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.

^The observation about requiring heavy modifiers for Overwatch is interesting. During 2nd I relied on Dreadnoughts and Terminators for Overwatch because they started off with a high BS. The Dread in particular had a BS6 (effectively 1+), plus Targeter (bringing it to 0+). This often meant it was still plugging stuff on Overwatch on 2s and 3s. Was this a bad thing? I'm not sure.

One of the reasons I feel it's ok is because it means the design space is actually using lots of that space. Sure, modifiers could stack up (-4, -5 and beyond, even), but you also had statlines wich pushed well beyond the 2+ to 5+ that we've experienced in the editions since. On the idea of pushing heavier modifiers however, you could push for them in order to curb the effectiveness of high stats, but then you risk making Overwatch ineffective in the hands of "average" troops such as a GEQ type.

You could of course "6 always hits" it, I suppose, but it feels a bit like a cop out.

 Mezmorki wrote:
I think the trap people feel into was trying to avoid taking overwatch fire in order to entirely avoid taking shooting hits. At the same time, I think people put a lot of units into overwatch (instead of just moving and shooting normally) to try and squeeze out better opportunities from their shooting. The issue is that neither player got what they wanted really. One player risked missing out on shooting entirely, and the other risked not advancing into a better board position. When both players had this mentality, overwatch did cause fairly stagnant games.

As with much of 40K, I think a lot of it came down to the missions. I'm fuzzy on a lot of mission details from 2nd, but I think it was often the case of playing for VPs based on units killed in conjunction with each player having a primary mission that also awarded VPs. We wrote a lot of our own missions back in the day, which maybe helped, but if the mission relies too much on VPs from killing units then the overwatch gameplay described above is more incentivized.

What happened was that both armies would set up in cover (cover being a core requirement for a 2nd ed. battlefield) and be Hidden. Hidden units could not be shot at unless they were "detected", which meant either being within 2x the initiative range of an enemy model or some sort of sensor via wargear. A scanner (which any sergeant could carry) had a 24" range.

Detected units could be targeted with templates, but models under it were only hit on a 4+.

All of which is to say that the archetypal "fail" of 2nd was two armies in cover, hidden, on overwatch. Staring at each other.

The solution to this was to use the mission cards, which often required offensive action - taking an objective, scouting the enemy's deployment zone, killing characters, etc.

The overwatch mechanic was often badly misunderstood (even the Battle Bibles got it wrong). All it did was allow units to fire during the opponent's movement phase if units crossed their LOS. Once that happened, that unit was also no longer hidden. Units that firing on overwatch at models moving into our out of cover suffered a -1 to hit modifier. For most armies, this represented a significant loss in accuracy. As noted, some Space Marine equipment was ideal for this mission.

The way one overcame this paralysis was via maneuver, either shifting your forces to hit them on the flank or using special units to force the units to open fire, and then hammering them into oblivion during the subsequent shooting phase.

The units in 2nd ed were very mobile, capable of up to 30 inches movement, which meant that overwatch was necessary to prevent units being overrun without offering resistance. Some units could also "fly high" and then subsequently drop down onto the map. A common tactic was to hold a squad or weapons group with lots of shots on overwatch to serve as an anti-aircraft battery.

Upthread someone talked about melee combat, and while it did take some skill to achieve, armies like Tyranids were fully capable of getting into engagement thanks to their absurdly high movement rates.

Basically, overwatched worked if you did it right and understood its purpose.

I miss 2nd ed....really need to grab a book, since mine is long disintegrated.

I admit I was thinking it within the context of "you move 6" and charge 6", adding 6" or more here or there that if you have the proper rules (jump, beast, fleet) and considerable luck. 3rd-7th 40k was quite slow.

But yeah if we are talking about crossing half or more of the table in one turn, then overwatch does look quite different. But then again, crossing half or more of the table in one turn is a big deal, arguably far more than overwatch. Even the faster 9th edition rarely can do that outside of flyers which usually cannot charge.

To be fair the idea of two armies hiding across a field from each other and waiting for an opportunity to do something is pretty accurate to real life sometimes. I recall a tournament game that basically went like that. The thing with the missions is that points could be scored even without accomplishing specific objectives, so the game was won because I scored a point or two in the first round before the hiding-overwatch cycle started in earnest. At some point the other player HAD to do something to try and get points, so moves were made. But then my overwatch just pummeled him.

Bionic Eye had a Scanner in it too. My go to was using the Scanner/Eye to Detect models, and then lob Plasma Missiles into the lines. With luck I could break squad coherency using the Plasma, which forced models to move to regain coherency. But once they moved they weren't hidden, and it triggered overwatch fire for open season. And then it was a cycle of fire and overwatch using Blind grenades for protection.

