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.

Okay.. I was reading through the Bring Back Overwatch thread, when something that intrigued me came up..

 

Posted By Nurglitch on 01/31/2007 1:26 PM
You don't need an explicit Overwatch rule to have overwatch situations in a game. One way of doing this is using a different turn sequence while leaving the rest of the rules the same.

The Turn Sequence w/Implicit Overwatch
1. Roll Initiative (winner decides who is A and who is B)
2. A moves units then B moves units.
3. A shoots with units then B shoots with units.
4. A assault moves units then B assault moves units.
5. Resolve assault combat.

 

Posted By Buoyancy on 01/31/2007 1:37 PM
I'd suggest going to a WEGO system of some sort, where there is a movement phase, a shooting phase, then an assault phase.  Resolve all shooting and assaults simultaneously so that models are only removed at the end of each phase.  The order that units take part inside of that phase would be determined through an initiative roll of some sort.

Take it, I havent been playing 40K for long. But, I've been watching people play 40K (and other TT games), and I've always kinda disliked the stocky urn-Based system. True, it is a turn based tabletop game and everything, but its always seemed so rigid and.. unrealistic, really (yes, 40K is far from realistic, I know )

Myself, I think this would far lighten up the game. As I said, that just might be my view, seeing as I havent been playing for long, and the rigid structure atm might grow on more experienced and veteran players.. But, this just seems far more interesting to me than the current structure. A faster army would be able to move faster, ofc, and shoot faster, whereas strong albeit slower units would be able to weather the storm better and still return firing and blasting away. It just seems more like a Real-Time Battle, and not just an off-timed series of events..

As I said, thats just me.. what does everybody else think? I might have to bring this up with some of my gamer-friends, see if we can incorporate something like this into the business.. Would it even work in application?

(Credit to Nurglitch and Buoyancy for the above quotes. Hope they dont mind.. )

I think it would be much better.

I also like the idea of activating a single unit at a time (resolving its move, shooting and assault) - then the other side gets to activate one unit, etc.

But your idea seems that it would simulate the flow of battle much better, actually.

The only thing is that it might make it *very* hard to catch units in HTH. "My marines move 6" towards your stormtroopers" "Ok, I move my stormtroopers 6" away from your marines". It would give a huge advantage to fleeting and 12"-move (or 12-charge) assaulters.

Bringing back the 'double-move if you don't shoot' rule would probably be necessary. But then fleeters would need some advantage. Maybe we just need different movement rates for different troops.

Hey, we're getting back to 2nd edition again!

I suggest going and playing a few games of Crossfire. Aside from being a really dynamic and fun game it'll give you some ideas about how to break out of the "rigid" turn structure of the sort that Warhammer and similar games use.

http://crossfire.wargaming.info/]

You also might want to check out the old Battletech rules, if you can find a copy of them somewhere, since they are pretty decent for small scale tactical battles.

Or the new classic battletech rules that have been compiled. They've fixed some things, but it's still the same exercise in accountancy.