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.

Hello everyone, recently I am starting to create a new campaign for WHE2 as school is coming to a closing and I want to relax for the winter.

I have been through a development hell due to mainly regarding the rules. I know it's a popular opinion but WH rules aren't the best, but I don't want to completely use a different system because I would then have to make new and original cards for EVERY miniature I have, and I already have another miniature game. I would prefer if I could at least use the codexes and at most make small edits or easy add ins.

Here are the rules I am thinking of implementing towards WHE2, my main objective is to be faster, more active between players during turns, reduce dice rolling, simplicity with little tracking and over-bloated mechanics (Looking at you, stratagems), and reduce the effect of snowballing by not having miniatures die in turn 1.

• There are no wounds, instead, whenever a unit hits another unit with an attack, instead of rolling for strength, the unit takes damage equal to the strength of the attack. When damage is equal to or greater than a unit's toughness*wounds, they die. Squads share damage, as in they have 1 count of damage, and when it exceeds its collective toughness*wound among the units, they have to remove a unit with the damage with it to keep it low.
I need to better playtest this, but basically, its to make units tougher but when they start getting a lot of damage, then they quickly lose their value, as a problem with squads is that they lose a lot of value from attacks, which is one of the main reasons alpha strikes are so brutal. Also, it will allow tougher minis like Space Marines to require less tracking as you only use one dice set rather than all these d6s for individual minis.

• Command points (Or a different resource) can be spent for reactive attacks, when a unit is targeted for an attack, they may spend a CP to attack back, they resolve at the same time likes in close combat, (in WHE2, close combat is like the shooting phase). This makes it so that the person not in their turn to be more active and making rolls of their own, with meaningful choices in the process and leading to mind games. If the initiative stat is in use, the CP cost will be the attacker's I minus the defender's I, so that assassins with 10 I would need a 7 CP to react to from Guardsman, (Which is unlikely).

• There are two types of turns, commander turn, and outer turn, they play the same but the commander turns activate before outer turns, which means in a 1v1, it goes Player 1 commander turn, then Player 2 commander turn, then Player 1 outer turn and Player 2 outer turn. The only units that can activate in the commander turn are those within command range of general units, like the Space Marine Commander. This adds a stragtic element where flanking units are nerfed as they activate second and encourage clustering. It also divides the turns so that individual turns are shorter.

• Tension deployment. This isn't so much a hard rule but a setup that can be a lot of fun that can add suspense as the game goes on. Basically in deployment, only scouts, fortifications, and fast-attack units can be deployed in the first round, then troops, elites, HQ, and transports in the third round, and finally Fliers, Heavy Support and Lords war in the fifth round. Maps can have objectives where when owned, opens new deployment zones for the reserves can enter through, giving an advantage.

If you don't know WHE2, it's an alternative timeline set in the northern galaxy, centering around a lost imperial colony within the war between three main factions. It tends to lean towards 40k and AoS in terms of flow.

Feedback would be appreciated, tell me what you think. ^-^ I would love to hear your opinions.

Hi there! Welcome to the forum.

I'm a little confused about the nature of your project here. Could you clarify a few things?

What exactly is WHE2? Is it just an alternate timeline you've written up? You mention some mechanical differences like close combat somehow being more similar to the shooting phase, and the 2 suggestions that there was a WHE1. You also mention cards which may or may not be a reference to 40k datasheets? Are you pitching a variation on the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniatures wargame that most of us are familiar with, or something else entirely?

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Hi there! Welcome to the forum.

I'm a little confused about the nature of your project here. Could you clarify a few things?

What exactly is WHE2? Is it just an alternate timeline you've written up? You mention some mechanical differences like close combat somehow being more similar to the shooting phase, and the 2 suggestions that there was a WHE1. You also mention cards which may or may not be a reference to 40k datasheets? Are you pitching a variation on the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop miniatures wargame that most of us are familiar with, or something else entirely?

Thank you ^-^

Yes, WHE2 is an alternative timeline, mainly to use more unique factions and have some WHF armies. For the close combat thing, instead of a close combat step where both attack at the same time, they only attack in their own turn. WHE1 was basically 40k rules wise with some house rules. When I mean cards, I do mean datasheets. For the last question, I do want to give out a variation to the game.

