All weapons have an ARMOUR PENETRATION (AP) value from 5 to 20.(Replaces current str/AP.)
All units have an ARMOUR VALUE(AV) from 1 to 15.(Extend vehicle AV down to cover all units.)

When a model is hit , roll a D6.
Add this dice roll to the units AV value.(THE ARMOUR SAVE)
If the total is higher than the weapon AP, the armour makes its save.
If the value is equal or lower the model takes damage

EG an IG trooper with AV 2, is hit by a bolt gun , AP value 6.
The IG trooper saves on a 5+.

This gives proportional saves without additional modifiers.(its just the difference in the stats.)

I havn't looked at grimdark yet, but i think either alternating-phases, or unit by unit type systems could work well. As a matter of preference, i like unit-by-unit systems, as alternating phases still means that leaf-blower situations can occur. I saw a thread recently talking about warpaths unit activation system. Essentially every turn the players would roll for initiative. Player who won would activate one unit, and go through all 4 phases with them (Movement, Shooting, Assault, Resolution), then roll again, and on a 3+ they could activate a second unit, taking it through its phases, then on a 5+, they could do the same with a 3rd. If they fail an activation check, or activate 3 units, it becomes the next players turn, where they do the same. Obviously this system has its problems, but its interesting, and helps to avoid or minimize leafblower situations.

Also feel free to continue complementing that doubling/tripling idea, seriously, its genius.

Eldar Fire Dragon (T3, 3+ Sv) and a Space Marine (T4, 3+ Sv). Not to mention that Toughness and Armor Saves are already somewhat unified, as they affect both shooting and melee, its just the offensive stats that are so complex. But if we go the route of unifying those, how would we represent the difference between a low skill, high strength Carnifex and a low strength, high skill Eldar Autarch? Not impossible goals, but i just don't have an elegant solution that suits such a goal, though i'm all in favor for shortening the statline.

Roll-off D3, whoever has the highest Dexterity has +1 to their roll. Whoever scores higher goes first. If it's a tie, strike at the same time.

However, if we can eliminate all this, we will only have to roll two times to kill! One to hit, one to penetrate. Everything as modifiers? I'm in.

Here is a simple alternative for Assault.
Both players roll a D6 and add their units Assault value.
The highest score strikes first.
(In the event of a tie the highest assault value goes first.If both scores are tied, and both Assault values are the same alternate hits between the models in Assault,.)

a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+

Rav1rn wrote:

However, doing this would remove some of the flavor of 40k, such as Space Marines being a better combatant than a Hormagaunt (being WS 4 Str 4 vs WS 3 Str 3), but the Hormagaunt is faster and has more attacks. How could we represent this type of situation using just the assault stat?

2) One critical factor i'm noticing that is being ignored is multiple attacks. If we want to remove the attack stat from the unit, wed have to represent it another way, such as the standard 40K's having a pistol and close-combat weapon / two close-combat weapons, and then special rules to describe other situations, (such as old-school grey knights True-Grit special rule). But the problems with this are that then how would we represent the additional attack profiles of the likes of Sergeants, would we just slightly buff their combat abilities instead? That would require a pretty sbstantial recalculation on pricing and stats.
And to Dakkamite

a unit hitting on 5+ wounding on 3+ is exactly the same as a unit hitting on 3+ wounding on 5+

This is true for all cases, except for multiple attacks. The difference between these two situations is HUGE when multiple attacks are involved, especially if you multiply that difference by 30 Hormagaunts.

Also, would you guys like to see stealth as a stat used for shooting to beat? or just as a cover system using modifiers on shooting and defense? Personally, i prefer the latter, especially since it keeps the statline as low as possible.

With weapons having stats such as:
Damage
Penetration
Range
Type

Now lets delve into some other topics. Assuming we transition to the "Defense" consolidated stat, and with the changes to the AP system, how do we want to go about representing Invulnverable Saves and Power Weapons?

Power Weapon Ideas: Let them have a set AP value which the normal weapons AP would be added onto, for example, as close combat weapon should probably have better AP than hitting someone on the head with a bolter, let them be AP 1 or whatever value we assign. Power Swords, being an improved version of a standard CCW, could instead have AP 6, which is CCW AP with a power weapon bonus of +5 added, staying true to the idea of modifiers, while not being as schizophrenic about AP3 and AP2 as 6th editions system is. Not really a solution for stuff like powerfists, but maybe a jumping off point.

