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.

But those are skirmish games.mr Ninth may as well bring up the example of Infinity then and say that non AA system work fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

All of those sound like a super buff to armies with skimers, out of LoS shoting and having +2 or +3 rules extra on top of what others have. I don't want to see what happens to an army which starts in full overwatch and then blows me up on my turn 1.
Any army which is designed with focus fire and chip damage in mind, would work horrible under an AA system, same with armies that require multiple activations and buffs to one unit to make an impact on the board, or ones that have to sacrifice crucial offensive assets to do buffs or objective taking. It would on the other hand greatly promote cheap super killy units, which trade great and can be spammed. Especialy if they can ignore terrain.

and 40k is not a skirmish game?

just because GW wants you to put more models on the table does not make it something different
all the rules are written for a Skirmish game

Mezmorki didn't give gw a "pass". He went and designed his own alternate ruleset for people to play instead of 8th/9th edition.

He isn't the only one, our group has been running our own unified 5th ed rules set for use with all 3rd-7th ed codexes for years.

 kodos wrote:
and 40k is not a skirmish game?

just because GW wants you to put more models on the table does not make it something different
all the rules are written for a Skirmish game

I don't know how you would style 9th ed, but the last time the core game was skirmish was second edition. it became a squad based game in 3rd and then moved up to army scale game with the release of apocalypse or if you prefer the entire army you play epic. i would not consider it skirmish scale for the last 20 years.

so you don't have single model mechanics?
no single model dice rolls, no tracking of movement of each model or cover?

everything is done on a unit level in 9th?

Bolt Action or Firefight are less of a Skirmish Game than 40k
and this is also what causes some of the problems, that you get more and more detailed rules for single models in a game that is meant to be played with several units

just because you have 100 models on the table does not make it something else, but that you play a Skirmish game with 100 models is part of the problem

I think wether we decide to call it a skirmish game or not is really beside the point. I've seen games of all sizes; small post-3rd ed., huge 2nd ed, and even a Bolt Action game with 100+ models or so per side.

What matters in the end is whether or not the mechanics function well for the intended scope.

100 models is not a problem, 200 is a problem. If you don't want 100 models just play 500 pts. The available missions for non-Crusade 500 pts games is awfully small, unfortunately.

 Mezmorki wrote:
My issue with AA systems in 40K is that it just doesn't feel very 40K to me. More specifically, it deemphasizes making a big sweeping play with all your forces doing some grand maneuver and hoping the attacks pan out successfully.

AA systems tend to steal he show and focus. They can end up being less about planning a big series of moves and instead becomes a mini game of deciding which order to activate units in and tactical responding your opponents in a more minute and incremental way. This isn't to say there is less depth or tactics (probably the opposite) but it tends to make the game more focused on the AA system in a way that maybe detracts from the bigger picture.

I'd argue that a lot of problems with 40K's gameplay stem from the turn structure being essentially an afterthought. And not just IGOUGO vs AA, but also the mechanics of what a unit can do in any given turn and how it interacts with other units in your army. 40K's the only modern game I can think of where not only does your entire army go at once, but every model can do essentially everything it is capable of on any given turn.

I don't think it's fair to say that AA makes the gameplay 'focused on the AA system', because it's not really any different from how IGOUGO makes the gameplay focused on committing all your forces at once- tactics like turn 1 alpha strikes, or just activating units to shoot one at a time until a problem unit is eliminated, are products of the IGOUGO structure. It's just different, in that the tempo of gameplay and the interaction points between players are different.

Three examples I've played a fair bit of that shake up the IGOUGO paradigm while keeping some sense of 'big sweeping plays' are Apocalypse, Starship Troopers, and Dust. Apocalypse has you activating formations at a time, so your Battalion can conduct all its activity before your opponent has a chance to respond. It makes your command structure (ie force composition) relevant, because bigger formations like Brigades can mobilize more units to act at once, but are consequently less granular in when they can act. Starship Troopers is IGOUGO with your whole army going at once, but lots of things can trigger reactions, so you have to contend with the enemy moving and shooting back while you do it. And Dust has an active and a reactive player, with reactions early in the turn coming at the cost of actions later in the turn.