Or of course you could do something stupid like take 10 Rhinos for 500 points and just bum rush using a wall of armor. Army building was very permissive . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
I admit I was thinking it within the context of "you move 6" and charge 6", adding 6" or more here or there that if you have the proper rules (jump, beast, fleet) and considerable luck. 3rd-7th 40k was quite slow.

But yeah if we are talking about crossing half or more of the table in one turn, then overwatch does look quite different. But then again, crossing half or more of the table in one turn is a big deal, arguably far more than overwatch. Even the faster 9th edition rarely can do that outside of flyers which usually cannot charge.

Crossing the table in one turn and Assaulting is why the Blood Angels codex in 3rd ed was so dumb. Gav Thorpe was the Matt Ward of 3rd

The key factor in this discussion is terrain. Are you fighting in a featureless desert, a dense forest, or something in between?

With 2nd, lots of terrain was absolutely necessary. Not only did it make the game visually interesting, it provided more tactical challenges.

Indeed, urban terrain is the most fun, and with all the angles and cover, there are many ways to get at people. Overwatch is essential and i remember observing how in 2nd the basic rules could cover city fights, but that 3/4th requires special rules to make it work.

And 5th to 7th and even 8th more often than not was planet parking lot/bowling ball.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The key factor in this discussion is terrain. Are you fighting in a featureless desert, a dense forest, or something in between?

With 2nd, lots of terrain was absolutely necessary. Not only did it make the game visually interesting, it provided more tactical challenges.

Indeed, urban terrain is the most fun, and with all the angles and cover, there are many ways to get at people. Overwatch is essential and i remember observing how in 2nd the basic rules could cover city fights, but that 3/4th requires special rules to make it work.

3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

Ooh, fightin' words.

Cityfight came about because it was needed. GW said so.

Surely you don't think GW was lying?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
... and the issue wasn't the mechanic but the inability of the players to comprehend it.

So the only reason I didn't like it is because I didn't understand it?

No. I didn't like it because I didn't like how the rule worked.

"You only hate it cuz you is dumb!" is a bad argument.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

Ooh, fightin' words.

Cityfight came about because it was needed. GW said so.

Surely you don't think GW was lying?

The primary desire behind Cityfight was to streamline things, which btw, would have been absolutely desireable to do for 2nd ed urban warfare too, unless of course you're the type of person who likes to keep track of individual model obstacle movement and 90 degree firing arcs inside multilevel buildings. In a game using 50+ models, I'm happy to do without.

And again, you choosing not to put terrain on your table for 3rd ed is a choice. It's not that the game didn't work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the only reason I didn't like it is because I didn't understand it?

No. I didn't like it because I didn't like how the rule worked.

"You only hate it cuz you is dumb!" is a bad argument.

Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you understood it or not.

What I do know is that a lot of people did not know how it was supposed to function and I know this from engaging them in discussion. Some people thought that it was applied during the shooting phase.

On another (sadly defunct) site, there was a very lengthy discussion of this and the amount of people who simply got the rule wrong was staggering. Indeed one could set up a FAQ on "Things you think you know about 2nd ed. rules that simply aren't so."

Stepping away from that particular edition, a mechanic for some sort of reaction fire is essential in any future/modern system. If you cross my front, I will take a shot, particularly if I'm sitting there waiting for you.

In some systems, this is solved via an integrated turn sequence. That is to say, both sides shoot during each shooting phase.

However it is done, either as reaction fire or overwatch, I think it's a necessary and useful mechanic. The survey results show that I'm not alone.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The survey results show that I'm not alone.

Do the survey results show that people like 2nd Ed's Overwatch?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.

I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.

Apple fox wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.

I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.

I want to say there was some mission where you had to control quarters on the table, but you were forced to bring in reinforcements from random table edges or quarter edges? It must not have been a standard mission. But damn it made for some scrappy and improvised engagements. A lot of the scenario design of that era was just top notch. I'll have to check my books and figure out what I'm remembering.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3rd 4th did not "require" special rules to make it work. They were just optional rules if you preferred it. 2nd could be plenty broken in dense urban terrain if you wanted to go there.

Actual urban terrain did not work in 3rd. The low, single movement rate, sweeping advance rules and all the other weirdness (cover OR armor save?) made it glitchy as hell.

Get thee to a WD and compare terrain density between the editions.