Invulnerable Saves: Have them be "Anti-AP", so an invulnerable value of 2 would reduce the incoming weapons penetration by 2?
Not really sure about this idea, i think it would make shooting more realistic towards units such as terminators, as normal weapons don't have much of an effect on the model, but a Lascannon would still be a huge threat. It could also represent agility or insubstantiality , so units with only Invulnerable saves under standard 40k (Harlequins, certain daemons, etc) are affected less, while again, using only modifiers over rules and special situations.

What I suggest is that certain units recieve Stealth (x)

We don't need Mobility; all infantry move 6 unless a rule.
We don't need Vitality; all infantry have 1 wound unless a rule.
We don't need Attacks; all infantry have 1 attack unless a rule.
So, most of these stats come under the words under Type.

We can try to merge Initiative and Dexterity.
I don't want to do this but if you want the shortest possible statline then you can remove stealth and rules that "decrease stealth" like a Tank rule instead "increase aggressors Marksmanship."

Very good idea. No really, very good idea. There could also be, for fortifications, "Stealth 1, Fortify 1" Fortify (x) being +(x) Resilience.

What I want to avoid is a stat that is nothing more than "what order the models will strike in in hand to hand"

If we want a more tactical game , then we need more IN GAME choice and interaction in the game play

However, we could have a halfway resolution.Where the amount you fail the save by , is compared to a Resilience value, to determine the actual damage taken?
EG
If what you fail the save by is less than the Resilience value the model is Shaken.
If you fail the save by MORE than the resilience value the model is damaged.(looses a wound/structure point.)

Im not a huge fan of it, since i like using the larger squads of standard 40k

Ready (equipment) Then Move with higher stealth.

Player A Move.
Player B Shoots
Player A Reacts.

Frankly, I hate the army list construction element of 40k. I think that it takes the spotlight away from your tactical decisions on the tabletop, causing the game to be over before its even began, with wars won in the indexes of your army book than on the tabletop. As it is now, I truly believe 40k resembles more Magic: The Gathering than an actual wargame. I see much more in regards to "wow, thats a strong army" than "wow, he certainly used his army to great effect", and rarely see the weaker army come out on top in a game. We also seem to get tons of stuff thats under/over costed or powered this way because theres literally too much choice.

Now I'm really confused, I thought the idea of using USR to supplement simple rules had been scrapped. I'm glad to see that it hasn't.

Combat where everything puts out its attacks and x number of people die? I think some models should be able to get the upper hand.

A super space marine (Dex 10), three regular marines (Dex 5), and a Scout (Dex 4) charge six Orks (Dex 4), two Nobs (Dex 5), and a Warboss (Dex 8)

How many bonus attacks does each guy get?

Why change the assault phase for a reaction phase?
Because it allows more tactical flexibility.SOME unit that are good at close combat want to assault.Others that are better at shooting would NOT assault but shoot.And some units want to move to a better position. (EG towards cover, into weapons range , out of enemy attack range.)

Or we could use the counter system from Grimdark(Based On Net Epic, another of my favorite games.)

As the strategic organisation was mentioned.
He is my idea.

IF the target fails its armour save .
Compare the amount the target FAILED its armour save by to the targets Resilience .

This is a simple roll to target enemy in weapons range .
If successful
Target rolls to save.
If target fails save it takes physical or morale damage.

Your comparative system sounds really cool for determining damage or whatever were calling it now, but i don't see how this is much different from the current charts, though id like to see this way of doing things in action. Idea of having a threshold under which a unit takes physical damage and above which it takes moral damage is a neat idea, and would definitely make morale and leadership have a much greater impact in game, and combined with the shaken, stunned, routed mechanics, would be a very very exciting way of going about things.

I'm not sure what I think about random shooting ranges. I absolutely hate gak like "I'm 24.1 inches away, your 24" gun can't hit me!" but we could really just make it a system where guns have *infinite* range but get less and less accurate the further the target.