None of the three play exactly like 40K because, well, that's rather the point. Pure IGOUGO is suited to certain games (Warmachine, for example, benefits from it- the ability to perform wombo-combos is a core part of its design), but 40K's style of skirmish wargaming isn't it, IMO. I've had more tactically engaging games come from the OPR ruleset in spite of a far simpler set of rules, just on account of the increased interaction between players and more emphasis on moment-to-moment decision-making.

@Catbarf: How similar is the Starship Troopers game's version of IGOUGO + Reactions to the system used by HH2.0? Does it have any advantages over the HH2.0 system in your opinion?

^^^^^^ Great points all around.

FWIW I do agree that 40ks purist IGOUGO isn't great - despite me liking the potential it affords. I like the aspect of where it's like coming up with a "play" (eg in American football) for turn (eg down) that's covers your army at once. But of course this can break down quickly and cause problems with the way it's implemented.

I appreciate the examples you cited, and I definitely believe there is a possible middle ground that preserves the spirit/intent of IGOUGO and having to come up with a "whole army gameplan" but builds in more reactivity.

I also think the older EPIC rule sets could be a model too, where it's a combinations of orders based (need to assign orders ahead of time as a big turn-wide plan) and then alternating PHASES with opportunities for simultaneous attack resolutions. The alternating phase approach is nice because it it makes things more dynamic, can allow for simultaneous attacks and exchanges of fire, and avoids issues with elements of your army not being able to move in a coordinated way. It's pretty clean.

Gadzilla666 wrote: @Catbarf: How similar is the Starship Troopers game's version of IGOUGO + Reactions to the system used by HH2.0? Does it have any advantages over the HH2.0 system in your opinion?

HH2.0's system definitely feels to me like a retrofit rather than something built into the game from the ground up. SST's reaction system is army-wide, but generally limited to things happening within 12" of you. So the first turn or two is similar to 40K in that armies do movement or prep fire without much interaction, but once the armies get close the chaos erupts. The bugs are close, so you shoot them, but they react by moving to get closer, and then it's their turn and they move into melee, but you react to shoot them with one unit while another retreats. Things get very hectic very quickly, and once the forces are in close contact basically every action provokes a reaction.

In HH2.0, it's much more stratagem-like in that you're generally limited to one reaction per phase. That means you tend to save them for your star units, and they're a little less foundational to the gameplay. They're not irrelevant, though, and you will have a very bad day if you, say, fail to suppress a Mechanicum unit before trying to assault it. I really, really like how the reaction mechanic has finally made pinning worthwhile- in conjunction with morale, there's a strong 'soft damage' component to HH2.0 that has historically been lacking in 40K.

Basically I think they're trying to do two different things. SST enforces a distinction between predictable IGOUGO long-ranged action and then chaotic, fast-paced close combat; it's very well suited to space marines versus bug aliens but I don't know that it would work so well for 40K (eg, melee units need serious advantages like weight of numbers to be worth a damn in SST, because the enemy can always react by shooting or moving away unless you really swarm them). Meanwhile HH2.0 is basically taking an established 40K formula and grafting a very limited 'trap card' reaction mechanic onto it, allowing for some interactivity without drastically affecting the tempo of gameplay.

Like I said in my last post, I think the activation structure of a game has a massive shaping effect on gameplay, and is one of the purest ways for a designer to express their vision. Not all activation mechanics work for all settings or gameplay concepts, so I don't mean to give the impression that I feel there is one system to rule them all. But it often feels to me like 40K is IGOUGO because it's always been IGOUGO, and it started as IGOUGO because that's just how wargames were in the 80s, rather than because it's the best that 40K could be. Worth noting that Andy Chambers- having already masterminded the rewrite from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed- left GW in large part because he wanted to continue iterating on the game, but the suits felt that their cash cow had to be left as intact as possible.