Gotcha. It's sort of difficult to comment on a revised ruleset without seeing all the rules laid out, but I'll try to offer my two cents about the bits you've shared.

 NivNeos wrote:
...and reduce the effect of snowballing by not having miniatures die in turn 1.

• There are no wounds, instead, whenever a unit hits another unit with an attack, instead of rolling for strength, the unit takes damage equal to the strength of the attack. When damage is equal to or greater than a unit's toughness*wounds, they die. Squads share damage, as in they have 1 count of damage, and when it exceeds its collective toughness*wound among the units, they have to remove a unit with the damage with it to keep it low.
I need to better playtest this, but basically, its to make units tougher but when they start getting a lot of damage, then they quickly lose their value, as a problem with squads is that they lose a lot of value from attacks, which is one of the main reasons alpha strikes are so brutal. Also, it will allow tougher minis like Space Marines to require less tracking as you only use one dice set rather than all these d6s for individual minis.

Reading this, I'm still a little unclear on what you're proposing. Am I correct in understanding that...
1. Individual models don't have Wounds/hit points.
2. The entire squad has a number of "hit points" equal to the Wounds x Toughness x Number of models in the squad?
3. You don't lose individual models from the squad; you just lose the entire squad once the damage it has taken equals or exceeds the squad's hitpoints?

The line about removing "units" to "keep it low" is really confusing me. Removing something from the squad implies that you are, in fact, removing models from the squad, but 40k usually uses the term "unit" to refer to a squad and "models" to refer to individual members of the squad, so it's throwing me off. If you *are* removing individual models, then it sounds like you're just pitching
1. Removing the to-wound and to-save steps.
2. Letting damage spill over Age of Sigmar style.
Which then wouldn't help with your stated goal of preventing alpha striking from reducing the effectiveness of enemy units.

Either way, I'm pretty iffy about removing both to-wound or save rolls. Personally, I like the idea of removing one of those rolls or combining them together into a single roll, but removing both means that you're not really representing some units in 40k being relatively difficult to harm. Or at least, you're not differentiating between Damage (the capacity for an attack to render its target inoperable) and Strength/AP (the capacity for an attack to bypass armor to do some damage to the target). So for instance, a poisoned knife might have a high Damage stat (if it gets you, it's likely to kill you regardless of whether you're a human, a marine, or rampaging carnifex), but it's otherwise just a normal knife and thus much more likely to successfully jab a guardsman than a power armored marine.

Also, if your goal is to not have to rewrite every datasheet in the game, then you may as well use the existing Damage stats rather than switching to using Strength and thus causing some weird ripples.

Although again, I do like the idea of reducing the number of rolls in the attack process. But I'd probably just accept that we'd have to overhaul a bunch of statlines to facilitate that.

• Command points (Or a different resource) can be spent for reactive attacks, when a unit is targeted for an attack, they may spend a CP to attack back, they resolve at the same time likes in close combat, (in WHE2, close combat is like the shooting phase). This makes it so that the person not in their turn to be more active and making rolls of their own, with meaningful choices in the process and leading to mind games. If the initiative stat is in use, the CP cost will be the attacker's I minus the defender's I, so that assassins with 10 I would need a 7 CP to react to from Guardsman, (Which is unlikely).

I can see a case for having a stratagem or reaction or whatever that lets you pull off a simultaneous attack. Tying it to initiative, however, seems like a bad idea to me. First of all, reintroducing initiative goes against your stated desire to avoid rewriting a bunch of datasheets. Second, the reintroduction of that stat raises a bunch of questions. How would initiative work with the semi-alternating turn structure you propose below? (Commander/outer turns.) What steps are you taking to avoid reintroducing all the problems people had with initiative back in the day? Third, if this is meant to be a fairly large and important part of the game, making orks spend more CP than guardsmen or marines when playing against eldar is going to create new balance problems for you.

• There are two types of turns, commander turn, and outer turn, they play the same but the commander turns activate before outer turns, which means in a 1v1, it goes Player 1 commander turn, then Player 2 commander turn, then Player 1 outer turn and Player 2 outer turn. The only units that can activate in the commander turn are those within command range of general units, like the Space Marine Commander. This adds a stragtic element where flanking units are nerfed as they activate second and encourage clustering. It also divides the turns so that individual turns are shorter.