And I really hate to keep harking on about it, but if you need movement to be varied, use systems in place to determine that. They use a "Movement Value", which they say goes from 3 (Plaguebearers) to 10 (Dark Eldar Reavers). How much variety and interest would that system really create besides having one more minor element to keep in mind? Heavy/Medium/Light Infantry in the Unit Type (Which is also included), with a 3" difference between each, Heavy 3", Medium 6", Light 9", with different types (Jump, Jet, Bike, etc) would create the same idea with less complexity.

And to adding more "flavor", i'm all for flavor, but past a certain threshold it becomes a problem. It's like trying to set the stats at 1-20 rather than 1-10 or 1-12, you end up with too many possibilities, and feel obligated to use all those possibilities, even for minimal in-game effect. I just don't feel that having a Space marine move 6", an Eldar move 8", and a Necron move 4" would have enough of an in-game effect to deserve a stat dedicated to that

As to ditching attack stats in favor of a multiple attack USR, not really a fan of that idea. I think one of the best parts of 40k is the variety created between troops through their stats alone, before any special rules get thrown on top.

Seeing the Ork Boy, Hormagaunt, Death Company, Daemonette, Bloodletter, and Genestealer profiles all demonstrate their position as powerful close combat units through their number of attacks, even before taking Wargear into question, makes them unique compared to other options.

or you make the standard 1 attack and save multiple attacks for higher level units, which seems like itd be really REALLY bland on a unit by unit basis, which was kinda the whole point of working on a new system, not to mention counteracting the purpose and design of many units.

Mobility as a stat is no different from Attacks and Wounds.

That's like saying Orks and Tyranids don't deserve their own stat, it's easier just to have a special rule.

f Fortitude and Influence is based on Leadership right now, perhaps:

If a model is within 6" of a Character it gains +1F and +1I.
If a model is withing 6" of an Independent Character it gains +2F and +2I.

Players place order counters next to units on good morale.(Units that are shaken/stunned /routed do NOT receieve orders but act according to morale state.)

We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.

EG A las-gun fired by a unit of White Shields has a effective range of 20"
The las-gun fired by a standard IG squad has an effective range of 24"
The las-gun Gun in a Veteran squad, has an effective range of 28".
The units with better shooting skill simply are able to TARGET ENEMIES FURTHER AWAY.
(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)

I put in VP scaling on Common, Specialized and Restricted units just to show how it could be done to set game size.
I do NOT like fidely PV as found in 40k.
NO battle is exactly balanced or fair.
So just broad strokes on army comp , and VARIETY in mission type mean there is no 'auto win' 'cost effective ' list.
You pick YOUR list and learn how to use it YOUR way.

Just a quick thought on unit cards.Do you think symbols on the cards would be better.(As this makes them more intuitive to read, and easier to translate in to different languages.... )
EG
Shield = Armour
Heart= Hit points for organic units.
Gear= Hit point for mechanical units
This way we have a pictoral descriptor , and a numerical magnitude.
Do you think this would make the stat cards more intuitive to read?

When I tried to play that fan variant called inquisitor or whatever seeing that it no longer used basic 40k stats was enough to make me close the pdf and never look back. This is why I've been calling things by extremely basic, utilitarian terms such as MELEE and DEFENSE

THE REASON TO USE STATS DIRECTLY IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF UN NEEDED TABLES/SPECIAL RULES TO SPEED UP PLAY.
We just use the unit cards and that it...No looking up tables etc.
MORE GAME PLAY but with less fuss.

(The roll to hit is base on the TARGETED MODELS STEALTH.)

But if you want to add BS as a Stealth modifier (EG +1,+2,+3,+4 etc, to hit roll)That is an alternative we could use.

(Deff only 'appens once,he would 'appen every day!!!)

Another reason is that by changing those two stats, you start to directly affect how players view their uses. When you see a unit has 2 attacks, players are going to think, "This model is powerful in Close Combat, how can i get it into Melee faster to take advantage of this?". The opponent has to think "That unit is dangerous in Close Combat, how do i want to minimize the effect it will have on my army? Shoot them down? Counter-Assault? Deploy further away from them?"

Idk, just, my gut instinct is that Mobility is great, it's harmless, and although not as much as Attacks and Wounds, it makes an impact on the overview of an army, and adds some flavour.

But a movement difference of 1 inch isn't going to drive home that difference, it needs to be higher, at least 2, more likely 3, inches difference.