Mezmorki wrote:^^^^^^ Great points all around.

FWIW I do agree that 40ks purist IGOUGO isn't great - despite me liking the potential it affords. I like the aspect of where it's like coming up with a "play" (eg in American football) for turn (eg down) that's covers your army at once. But of course this can break down quickly and cause problems with the way it's implemented.

I appreciate the examples you cited, and I definitely believe there is a possible middle ground that preserves the spirit/intent of IGOUGO and having to come up with a "whole army gameplan" but builds in more reactivity.

I also think the older EPIC rule sets could be a model too, where it's a combinations of orders based (need to assign orders ahead of time as a big turn-wide plan) and then alternating PHASES with opportunities for simultaneous attack resolutions. The alternating phase approach is nice because it it makes things more dynamic, can allow for simultaneous attacks and exchanges of fire, and avoids issues with elements of your army not being able to move in a coordinated way. It's pretty clean.

Since you mention both the idea of a 'play' and Epic, let me also cite Fireball Forward. Basically in FF, you determine how many activations you're going to get at once (the exact method for which is more or less irrelevant to this discussion), then for each activation you got you get to assign an order to each of your units and what sequence to execute those orders in.

So if you get two activations, you might decide to have your MG team hold position and shoot, then your infantry will move in and shoot while the enemy is suppressed (so they don't get opportunity fire). The key is that once you decide on which orders to give and what order they'll be executed in, they're set in stone- so if the MGs don't suppress the enemy, your infantry don't necessarily need to throw themselves into opportunity fire, but they can't change their order to sustained fire instead. The designer's goal, which I think the game achieves, is capturing the idea of a junior officer directing nearby troops to execute a hastily prepared tactical plan. Now, I wouldn't say that's as relevant to 40K as it is to a WW2 game, but it's a neat little example of how a game can both implement tactical-level command and allow more than one unit to activate at a time.

Also worth noting that Apocalypse has you give orders in secret and then alternate activating formations. When I first read the rules I thought that calculating damage at the end of the turn would render the planning and AA largely pointless, but I was surprised to find that this isn't the case; giving a formation an order where it can shoot at +1 to hit but not move is crippling if the enemy either moves out of LOS/range or charges you first before you get to execute. There's some strategy to predicting what your opponent will do, and managing which orders to prioritize.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of 'I activate a unit, you activate a unit, and so on' pure AA, so I just wanted to point out that there are lots and lots of other ways to do it depending on the design intent, some of which still capture that idea of executing a maneuver with multiple units (or even your entire army) at once.

Thanks Catbarf! Very informative and great points, as always. And fully agreed on liking how much more important Pinning and Morale are in 30k.

The main core of Apocalypse should've been adopted for mainstay 40k

EviscerationPlague wrote:
The main core of Apocalypse should've been adopted for mainstay 40k

I whole-heartedly agree

 catbarf wrote:

Like I said in my last post, I think the activation structure of a game has a massive shaping effect on gameplay, and is one of the purest ways for a designer to express their vision. Not all activation mechanics work for all settings or gameplay concepts, so I don't mean to give the impression that I feel there is one system to rule them all. But it often feels to me like 40K is IGOUGO because it's always been IGOUGO, and it started as IGOUGO because that's just how wargames were in the 80s, rather than because it's the best that 40K could be. Worth noting that Andy Chambers- having already masterminded the rewrite from 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed- left GW in large part because he wanted to continue iterating on the game, but the suits felt that their cash cow had to be left as intact as possible.

It is kinda funny that Andy Chambers also designed Starship Troopers and Dust Warfare.