I like the high concept. Apocolypse does something similar that I really like where you essentially just break your army up into a handful of major groups and then just take turns activating those groups. However, I have concerns.
1. I'm not sure nerfing flanking units is an inherently good thing.
2. I don't think this nerfs flanking units the way you think it does. If I invest heavily in outflankers/deepstrike and get second turn, then I can basically just wait for you to commit either your command-range units or your outer units, and then my guys can swoop in to deliver their big sucker punch. In other words, I'm still getting the same benefits from coming in from reserves that I do now, but you're more likely to be exposed when I do so.
3. Encouraging clustering sounds like a bad thing to me. One of the biggest complaints about 8th edition was how it encouraged everyone (especially marines) to clump up in their buff aura bubbles and castle up rather than spreading out and maneuvering.

I get the impression from this section that what you're going for is some sort of alternating activation system. Which is a popular idea, but one that would probably be better handled in a different way. Maybe take a look at the Apocalypses rules and see if those are a better fit for your goals?

• Tension deployment. This isn't so much a hard rule but a setup that can be a lot of fun that can add suspense as the game goes on. Basically in deployment, only scouts, fortifications, and fast-attack units can be deployed in the first round, then troops, elites, HQ, and transports in the third round, and finally Fliers, Heavy Support and Lords war in the fifth round. Maps can have objectives where when owned, opens new deployment zones for the reserves can enter through, giving an advantage.

You do you. However, I see some things that you'd want to keep in mind:
1. Unless you extend the game length, you're talking about only letting fliers, heavy support, and lords of war participate for a single turn of the game. Heck, if you go second, your imperial knight army wouldn't even get shot at by the end of the game.
2. Reducing the number of turns during which units can participate dramatically reduces the value of those units. If my necron wraiths aren't allowed to arrive on the table until halfway through the game, (whereas currently they can potentially get off a turn 1 charge), then I'm a lot less likely to spend points on them. In fact, you'd be strongly encouraged to field nothing but scouts (not actually a thing this edition as a heads up), fortifications, and fast attack units because you'd be able to leverage your entire army and wipe out the enemy while they come in piecemeal.
3. Older editions did something in this vein that I think would be a lot easier to balance out and might serve your purposes better. Basically, players took turns deploying their units (like they do now), but they had to set their units in a certain order based on battlefield role. If I remember correctly, the more heavy/sluggish units had to be deployed first, then the middleweights, then the fast attack/scouts. The idea being that your lumbering heavy units are less good at last minute repositioning in response to the enemy's forces. So if the first thing your opponent puts on the table is a hammerhead, your entire army is going to be deployed with knowledge of where that hammerhead is going to be.
If you don't know WHE2, it's an alternative timeline set in the northern galaxy, centering around a lost imperial colony within the war between three main factions. It tends to lean towards 40k and AoS in terms of flow.

Hope none of that comes off as too harsh. My intent is to provide feedback in good faith. I wish you well in your endeavors. Happy gaming!

Reading this, I'm still a little unclear on what you're proposing. Am I correct in understanding that...
1. Individual models don't have Wounds/hit points.
2. The entire squad has a number of "hit points" equal to the Wounds x Toughness x Number of models in the squad?
3. You don't lose individual models from the squad; you just lose the entire squad once the damage it has taken equals or exceeds the squad's hitpoints?

The line about removing "units" to "keep it low" is really confusing me. Removing something from the squad implies that you are, in fact, removing models from the squad, but 40k usually uses the term "unit" to refer to a squad and "models" to refer to individual members of the squad, so it's throwing me off. If you *are* removing individual models, then it sounds like you're just pitching
1. Removing the to-wound and to-save steps.
2. Letting damage spill over Age of Sigmar style.
Which then wouldn't help with your stated goal of preventing alpha striking from reducing the effectiveness of enemy units.

Either way, I'm pretty iffy about removing both to-wound or save rolls. Personally, I like the idea of removing one of those rolls or combining them together into a single roll, but removing both means that you're not really representing some units in 40k being relatively difficult to harm. Or at least, you're not differentiating between Damage (the capacity for an attack to render its target inoperable) and Strength/AP (the capacity for an attack to bypass armor to do some damage to the target). So for instance, a poisoned knife might have a high Damage stat (if it gets you, it's likely to kill you regardless of whether you're a human, a marine, or rampaging carnifex), but it's otherwise just a normal knife and thus much more likely to successfully jab a guardsman than a power armored marine.

