roll off at the start of each turn so that there's no guarantee on who will go first each time and I've seen it suggested that running the phases so that the players go ABBAABBAAB is the fairest way to do it. I like the idea of players alternating who goes first each phase but I could see games where people forget who's turn to go first it is because ABABABABAB is so engrained into most game systems. Personally I think having it alternate each Game Turn on who goes first would be better, so if you win the roll off to go first turn 1, you go second turn 2.
I understand that examples are often given in the form of extreme outriders. It's important to reign those extreme cases in. The worst case scenarios will happen.
The only way to properly balance it so that no army ever has more units then the other is to say each side has x number of units and they MUST have x number of units. I don't like the idea of a hard limiter in that way.
Since a single activation involves all phases of the unit the other player actively participates in the saves and assault portions which will come around much faster. I understand that your main point is that the player with less units to activate will spend more time waiting while the other player does his activations. I pose a question: What is the difference between waiting while they move more units in alternating phases and waiting while they activate the outlier units in alternating activations? To me I can see no significant difference. In either mechanic the person with more to do will be more active on their turn and the person with less to do will have more down time. With alternating phases the down time is only broken when the phase is completed. With alternating activations the downtime is either the space of a single activation or the total sum of the outliers (which again, certain systems will be in place to hopefully help mitigate MSUs dominance in the meta and certain forces will be relegated to Agents or collapsed into other codexes). Either way, for the bulk of the play the down time should come in significantly shorter bursts with activations.
Can you expand on the ABBAABBAABBA idea? If I am reading it correct you are saying (p1 Move/p2 Move/p2 Shoot/p1 shoot/p1 assault/p2 assault). Is this correct?
I would also ask how this helps mitigate the issue of player 2s favorable positioning as well. Again, I find this to be the biggest issue especially when considering assault based armies. I do understand that round 1 would favor p2 and round 2 would favor p1 and in that way it might "balance out". But it doesn't change that each round is tactically dominated by one player, not because of their own strategy and tactics, but because the game forces them into that play space.
It was meant as more of a general observation than actualy imputs on what their ranges should be. I was thinking the same sort of thing with having the two values for Movement as being the best way to represent it. One thing I might be concerned about is that units can move, run and charge in the same turn, several powerful units are goin to have a very good chance for a turn 1 charge under the current system, let alone with alternating phases or activation.
I appreciate the observations! I have a friend who is going to help me play a bunch of test games in a couple days. I intend to keep a close eye on how those numbers end up working. Though they are not the focus on this phase of testing there is no reason not to gather the data while it's there.
One of the ways I am trying to mitigate turn 1 assaults is that every unit deployed at the start of the game deploys on over watch. That allows them to interrupt enemy activation after move to take a shot at full BS. It makes sense that an army deployed would be standing ready AND it helps provide protection against these shenanigans.
If 1 or 2 units at the end of game round 1 can make a charge I do not see it as a real problem. Assault focused units should get to do their thing. But if an army is entirely composed of assault based units and attempts to charge with every activation then the enemy will have an entire army ready to over watch on them as they approach. This is also meant to help discourage null deployments. If you are not around on Round 1 for the enemy to shoot, they can enter over watch and prepare for your arrival.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zingraff wrote: My idea for alternating unit activations is that at the start of the game, both players contribute with as many cards (or wooden counters), as they have units in the game. This could be conventional playing cards, or wooden counters in a drawing bag, the idea is that the cards themselves do not refer to any particular units.
When your colour is drawn, you decide which unit to activate and then perform a complete turn with it, after which the unit is marked with a counter. This continues until every unit has either performed a turn or been eliminated from the game. At the end of the turn, if any units were eliminated before they could carry out a turn, there will still be cards left in the deck. These cards are discarded, and a new deck is prepared for the next turn, which should also take into account units arriving from reserves. Alternatively, you could use wooden counters in a draw bag, or glass beads or cardboard chits. Some components have the advantage that they can also function as markers.
I haven't tried it yet, but I've discussed my idea with my most regular and experienced opponent (we've both played 40k on and off since the 90's), so I'm interested in hearing what you think about it.
Because the activations are randomised, the player with the most units does not gain any unfair advantages, other than the increased likelihood of his units becoming activated. Also, with every activation being randomly drawn, this should lead to some interesting situations, where you're forced to adapt to the actions of your opponent, and where neither player's actions take place in a vacuum.
It's not a bad idea for helping to mitigate all the excess activations being piled onto the end of the game round. It is certainly easily interchangeable with alternating activation systems in that the only thing needed is for both players to agree to do it. This and the system I have outlined above are easily just personal preference and either can be used as optional methods.