I can't speak about SST, but I really liked the way Dust Warfare handled IGOUGO. As it was complimented with initiative, the Command Phase (basically a turn-before the turn with limited actions/pre-reactions) and reactions. I liked that the player that had the fewer units (whether by them being more elite or through losses) usually won initiative for the turn, but conversely had few Command actions. Initiative was determined by basically rolling a die for every unit on the table needing a 5+, which each die allowed the player an action (more like 1/2 an action), but the player that rolled the fewest command actions went first.

This had a sort of rubber band effect to the game, since as units were removed, the suffering player was much more likely to be able to dictate the pace of the game next turn to swing it back in their favor. But at the same time, the rubber band effect didn't feel like it was artificially holding the other player back. Because of by having more command dice, they could reposition before the turn began in earnest or even attack twice (hitting 1/3 the time instead of 2/3 of the time, though). Which wasn't always a good idea, as one of Dust Warfare's weaker elements was it could be really tough to do damage on some things due to the way armor and cover worked.

That said, I certainly would have liked to see what Andy Chambers could have done with 40k if he was allowed to take it in the direction he wanted to.

@catbarf: Are any of those systems you talked about more favorable for 40k in your mind?

Great writeup.

I still havent played OPR. Hopefully within a week or two.

How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

one big difference between SST and 40k/HH is also that SST does not have phases but use Actions
so you have the possibility to shoot first and than move, move twice or shoot twice
this makes up for very different possibilities as you cannot move everyone before the first enemy unit might get a reaction from your action

another point is that it is strict IGoUGo, as in every Action is finished before a Reaction happens, even stuff like Overwatch would be done after the move, not as an interrupt (so if you wipe out the unit with you close range shooting, it cannot shoot back as a reaction)

one problem of the current versions of 40k is that there is no clear structure any more
like you have phases, just to ignore them, an IGoUGo turn sequence, just to ignore it, etc
so first point would be to decide if you want to keep the structure, and enforce it again or go with something different but not keeping things by name only

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
It is kinda funny that Andy Chambers also designed Starship Troopers and Dust Warfare.

the SSTs core rules were Chambers suggestion for 40k 4th Edition but GW decided to just go with a minor update to 3rd instead resulting in Chambers selling the idea off to another company

there was also a community version of an SST for 40k back during 6th Edition (based on the community updated core rules, SSTpk), but it never really growth as it was too different to 40k by that time for people to have great interest (even finding playtesters outside the design team was hard)

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I think it helps curb lethality quite a bit. HH2.0 does most of this, with the following differences:

-Heavy Weapons CAN fire after moving, but only hit on Snapshots (6s).

-Relentless CAN charge after firing Heavy Weapons

Also, split firing is very rare outside of vehicles, with additional restrictions on that, with only vehicles with PotMS and Super Heavys being able to do it 100% freely. And if you shoot a unit in the Shooting Phase, that's the unit you can charge in the Charge Phase. You can't shoot Unit A in the Shooting Phase and then charge Unit B in the Charge Phase. If you want to charge, it has to be Unit A.

I quite like it, personally.

 Insectum7 wrote:
@catbarf: Are any of those systems you talked about more favorable for 40k in your mind?

Great writeup.

I still havent played OPR. Hopefully within a week or two.

So far I've deliberately shied away from explicitly saying '[game]'s system would be better for 40K' because like I said before, it's core to the identity of any system. Applying a new activation structure (or activation economy, like Kodos mentions) is changing a fundamental element of the game and, like Mezmorki said, does change the tactics and general feel. That said, I do think some systems are better or worse than others for tactical depth, player engagement, reflecting particular types of conflict, or modeling general warfighting concepts like friction. So it all depends on what you're looking for.

(I'm giving this disclaimer because otherwise I'm going to say what I would enjoy, and then someone else is going to say 'that doesn't sound like the 40K I know and love', and they're right and that's fine. Even HH2.0's light-touch reaction system changes the feel of gameplay significantly.)