I was afraid it wasn't going to be clear. Also armor saves are still there. Let me give an example;

A squad of five space marines with bolt rifles fire a squad of 10 guardsman at half range, they fire 10 shots, they roll attack and 7 go through, then the guardsman make an armor save of 6+ as they had a 5+ reduces by AP -1. They make 2 successiful armor saves, leaving 5 attacks going through. Since the bolt rifle have S4, it will deal 5*4(20) damage, with the guardsman having 13+20 (34) damage, their damage is 4 over their collective T*W (10*(3*1) = 30), meaning that they have to remove a guardsman to remove 3 damage, but their collective toughness also lessens, but their damage will still exceed so that the whole squad dies.

Yes, it basically spreading wounds, but easier to keep track, tho thinking this through, I am not sure if I like it.

One other idea is to remove models based on thresholds, like on vehicles, like when a squad have 33% damage, you remove 33% of the models and do so again at 66%.

I can see a case for having a stratagem or reaction or whatever that lets you pull off a simultaneous attack. Tying it to initiative, however, seems like a bad idea to me. First of all, reintroducing initiative goes against your stated desire to avoid rewriting a bunch of datasheets. Second, the reintroduction of that stat raises a bunch of questions. How would initiative work with the semi-alternating turn structure you propose below? (Commander/outer turns.) What steps are you taking to avoid reintroducing all the problems people had with initiative back in the day? Third, if this is meant to be a fairly large and important part of the game, making orks spend more CP than guardsmen or marines when playing against eldar is going to create new balance problems for you.

There are many older datasheets with initiatives that can be taken and it's not the hardest to implement. Also what problems are you referring too, I played 4th-5th E and then got back on 8th, so Int am not sure what you are talking about, but because model proactively attack on their turns, lower Int models don't strike back unless they make that reaction, which if they do, they both attack each other at the same time, regardless of Int. Int just raises the cost.

I like the high concept. Apocolypse does something similar that I really like where you essentially just break your army up into a handful of major groups and then just take turns activating those groups. However, I have concerns.
1. I'm not sure nerfing flanking units is an inherently good thing.
2. I don't think this nerfs flanking units the way you think it does. If I invest heavily in outflankers/deepstrike and get second turn, then I can basically just wait for you to commit either your command-range units or your outer units, and then my guys can swoop in to deliver their big sucker punch. In other words, I'm still getting the same benefits from coming in from reserves that I do now, but you're more likely to be exposed when I do so.
3. Encouraging clustering sounds like a bad thing to me. One of the biggest complaints about 8th edition was how it encouraged everyone (especially marines) to clump up in their buff aura bubbles and castle up rather than spreading out and maneuvering.

I get the impression from this section that what you're going for is some sort of alternating activation system. Which is a popular idea, but one that would probably be better handled in a different way. Maybe take a look at the Apocalypses rules and see if those are a better fit for your goals?

I wasn't really planning to nerf flankers, from my experience they are pretty underwealming, I think you are right but that's kinda the strategic planning I am going for.

I didn't know Apocolypse had alternative activation, I should look up on that. I know Kill Team has a turn for each unit but I am unsure if I should go something like that.

You do you. However, I see some things that you'd want to keep in mind:
1. Unless you extend the game length, you're talking about only letting fliers, heavy support, and lords of war participate for a single turn of the game. Heck, if you go second, your imperial knight army wouldn't even get shot at by the end of the game.
2. Reducing the number of turns during which units can participate dramatically reduces the value of those units. If my necron wraiths aren't allowed to arrive on the table until halfway through the game, (whereas currently they can potentially get off a turn 1 charge), then I'm a lot less likely to spend points on them. In fact, you'd be strongly encouraged to field nothing but scouts (not actually a thing this edition as a heads up), fortifications, and fast attack units because you'd be able to leverage your entire army and wipe out the enemy while they come in piecemeal.
3. Older editions did something in this vein that I think would be a lot easier to balance out and might serve your purposes better. Basically, players took turns deploying their units (like they do now), but they had to set their units in a certain order based on battlefield role. If I remember correctly, the more heavy/sluggish units had to be deployed first, then the middleweights, then the fast attack/scouts. The idea being that your lumbering heavy units are less good at last minute repositioning in response to the enemy's forces. So if the first thing your opponent puts on the table is a hammerhead, your entire army is going to be deployed with knowledge of where that hammerhead is going to be.