If you and your friend would not mind testing my other mechanics feel free to use this method for alternating activations and report back how it went. I would love the feed back.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 02:02:01
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Perhaps require all units be organized into detachments, and both sides have an equal number of detachments? For instance, let's say in a 400 point game, one side brings 8 min squads of Cultists, and the other brings 2 Dreadknights. You could have one detachment, consisting of your whole army, or two detachments, consisting of one DK each on the GK side, and a number of Cultist units on the CSM side. (Probably 4 and 4.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I fear that opens the door for death star shenanigans.
You either have predetermined detachments that you have to try to balance against each other, restrict the point levels the game can functionally be played at, and restrict the ways in which armys can be built.
or
You have open detachment construction and players will min max units within a detachment to create death star activations. Promoting mono builds and the such.
It's not a bad idea on the surface, but would require a lot of fiddling to make functional without breaking the game. And lets try to keep in mind Design Goal 1 and 2. Keep it simple and easy army construction.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I grabbed an idea from another thread that I think fits well here.
Witchfire and Nova powers count as a weapon when determining how many weapons a model may fire in the shooting phase.
This means an infantry model may choose to manifest all the benedictions and maledictions they want but choose between shooting powers and their wargear when attacking during shooting.
The actual powers will obviously be up for some changes down the line. The next things on my list is weapon types and model types (infantry, MC, Vehicles and such). I will have those updated in the OP by midish week? I really appreciate the questions, suggestions, and feedback. Please keep it all coming!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just thought of a system from a game I have not played in a LONG time. Anyone else ever play Heroscape?
Page 8 and forward details the system I am talking about with "Order Markers".
In Heroscape each player has 4 order markers marked 1,2,3, and x on one side. The other side is blank. At the beginning of each round the players take turns placing an order marker on the unit card (in 40k I imagine this would be some kind of 1 sided token you place next to the unit). The x is a decoy. That unit does not activate, but your opponent does not know that and they are unsure of which token you placed next to which units.
The players then take turns activating their units in order by revealing their order marker and running through an activation. p1 reveals order marker 1, move, shoot, assault. P2 reveals order marker 1, move shoot assault. You do this until you have run out of orders and then the next turn begins.
You can bring MSU or not. But you will still only have x number of activations a turn. I don't think 3 is a particularly good number of activations for the size and scope of 40k but the basic system is functional. The other problem I see is that there is a very distinct power gap between different units in 40k that is not as drastic in a game like Heroscape. In Heroscape you can place multiple markers on a single unit and activate it multiple times (so even when the game begins to reach it's end and one side has only one unit remaining it STILL has 3 activations a turn), but what happens when those activations are all piled onto a knight?
Nuances to consider for balancing, but an idea worth exploring possibly. What does everyone think?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 05:13:32
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I believe my idea of randomised unit activations would fix many of the issues addressed here regarding uneven army sizes. The only downside is the introduction of counters to mark spent units, and that's something some players might find unattractive to have on the table, but then you might argue that any system which dictates the players to alternate with their units, would need to mark them anyway to avoid confusion.
If that's the case, you might as well put the counters in a black cloth bag and draw them randomly. And there you go, this fixes every issue you have with uneven army sizes. I'm originally an IG player, so I frequently have at least 1,5 as many units as my opponent, and I've observed that some opponents lose their concentration during my turn. It's pretty clear to me, that I have an unfair advantage taking the first turn because of the long range of my equipment.
My intention is to alleviate those two issues, and because a turn sequence with symmetrical, alternating activations obviously wouldn't work with uneven sides (think a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b, a, b, a, a, a), I came up with the idea of them being completely random (in which case you might arrive at a, a, b, b, a, b, a, a, b, a, a, a, b, or a, b, a, b, b, a, a, a, b, a, b, a, a). This will take away the advantage the player with the larger army would have received in the first example, because he might have wanted to hold back his most potent units or most powerful guns and either assaulted his opponent or shot at him at close range. However when the activations are drawn at random, it introduces an element of uncertainty , which makes it more difficult to plan ahead, except that the player with the most units knows he's more likely to get consecutive turns. Bear in mind that normally, the player with the most units, has on average weaker units than the player with the least units.
For those players adverse to drawing cards, or counters from a bag, you could instead introduce dice rolls. Rather than drawing from a deck to determine which player goes first, the player with the most units goes first at a die roll of 4+. He'll then receive the next activation on 5+, the third activation on 6+. If he fails to retain his "active player status", his opponent gets to activate one of his units. The opponent will then roll for his consecutive activations and receive turns at 5+ and 6+. The 4+ "initiative roll" only applies to the player who started the turn with the most units. The "active player" can voluntarily pass the die roll, in which case the opponent becomes the "active player".