But anyways, all that aside, I think SST's IGOUGO-with-reactions would be a good fit, in no small part because it was originally designed for 40K. You still get to coordinate your entire force and execute at once, so it isn't the constant back-and-forth of AA systems, but your opponent is also an active participant during your turn. Unlike with stratagems that can feel like 'gotchas', it's also intuitive what will trigger a reaction. And unit/army archetypes that can be very frustrating to deal with in pure IGOUGO (see: mechanized Drukhari that can pull off T1 charge alpha strikes before you even get your first turn) are less game-breaking because you can react to them.

The two-actions-per-turn activation economy forces some tough decisions about how to employ your units, but simultaneously allows them to have interesting capabilities (eg, basic infantry can actually be pretty mobile when move+move covers 12" ). It also lets you choose how to sequence your units' activity, rather than being locked into everyone moves -> everyone shoots -> everyone charges. You can choose whether to charge an enemy unit at the start of your turn so that it can't react with opportunity fire as you bring more troops up, or to soften it up with shooting (eating some reaction fire) so the melee unit will be able to wipe it out. You can take advantage of the changing battlefield situation as it unfolds, but your opponent isn't stuck helpless as you do it. And lastly, it's just a good system for defining what a unit can do in a turn. Interacting with an objective? That's an action. Calling in an air strike? Action. Psychic power? Action. Rallying? Action. Clean and straightforward.

That said, I think there are some major caveats.

The first is that the unlimited reactions within 10" system is great for the SST license and really captures the feel of the horde of bugs versus overwhelming firepower, but I'm not sure it's right for 40K. I feel something more akin to Dust, where reactions in the opponent's turn come at the cost of actions in your own turn, would be a bit more appropriate. You could maybe do something like limit a unit to reacting once per turn, and then have a unit that reacted only get one action instead of two in its own turn. So essentially, the reaction system would allow you to respond immediately to the enemy, but without getting 'bonus' movement or shooting out of it, and ceding the initiative in the process.

The other is that even with the reaction system tinkered with to avoid changing too much about how units behave in close contact, it'd still have major impact on how the game plays. As people are learning through HH2.0, when your opponent can react, it gets much harder to simply run melee troops into the enemy. They need support to turn off the enemy's reactions (ie, a suppression mechanic), so melee/close assault tends to be a little more realistic in how it's employed and typically needs at least some shooting to back it up. Additionally, having a more limited action economy changes the value of some units and weapons significantly. If you can't move/shoot/charge all in the same turn, then a unit capable of all three is less valuable, and ranged weapons on melee units are not going to see a ton of use if they're spending their actions on moving and melee (which I suppose is actually not that different from old 40K, in how you couldn't shoot Rapid Fire weapons if you were Fleet-ing or charging). And of course, allowing units to potentially shoot or fight more than once as a core mechanic requires a long hard look at lethality.

So, it'd be a substantial rewrite, and it would certainly feel like a different game from current 40K, but I think it would be much more in line with what I personally want from a wargame- player interactivity, tactical decision-making based on board state, and verisimilitude.

By the way, I think you will find that OPR, despite using completely different mechanics, achieves some of the same feel as I described. Individual unit activations are more like SST's than 40K's, and the pure AA structure allows for lots of interactivity and makes sequencing important. Definitely interested to hear how it goes for you.

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I like it in principle, but this would also require a serious balancing pass across the game. Infantry would be a lot more limited in firepower, while armor and stationary guns would be unaffected. Maybe that's not a bad thing if it's an opportunity to further delineate how the different troop types interact and make static long-ranged firepower more expensive, but it'd be a tall order.

For the sake of completeness, here are the links (old links but the should still be working) for the SSTpk Community update to SST

the rulebook itself could be found online for sure, but the links above at least give an impression about the system and its differences

and this was (more or less) a version of SST adopted for 40k, to keep things familiar but still use some of the advantages of SST
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBXYftgKUUcN6Rleij3cZnoufY1c_xA9nlrJlI0jh7U/edit?usp=sharing

for me personally, I am happy with the current version of Warpath Firefight as this game covers all aspects I want from a SciFi platoon level game and is fun to play

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

It is kinda funny that Andy Chambers also designed Starship Troopers and Dust Warfare.