I assume the games do not end on turn 6 ^^; especially if they can be faster, I just don't like time limits. But for point 2, you are exactly correct which makes me very skeptical. We did a thing where we divide deployed and reserves by 75/25 and 50/50, and the reserves can only enter on turn 4+, it was fun. One easy fix could be to make the deployment early, say turn 1/turn 2/turn 3. The idea is that the faster units can arrive their first. What I was also thinking is that if the player wants to deploy their heavier units first, that they can for that advantage that you describe, with the faster units coming later for flanks, but then the other player can have a position advantage, but this can be a double edge sword as the heavier player will know where they are and can deploy accordingly.

Hope none of that comes off as too harsh. My intent is to provide feedback in good faith. I wish you well in your endeavors. Happy gaming!

No problem, Neomath went through rigorous play testing and changes, I know a lot of these are rough and that's why I came to the forum, I really wanted feedback because I am struggling with what I want from this game. Thank you for everything.

 NivNeos wrote:

I was afraid it wasn't going to be clear. Also armor saves are still there. Let me give an example;

A squad of five space marines with bolt rifles fire a squad of 10 guardsman at half range, they fire 10 shots, they roll attack and 7 go through, then the guardsman make an armor save of 6+ as they had a 5+ reduces by AP -1. They make 2 successiful armor saves, leaving 5 attacks going through. Since the bolt rifle have S4, it will deal 5*4(20) damage, with the guardsman having 13+20 (34) damage, their damage is 4 over their collective T*W (10*(3*1) = 30), meaning that they have to remove a guardsman to remove 3 damage, but their collective toughness also lessens, but their damage will still exceed so that the whole squad dies.

Yes, it basically spreading wounds, but easier to keep track, tho thinking this through, I am not sure if I like it.

Ah. Okay, so just getting rid of the to-wound roll. I'm still a little unclear. To clarify, you basically just have to stack more damage on the unit than they have total hitpoints, at which point the unit dies, right? But you can remove a single model to keep the unit alive provided that subtracting the model's Toughness from the total Damage done would give you a result that's lower than the original hitpoints of the unit? Either I'm misunderstanding something big time, or the bit where you remove a model is very confusing. Do you recalculate the unit's total hit points to factor in the reduced number of bodies? Maybe I'm just failing at reading tonight, but I suspect this might be overly complicated.

One other idea is to remove models based on thresholds, like on vehicles, like when a squad have 33% damage, you remove 33% of the models and do so again at 66%.

This sounds much easier to manage. Although I suggest making life easier for your self and just making the cut off 50% instead of 33%. Way easier to keep track of. Gets the point across.

There are many older datasheets with initiatives that can be taken and it's not the hardest to implement. but because model proactively attack on their turns, lower Int models don't strike back unless they make that reaction, which if they do, they both attack each other at the same time, regardless of Int. Int just raises the cost.

Do you plan to use initiative for anything else? I'd be reluctant to add a stat back into the game if it's only used to determine the cost of a stratagem that you may or may not use on your opponent's turn.

Also what problems are you referring too, I played 4th-5th E and then got back on 8th, so Int am not sure what you are talking about,

Many players did not like initiative because it basically just meant they had an extra disadvantage against a bunch of armies. For instance, marine players could find it annoying that eldar basically got to chop up the marine units without any retaliation from the marines. Or worse, necrons and orks basically always had to take all the enemy attacks before they were allowed to swing unless they were specifically facing other initiative 2 armies. So it was kind of a feels bad rule. Plus, it made balance a smidge more tricky because you had to figure out how to value melee units that may or may not have to absorb some extra casualties before they make their attacks. Using orks as an example again, you could pretty much count on losing an extra body or two even if you were charging guardsmen. But you would lose even more bodies before you swing if you went against an enemy unit who was decent at melee, or you might lose nobody at all before swinging if you were charging necrons. Or in an even worse case, maybe your ork squad finally finished crossing the table and is down to its last few boyz and a nob. You finally get to charge the enemy... only to have your squishy fungus lads killed off by the tactical marines and their chainsword sergeant's slightly lucky rolls.