Mission Idea; Extraction

There is a spy (or something) lurking behind enemy lines, with something that we need. Your mission is to get in, extract this objective, and get out again.

Nominate a piece of terrain in the back 12" of your opponents deployment zone. You need to get any scoring unit into this terrain, and have it stay there until the beginning of your next turn, to gain (X) VP(s). If you do so, you may then attempt to evacuate the unit from any table edge on your side of the board, including the 'neutral' table edges from any point on your side of the centre. If you do so, the VP gained is doubled.

You gain the first set of VP even if the unit is later destroyed, however, *any* scoring unit that makes it to that terrain, stays there, and then evacuates will get you the bonus points. So feel free to use multiple units, or send a unit in at a later point to get the bonus. However, you only recieve that bonus once, you cannot evacuate the spy multiple times as that wouldn't make any sense!

This mission does not need to be revealed at any point until the end of the game. So feel free to move a scoring unit into a piece of backfield terrain, then try to evacuate him to psyke out your opponent and think he's worth a bunch of points!

Mission Idea; Something you should know

An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.

Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.

If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.

Do these RPS elements add anything of value that simply saying a unit is "Assault 5" or "Assault 10" or even "Really Good in Assault" doesn't achieve much more simply?

I think low skill but fast units can be dealt with simply. Some sort of special rule for high initiative low weapon skill models like hormagaunts; Swift Attack: "A model with this special rule gains +1 Dexterity for To Strike First rolls only."
Or indeed low initiative high weapon skill: Sluggish Strike: "A model with this special rule has its Dexterity reduced by 1 for To Strike First rolls only."

instead, we could also have some "Tides of War" event cards like this that each player draws - in which case there would be no victory points gained.

If we want to take out strength, i dont see why we don't just have strength be a factor of the Melee weapon that model carries.

Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.

Mission Idea; Something you should know

An enemy commander is sympathetic to our cause, he only needs a little... persuasion.

Note down on a piece of paper one of your independent characters, or a squad leader type model (Sergeant, Nob). Then note down a squad leader model (not a IC) in your opponents army.

If at any point, these two models come within 6" of each other, the target enemy model and his squad betray the enemy and join your forces! You also gain a small number of victory points.

but i just like seeing attacks immediately as it makes me see its a powerful CC unit before i delve into Wargear and special rules.

It's the same with me. I like seeing mobility AND the way it varies between armies. It makes me see a swift army from a slow army. You have argued; and I take it. Having one inch or so difference isn't going to make an impact. But I still like it. I believe that Mobility as a stat does add flavour, and it adds it at no extra cost, except for just being a stat.

Strength etc represented with weapon stats

Im all for the command/influence ideas coming out, the ideas taking advantage of them have so much potential that they can't be ignored.

I have faith in it. It has been working splendidly so far, but lemme hear the criticism.

but lets try to keep it from getting into that 1-2 inch difference zone shall we?

As for Close-Combat weapons, how do we want to represent power weapons since the AP system is more or less defunct? Or maybe just drop them all together, though im not a huge fan of that idea.

Also, i just realized this but power weapons kinda filled a nice niche in CC, as they helped you get more efficient at killing high-armor targets while making that upgrade less effective against hordes of weaker units. In fact, the howling banshees and striking scorpions of the Eldar rely on this difference to define their specialties.

I know we decided on consolidating armor and toughness, but this distinction offers the first really important case for separating the two. If we used the upgrade system i talked about earlier in conjunction with Lanrak's HQ, common, specialized, rare system, that plus the included CCW every model carries could let players further specialize a unit using that upgrade point. Do I want that sergeant to have the power weapon replace his CCW for killing MEQ? Or do i want to give him pistol of some kind to get the extra attack to maximize his anti-Melee-Horde strength?

If a model is better at melee, you'll see this because it's MELEE stat will be higher than that of other armies.

I call that Paper Scissors Rock personally.

They're just stronger CCW now

We're talking a 20% - 33% movement difference. Thats heaps!

One interesting idea is that instead of having every unit have an influence stat, why not have only leaders (Sergeants, HQ's, Independant characters) have a command stat instead of a morale stat? That way they still influence their squad and nearby squads, but won't run themselves (they're the heroes after all), and only run when the squad they're attached to runs? Essentially making these hero units fearless?