Praise be his name!



The game hasn't been as good since he left.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@catbarf: Are any of those systems you talked about more favorable for 40k in your mind?

Great writeup.

I still havent played OPR. Hopefully within a week or two.

So far I've deliberately shied away from explicitly saying '[game]'s system would be better for 40K' because like I said before, it's core to the identity of any system. Applying a new activation structure (or activation economy, like Kodos mentions) is changing a fundamental element of the game and, like Mezmorki said, does change the tactics and general feel. That said, I do think some systems are better or worse than others for tactical depth, player engagement, reflecting particular types of conflict, or modeling general warfighting concepts like friction. So it all depends on what you're looking for.

(I'm giving this disclaimer because otherwise I'm going to say what I would enjoy, and then someone else is going to say 'that doesn't sound like the 40K I know and love', and they're right and that's fine. Even HH2.0's light-touch reaction system changes the feel of gameplay significantly.)

But anyways, all that aside, I think SST's IGOUGO-with-reactions would be a good fit, in no small part because it was originally designed for 40K. You still get to coordinate your entire force and execute at once, so it isn't the constant back-and-forth of AA systems, but your opponent is also an active participant during your turn. Unlike with stratagems that can feel like 'gotchas', it's also intuitive what will trigger a reaction. And unit/army archetypes that can be very frustrating to deal with in pure IGOUGO (see: mechanized Drukhari that can pull off T1 charge alpha strikes before you even get your first turn) are less game-breaking because you can react to them.

The two-actions-per-turn activation economy forces some tough decisions about how to employ your units, but simultaneously allows them to have interesting capabilities (eg, basic infantry can actually be pretty mobile when move+move covers 12" ). It also lets you choose how to sequence your units' activity, rather than being locked into everyone moves -> everyone shoots -> everyone charges. You can choose whether to charge an enemy unit at the start of your turn so that it can't react with opportunity fire as you bring more troops up, or to soften it up with shooting (eating some reaction fire) so the melee unit will be able to wipe it out. You can take advantage of the changing battlefield situation as it unfolds, but your opponent isn't stuck helpless as you do it. And lastly, it's just a good system for defining what a unit can do in a turn. Interacting with an objective? That's an action. Calling in an air strike? Action. Psychic power? Action. Rallying? Action. Clean and straightforward.

That said, I think there are some major caveats.

The first is that the unlimited reactions within 10" system is great for the SST license and really captures the feel of the horde of bugs versus overwhelming firepower, but I'm not sure it's right for 40K. I feel something more akin to Dust, where reactions in the opponent's turn come at the cost of actions in your own turn, would be a bit more appropriate. You could maybe do something like limit a unit to reacting once per turn, and then have a unit that reacted only get one action instead of two in its own turn. So essentially, the reaction system would allow you to respond immediately to the enemy, but without getting 'bonus' movement or shooting out of it, and ceding the initiative in the process.

The other is that even with the reaction system tinkered with to avoid changing too much about how units behave in close contact, it'd still have major impact on how the game plays. As people are learning through HH2.0, when your opponent can react, it gets much harder to simply run melee troops into the enemy. They need support to turn off the enemy's reactions (ie, a suppression mechanic), so melee/close assault tends to be a little more realistic in how it's employed and typically needs at least some shooting to back it up. Additionally, having a more limited action economy changes the value of some units and weapons significantly. If you can't move/shoot/charge all in the same turn, then a unit capable of all three is less valuable, and ranged weapons on melee units are not going to see a ton of use if they're spending their actions on moving and melee (which I suppose is actually not that different from old 40K, in how you couldn't shoot Rapid Fire weapons if you were Fleet-ing or charging). And of course, allowing units to potentially shoot or fight more than once as a core mechanic requires a long hard look at lethality.