2nd, on the other ran fine on cities - in fact it ran better in them. I was lured to 40k in large part because the tangled urban nightmares built out of multiple sets of Necromunda and boxed set cardboard buildings. It looked so much more interesting than fantasy, and it was.

The only real issue with 2nd was setting ground rules before the game about what the buildings were made of and how destructible they were. Height was also something to be worked out. The convention we came up with was a normal move gives you one floor, "run" gives you two or three (depends on the building).

It was weird how all that cool terrain at the local hobby shop was put on the shelf when 3rd came out.

Having actually played 3rd and 4th on dense tables both with and without the Cityfight rules I can tell you that your bias has you pretty much talking out your a**. It was plenty playable, and I'd say some of my favorite battles of that era used built up urban tables. The lack of terrain is a choice, my friend.

I'll second that, Insectum. I absolutely loved playing with lots of terrain in 3rd/4th edition. Those kinds of tables were the 8th Legion's favorite hunting grounds.

I also play a lot of city games, was great and I think it’s why I always build so many city tables now. We never used the city fight book back then until later thinking back.

I want to say there was some mission where you had to control quarters on the table, but you were forced to bring in reinforcements from random table edges or quarter edges? It must not have been a standard mission. But damn it made for some scrappy and improvised engagements. A lot of the scenario design of that era was just top notch. I'll have to check my books and figure out what I'm remembering.

I do remember a mission like that, we also see a lot of transport use. And had almost every week someone wanting to use the big table for a special mission.

I really think the proper city terrain ads so much to the game, even now it’s a table that’s very popular.

^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.

Upon a brief reviewing, I think my memory was combining the "Omega Level" Cleanse mission from 4th edition, with the Fire Sweep mission of Cityfight, but I could be wrong on that.

I need to paint my non-Mechanicus city stuff.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.

So like a raised basement house? They're pretty common in New Orleans.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^City tables do look good! I need to build up my own collection but I want to customize the buildings to feature "basements". (The bottom floor being obfuscated from the outside, but the second "ground" floor not requiring the extra movement to reach, if that makes sense) Probably going to turn to 3d printing to help with that.

So like a raised basement house? They're pretty common in New Orleans.

Sooorrt of. I was kind of thinking more like the concession craters use where it's intended to be lower then the table surface, so you just raise the walls. . . But I was also planning on making the exterior levels/stairs part of the architectural features? The idea works in my head, but since I haven't actually planned it out maybe I'm doing a poor job of envisioning it.

Really the idea is to provide troops lots of LOS cover from every angle if they want it, so they can really hunker down. I mean you could rule it, but I wanted to really 'feel' it on the table. Plus it would otherwise give the building a nice "foot". I'll put a little effort in and sketch it out.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

On another (sadly defunct) site, there was a very lengthy discussion of this and the amount of people who simply got the rule wrong was staggering. Indeed one could set up a FAQ on "Things you think you know about 2nd ed. rules that simply aren't so."

That seems like a stretch. It's entirely plausible that people are simply misremembering a rule form over 20 years ago, and they were playing it correctly at the time. All they're left with now is the emotional response to the situation, rather than the finer details. That pretty much describes me. Overwatch in 2nd edition was a terrible mechanic for the most part, because of how it bogged the game down and led to so much analysis paralysis. It was the obvious default choice in almost every situation where a shooting unit couldn't see a good target, especially if it had heavy weapons.

FWIW, we've reincorporated 2nd ed style declared overwatch into ProHammer, with some tweaking, and we really like how it works.

Basically, you declare you're entering overwatch (can't have moved) during your shooting phase. You place a directional counter next to your unit that indicates the forward direction of fire for the unit.

You can take overwatch fire at the start of your opponent's shooting or assault phase. You are limited to only shooting targets within 24" and within the forward arc of the firing unit.

This mean that your opponent does have some counter play options. Rather than interrupting the movement of the target mid-stream (like in 2nd ed), our system technically allows you to move from cover-to-cover and if you can stay out of sight you can't be hit. Or you can move from being in LoS at the start of your movement and then get out of LoS and avoid cover. Such is the risk a player on overwatch would take (shoot now at available target or wait and hope for something better).

The forward arc requirement means you can also maneuver around an overwatching unit and avoid their fire, or deep strike behind them for example, avoiding their fire and lining up your own shot.

Another wrinkle is that overwatch shooting alternates with "first fire" shooting, which are the active players units that are shooting that didn't move. Depending on the numbers of overwatch vs. first fire unit, it's possible to shoot an overwatching unit first, and if you can hit it enough to cause a suppression* token to be added, then their overwatch is broken.