Basically, were I in your shoes, I would ask what it is I'm hoping initiative would add to the game and whether or not it's worth the resulting problems, work, and extra rules players would have to remember.

I know Kill Team has a turn for each unit but I am unsure if I should go something like that.

I probably wouldn't, personally. The thing about Kill Team is that you're working with a pretty small number of dudes. So pausing to activate each model individually goes pretty quickly and is pretty straightforward. In 40k, you can have like 20 units per player. Stopping to activate each one back and forth creates a lot of stopping to reconsider the board state before acting, plus you have to keep track of who has and hasn't activated over a longer span of time. I like the idea of KT style activations (at least the version I'm familiar with from the previous version of KT), but I feel like it works way better for 1,000 point games than 2,000 point games.

Apoc kind of gets around this by having you activate big chunks of your army at once. So even if it takes a while to physically move all the models during an activation, you only have like, threeish activations per player per round. Also, that game encourages the use of movement trays and has a streamlined set of rules for attacking to really speed things up.

No problem, Neomath went through rigorous play testing and changes, I know a lot of these are rough and that's why I came to the forum, I really wanted feedback because I am struggling with what I want from this game. Thank you for everything.

Sure thing! Have fun!

Ah. Okay, so just getting rid of the to-wound roll. I'm still a little unclear. To clarify, you basically just have to stack more damage on the unit than they have total hitpoints, at which point the unit dies, right? But you can remove a single model to keep the unit alive provided that subtracting the model's Toughness from the total Damage done would give you a result that's lower than the original hitpoints of the unit? Either I'm misunderstanding something big time, or the bit where you remove a model is very confusing. Do you recalculate the unit's total hit points to factor in the reduced number of bodies? Maybe I'm just failing at reading tonight, but I suspect this might be overly complicated.

Yeah, updating the squad total toughness brings problems. Honestly, going more through this and just the fact that its hard to grasp, I think its just bad. It sounded really good in paper but it just seems like such a hassle, especially for something that you don't want to deal personally.

Do you plan to use initiative for anything else? I'd be reluctant to add a stat back into the game if it's only used to determine the cost of a stratagem that you may or may not use on your opponent's turn.

No I wouldn't be using it for anything else.

Many players did not like initiative because it basically just meant they had an extra disadvantage against a bunch of armies. For instance, marine players could find it annoying that eldar basically got to chop up the marine units without any retaliation from the marines. Or worse, necrons and orks basically always had to take all the enemy attacks before they were allowed to swing unless they were specifically facing other initiative 2 armies. So it was kind of a feels bad rule. Plus, it made balance a smidge more tricky because you had to figure out how to value melee units that may or may not have to absorb some extra casualties before they make their attacks. Using orks as an example again, you could pretty much count on losing an extra body or two even if you were charging guardsmen. But you would lose even more bodies before you swing if you went against an enemy unit who was decent at melee, or you might lose nobody at all before swinging if you were charging necrons. Or in an even worse case, maybe your ork squad finally finished crossing the table and is down to its last few boyz and a nob. You finally get to charge the enemy... only to have your squishy fungus lads killed off by the tactical marines and their chainsword sergeant's slightly lucky rolls.

Basically, were I in your shoes, I would ask what it is I'm hoping initiative would add to the game and whether or not it's worth the resulting problems, work, and extra rules players would have to remember.

That makes alot of sense. I mean story wise it make sense but I can see how you feel for the rule. Also paying 2+ cp would be extreme as it adds up. Against an Eldar army, you would have half of your reactions than normal and that would feel bad.

Apoc kind of gets around this by having you activate big chunks of your army at once. So even if it takes a while to physically move all the models during an activation, you only have like, threeish activations per player per round. Also, that game encourages the use of movement trays and has a streamlined set of rules for attacking to really speed things up.

I read a little Apocalypse and I really like some of the rules, especially the activation. I might go down that road.