Whichever of the two mechanics you consider, they fix most of the issues that come up from having unequally sized armies, and they adjust easily to accommodate for units that are either added to, or more commonly removed from the game. A system which relies on both players having the same number of detachments or formations, is still going to break down the moment units are removed from the game.
I should also add that in the systems I've suggested, units that start the turn embarked in transports aren't considered separate units, until they disembark. So you might use your activation to move a transport forward, disembark the unit and then do whatever the disembarked unit is entitled to do. On the following turn, the disembarked unit and the transport are now counted separately towards your total number of units.
Personally I think one side having more units then the other is a null problem. It exists because you have forces that organize differently. You can fix it by normalizing how forces are built or you can let it go.
I have also seen opponents start to drift on my turn in 40k. I have also drifted, especially by turn 3 or 4. I THINK that alternating activations will mostly fix this by making each turn significantly more brief.
That being said, HOW you decide who gets to pick a unit to activate is all entirely interchangeable. None of these methods interfere with the actual turn structure. I would love to see these different methods in action. I am going to try them all out myself. When this goes into PDF form every one of them that maintains a balance will at least be in an index for "alternate rules for player preference".
Anyone have any thoughts on the assault phase structure? With the addition of Tactical Retreats I was hoping to eliminate the concept of "Tar Pitting". There is no counter play to having an ongoing combat that neither side can win just to remove units from game play. It means no player is ever locked in combat that does not choose to be there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/17 12:41:28
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: Anyone have any thoughts on the assault phase structure? With the addition of Tactical Retreats I was hoping to eliminate the concept of "Tar Pitting". There is no counter play to having an ongoing combat that neither side can win just to remove units from game play. It means no player is ever locked in combat that does not choose to be there.
It is a better use of the system, that's for sure. GW likes having things locked in to place for some reason. They like unchangeable decisions.
I will state that I do not like the alternating full activations of units. But I know that a huge portion of that is based on my first tabletop game, Battletech. I do not like it when someone has little interaction for too long a time (current GW system) or cannot react quickly to events on the table (your system).
For those unaware, the Battletech system does do alternating unit activations, but limits the actions to a Phase. Initiative is rolled off, and players take turns moving each of their units for a Phase. For those who have more units, more units are moved at a time. After all units have been given a chance to move, Shooting is done. All Shooting is performed, but the damage isn't acknowledged until the end of the Phase. Then the "Assault" Phase would be done, with the same considerations for damage (albeit, with an Initiative value for Attacks in 40K, this would be different).
I know this prejudices my opinion due to "first girlfriend" syndrome, but I always thought this was better balanced approach to things.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
So it's alternating activations within a phase. It's not a bad idea and eliminates the problem of favorable positioning. Isnt the scale of battletech generally about 6 models a side? (I think i played very briefly MANY years ago and only a few times)
How do you see the book keeping working out in terms of keeping track of wounds in a 40k scale game using that system?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
@Lance845.
I may not have made myself clear.
If you want to use alternating unit activation out of personal preference that is fine. But do not quote reasons for not using an alternating phase game turn that only exist in theory .As soon as the practical restrictions of reasonable sized playing area and meaningful tactical 'missions' are used in the game.(Objective based play on reasonably sized playing areas, like most games use.)The 'issue' you quoted is not found in practice.
Focusing on individual units taking multiple actions at a time makes the players focus very heavily on the individual unit capabilities.So any slight imbalance between units is highlighted more than in a game turn where the entire force takes a single action.
Most games that use altertnating unit activation, have no where near the amount of unit diversity (or imbalance ) that is found in 40k.
So balancing the diverse units in 40k , when players are focusing on every slight difference is going to be much harder than getting the 'over all force' to balance out with a alternating phase game turn.
Most games that use alternating unit activation use some form of scheduling mechanic , (random draw like B.A. or phase scheduling like Epic SM.)
And also many players want additional reaction mechanics put in place.(Why did that unit charge all the way from over there and my guys did not get a chance to shoot?)
So you often end up adding scheduling and reaction mechanics like 'over watch'.(And it can get very complicated really quickly. )
If you are happy to put in the extra work to support your own personal preference that cool.I just wanted to make you aware of possible issues at this early stage.
Also when I said to consider scope of the game play of 40k. I was not talking about the game size or the force organization.
The WHFB rules were focused on ancient warfare where mobility and close combat were most important and ranged attacks were limited to a supporting role.
I think 2nd ed 40k was described as '..a close up view of the larger battle raging around an important objective.The last few hundred yard heroic charge across no mans land (or stoic defense depending which side you are on,)to seize/hold a vital objective.''