So, it'd be a substantial rewrite, and it would certainly feel like a different game from current 40K, but I think it would be much more in line with what I personally want from a wargame- player interactivity, tactical decision-making based on board state, and verisimilitude.

By the way, I think you will find that OPR, despite using completely different mechanics, achieves some of the same feel as I described. Individual unit activations are more like SST's than 40K's, and the pure AA structure allows for lots of interactivity and makes sequencing important. Definitely interested to hear how it goes for you.

Very informative reply! Thanks catbarf!

I will let you know my take on OPR once I have a few games in.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.

As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

Shame there's a max -1 to hit modifiers you'd have to remove and then just go back to "lol can't shoot me!" Eldar again.

As you might have seen in this forum, I'm ALL for stacking modifiers. I don't care if we gotta count five different ones just to get to a -1 to hit. The problem in 8th came from the fact there weren't a lot of natural ways to actually gain a +1 to hit, whereas there was a plethora of -1 to hit sources.

To clarify, you're happy having some armies literally unable to hit some opponents?

I think it's pretty clear that was his problem with 8th, that Orks did not have the ability to stack +3 to hit to counter negative modifiers to hit. Orks got around some of it with a Stratagem, but that only works while CP lasts and doesn't scale.

Also you could always bring back the old 7+ to-hit solution of additional dice after 6s, or just do ghe Orks always hit on a 6+.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
How much of a difference do people think dialing some of the weapon types back to be less permissive would make?

For example:
- HEAVY going back to move or fire for INFANTRY*
- RAPID FIRE going back to n shots at full range if you don't move (or 2n at half range), but no longer able to Assault after firing*
- Codify a BASIC weapon type in the core rules (see the type introduced by the LoV recently, and do a pass through the games Assault/RF weapons to see which it should apply to - I'm thinking the Hot-Shot Lasgun for one).
- Have ASSAULT and PISTOL be the only weapon types (in the core rules) you can fire with before making an Assault (I'd also give this ability to DAKKA weapons).

* - With Relentless making a reappearance for INFANTRY units that can justify ignoring the movement elements of these, though not the "Can't Assault after firing" part of RF. Death Guard, Wraithguard and Terminators are examples that spring to mind.

I'd rather just make Rapid Fire weapons be -1 to hit if they move and Heavy -2. Bam, you solved problems.

I'd disagree that just sticking modifiers on solves the issue of weapon types being too permissive (and too similar, really) now - making players choose between maneuver and getting full firepower increases the number of tactical decisions to be made, rather than every being able to move and fire at full (or nearly full) effectiveness.

On the subject of modifiers, I'd want to test splitting them into modifiers you're applying vs. modifiers your opponent is applying (including terrain on this side, I think), with each side capped at a net +/-1 - gives a theoretical range between +2 and -2. No more firing ASSAULT weapons after advancing with no additional penalty just because your opponent already applies a -1 to hit, for example. Not 100% sure what you do with Orks in this scenario, though - 6's always hit, after all, so even ending up with a -2 means they're only really having to deal with a -1, while your average Guardsman (with the same net modifier) is dealing with the full -2.

 vict0988 wrote:
I think it's pretty clear that was his problem with 8th, that Orks did not have the ability to stack +3 to hit to counter negative modifiers to hit. Orks got around some of it with a Stratagem, but that only works while CP lasts and doesn't scale.

That's an equally gakky option as well though. What happens if your orks get +3 to hit but your opponent doesn't have any -1 to hit, that's even more of an impossible balancing situation than they have now.

Plus when know what GW are like, it'd turn into a hit modifier bidding war, latest and greatest releases having greater and greater numbers of each until we hit "ignores all modifiers" followed by "all negative modifiers" followed by "prevents modifiers being ingored" and so on.

A hard fast ruling on weapon types is more immutable and becomes a fixture you can easily balance around.