* Suppression is another ProHammer addition. Basically, if a unit suffers an unsaved wound from another units total shooting attacks AND the number of shots fired exceeds the number of models in the target, they get a suppression token. Suppression tokens stay until the end of the units turn and incur a -1 to the units leadership for all Ld test purposes. If you get 3 of these you're automatically pinned. Crossfire is also part of it, and if you have a successful crossfire attack the unit gains 2 suppression tokens instead of one. Works really well

All of this is to say that classic overwatch can be a great addition to the tactical toolkit and a fun element to play around - but it has to be implemented well.

Mezmorki, going to have to disagree with you on this one.

As i play so many different games i always see 40K as the "fast" "simple" tactical wargame that didn't need or want skirmish style mechanics. i have other games that are chunky for those types of layered rules effects like infinity, warmachine and BattleTech.

Suppression is a terrible mechanic in the 40K game setting especially in 3rd-7th ed as it slows the game down way too much. in fact, i refuse to use it in one of my favorite 28mm games- DUST 1947-where it is actually in the rules, for the same reason.

Similarly overwatch from 2nd ed 40K works just fine because the rules for that version of the game are a skirmish system where a leman russ has 2 full pages of rules to operate/damage. whereas in the 3rd-7th setting just using snap fire when charged is a meaningful and impactful mechanic as there are less shots overall in the game, models also have less wounds and a lucky hit could have a major effect in a game....like hitting with that melta on a 6+ as the dreadnought charges into to you. It is a last ditch effort. the second edition version leads to lots of "camping" on both sides waiting for the other person to make a move.

It is the reason when you see all my battle reports of our hybrid 5th ed rules where we can drop 2-3K level games on the table and get through 7 turns in less than 2 hours on average.

I will also address the claims made earlier about considering CC themed armies (like my tyranid list)- there is this incorrect summation from bad memory that somehow the 5th ed rules set punished CC centric armies. As somebody still playing 5th core rules almost every weekend, this simply is not true. it happens often and easily where the CC units are generally far superior to any shooting unit they run into. snap fire with non template weapons needing a 6+ to hit is a good mechanic that adds to the game does not detract from it and takes effectively no extra time that drags out the game.

 catbarf wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm going to claim a certain level of vindication on the support for an "overwatch" mechanic.

That was a hotly-debated topic back in the day, and proponents of it got constant grief.

Mostly, I think, because people either didn't understand the rule or simply found Rhino rushes easier than actual tactics.

I'm also a fan of overwatch mechanics, but it really depends on the specifics.

IMO there's a world of difference between having to specifically put a unit on overwatch so that it can shoot later, versus getting bonus shooting at no cost every time an enemy charges you. One's a tactical tradeoff that involves sacrificing the ability to act now for the potential to act when it's more useful; the other is just a freebie that makes melee less fun to play.

Part of the danger with these sorts of polls- and why I answered a little less enthusiastically about certain mechanics than I might otherwise- is because the execution matters so much.

Same deal with subfaction traits. I like the 3rd/4th Ed system where subfactions could pay points to get special traits, or rearrange the FOC, or get additional options on their units. I don't like the 8th/9th Ed system where your whole army gets a bonus that encourages you to Flanderize your force and makes balancing a nightmare. But both are described as 'subfaction traits'.

Well said!

 aphyon wrote:
Mezmorki, going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Making the game shorter was definitely not one of the driving criteria in our rules

Back when 3rd + 4th edition was current we made a series of "skirmish" rule additions that we played with, and many of these were ported over or inspired what eventually ended up in ProHammer. And so I actually don't think ProHammer is a great ruleset for playing larger games IF you're trying to keep the playtime down. Our group started playing 40K over Tabletop Simulator during the pandemic and so we can save and come back to our games easily, and the format works perfect for ProHammer since we'll usually finish a game in two sessions.

That said, playing smaller games (around 1,500 points) feel better paced under the ProHammer rules, where the greater rule details and fidelity doesn't seen like its bogging the game down as much.

That said (again), our suppression mechanic really doesn't slow the game down in terms of adding bloat to manage. It takes 5 seconds to drop a token for -1 leadership next to a unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'll put a little effort in and sketch it out.

Ok here we go:


The idea is basically a Ruin feature that clearly blocks LOS behind it, as well as gives occupying units the option to completely hide from external LOS should they desire. But it also allows them to fire out from the "1st floor" if they want to do that too. Ideally it would be more ornate/decorated, but drawing is simplified for clarity and laziness

Full size in case the mid size version isn't clear:

That's a really neat design