At a platoon sized game where an infantry hoard might have 60 models and no vehicles ,this concept could be made to work.
(With larger areas between units , plenty of L.O.S blocking terrain , and to hit modifiers for ranged attacks etc.)
But at the current game size where air strikes super heavies and and artillery are shoe horned into the playing area , it sort of becomes nonsense.
So I was just asking what your view of the intended game play would be ?
EG mobility and close combat focused for ancient type warfare.
Or Ranged attacks and mobility focused for naval type warfare,
Or an equal balance of mobility ranged attacks and close combat attacks like modern land warfare.
Because the intended game play is the guiding light on the game development.If you have not got a clear view of the intended game play you can lose your way really quickly.
GW plc have been trying to make bringing a knife to a gun fight a viable option in 40k for 17 years.And they have failed miserably.
What are you thoughts on this?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/17 16:17:31
So it's alternating activations within a phase. It's not a bad idea and eliminates the problem of favorable positioning. Isnt the scale of battletech generally about 6 models a side? (I think i played very briefly MANY years ago and only a few times)
How do you see the book keeping working out in terms of keeping track of wounds in a 40k scale game using that system?
Yeah, Battletech is usually about 2-6 models per side, but there is a "faster" version for more models called BattleForce that has 'Mechs have about the same rough health as 40K Vehicles (it came out after I left the game for when I served a mission, so I am not as familiar). Bookkeeping is handled by sheets which you mark the damage off as it goes off. It is relatively easy to remember what is damaged that turn due to the low number of units involved.
In 40K, I'd just use the 3rd & 5th Edition Necron of tipping of non-Vehicle/Monstrous models down when they have had their Wounds depleted and removing them from play at the end of the Phase. Alternatively, this would be a good opportunity to include WarMachine-style cards in to the game to help keep track of such things. For a time I was making up a very basic/generic set for Space Marines and Necrons complete with page references for the Special Rules, but I never completed it.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
@Lanrak. No man. Im not having this conversation with you. I understand your position. I understand what you are asking. I do not agree with you at the very core of your design philosophy and do not want to discuss it with you here. You and i do not agree on where game design starts. We do not agree on how we build the design up from its foundation. And we do not agree on where the trouble with 40ks rules come from. I don't want to discuss these differences of opinion with you in this thread.
I am asking you to discuss these mechanics as they are or dont participate in this thread. Its that simple. Start a new thread and we can discuss it there or send me a pm. I have watched you lead conversations astray with the same couple of questions you believe are needed to start the design process that you are asking me now.
I do not agree. I will not discuss it with you here.
If you have a question about the way these mechanics are meant to function in action, cool. If you have suggestions for ways to clean them up, also cool.
I am happy to discuss that with you.
Please respect that. I am not going to ask again.
@Charistoph, i am super interested in a lot of those concepts. I am on a small road trip and internet is sporadic. I will respond to you in more depth when i got a better signal.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
For unit activation, have you thought about doing the DnD/Dark Heresy route of giving action points to units or the option of doing an action and movement in any order?
Deepstrike assault and more vehicles that can be charged out of...you're definitely catching my attention as a Space Marine player, as a Nids and Space Wolves player I know I'm currently getting the better mobility, by mixing ICs and units I can consistently get better range before decurions and formations even come into the equation.
Ranged armies aren't actually better at killing things than melee armies the issue is that they get more attempts because melee armies are forced to cover the distance to get inside gun range and most simply don't cover it fast enough. If mele units can't make melee by turn two they're going to die before striking a blow.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
@Lance845.
I am not asking you to agree with anything , or to discuss anything.
You have different ideas to me on how 40k rules should be developed.
So to give me (or anyone else), a chance on making any sort of meaningful contribution to this thread please tell me/us.
A) What YOU think the issues are with the current 40k rules,
B)How YOU want to address those issues.
C) What sort of game play do YOU want to end up with.
As Jake Thornton said,'.. there is no such thing as a bad ideas in game design, just ideas in the wrong place..'
As there are loads of different options to chose from, I would like to focus on the few that are closest to the solution you are looking for.
Just a quick note on the 40k F.O.C.
It is the ONLY one I am aware of that focuses on unit function, rather than unit rarity in the force.
Every other game I have played that uses 'point values' for in 'game value',and balances synergistic anomalies with a F.O.C based on limiting unit numbers and types available.
Eg how rare a unit is in a force is not controlled just by P.V. but by the theme of the force chosen.
And as a result every other war game I have played has a much simpler and far more diverse and 'narrative friendly' F.O.C .
Would you consider alternatives the the current 40k F.O.C?
(I think most 
)