1 inch isn't enough of a difference, 2 inches is borderline, 3 inches is a distinct difference

To explore initiative more, have all models hit at the same initiative, with a roll off deciding who goes first. But special rules can change this a bit, essentially giving us initiative tiers that dont need a stat, where we start at the highest tier, working our way down, with models at the same tier rolling off.

Models that have a higher Dexterity than the model they are attacking get a number of attacks that strike before equal to the difference in Dexterity.

So a Space Marine charges an Ork. 5-4=1. The Marine gets 1 attack before the Ork.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Rav1rn wrote:
Paper Scissors Rock is a good game mechanic, etc

Yeah ok mate, I am definitely out now.

Wish you'd mentioned this days ago during one of the many times I've said I'm strongly opposed to pretty much everything you just supported, so I could have saved a bunch of time and effort and quit then

Toughness will be back soon, I can feel it. This game is turning into 40k with alternative activations and bigger numbers, a vastly different creature than it was even on page 2. While such a game is not necessarily a terrible thing but not something I feel the need to contribute to.

Good luck guys. Feel free to use any ideas and stuff that I've posted up if it serves a purpose here.

I do not want a system where a whole squad strikes before another; it's preposterous
I want a system that works with multiple dexterities (we scrapped initiative)

Then independent characters can give double bonuses of a character at 6", but normal bonuses at 12", if you know what I mean.

Rav1rn wrote:
Lol i don't mind them, but i do my best to check as often as possible, so they get a bit redundant.

Taking your plasma idea and running with it, for every turn in a row a plasma weapon is used, a roll must be made, with the save increasing by one for every turn that weapon was fired in a row.

Dont like the shut-down idea for it though, could be annoying as that weapon gets really unreliable, and not worth taking.

Run: Instead of shooting, a unit may make another move at half their Mobility.
Charge: In the Assault Phase, a unit may charge at a target within half their Mobility.

When a model moves 5 inches instead of the "standard" 6, does that make you rethink its tactics? Does your opponent have to evaluate it differently when forming a plan? No, its only going to move a maximum of 7 inches less than the "standard" over the course of a 7-turn game

No counters no fuss.

The proportion of 1 specialized to 2 common units and 1 restricted unit to 4 common units is the corner stone of this idea.

When I say counters, ANY sort of marker will do, (A bit of paper with a letter/number written on one side,a D6 when each face maps to 1 of the 6 orders, colored disc buttons etc.)

But allows us to use 1,2,3,4,5,6 directly .TWICE as much variety and no chart!

Reducing the actions per game turn to 2 , and deciding what actions you are going to take is part of improving the tactical focus.
The increase in interaction between units and players will invalidate current strategies anyway.

Proportional Rarity Composition.(PRC.)

Damnit Rav1rn, reply D;

One HQ unlocks 4 Core, 1 Support and 1 Specialist

NOT get bogged down in working out unit competitiveness...

Typically light infantry like Dire Avengers are not the problem, sadly it's the long range stuff that are far too good at taking out tanks and artillery.
Roughly speaking, artillery in 40k has lost it's tactical meaning because they reach everywhere and because just about everything fits the mold.

When people take it in turns to move units one by one, it introduces a WHOLE NEW aspect of tactics. What to activate first and what to delay will be key to a successful mindset.

I still think the points system is concise.

As for attacks, they're like wounds - would you want them in, boring the statline with 1s? Or have them as a special rule?

I am oblivious to Tau and everything about Tau

IcyFireKnight wrote:
Yeah, wait you want me to bring them down to Mk 5? So they hit on a 4+. What exactly do Markerlights do?

Well I think Lanrak's system has been explored, in the form of Grimdark. I think that if we do counters again, we''ll end up not far from Grimdark. Don't get me wrong Grimdark is awesome, it's just I want to try to create something a bit different.

The statline is fine whatever length. In fact, the more stats, the better. When we start trying to shorten the statline we are faced with dozens of consequences, and it's just not worth it.

things like wounds and mobility don't have to be on the Statline to be represented in an easily visible and intuitive way

less space we have for things like Artwork, SPECIAL RULE SPACE

I just want to say...that one or two stats on the statline is going to take up less than a few cm squared? Whereas moving them to the special rules is going to take up more?

Right now I've got no ideas to do with Influence.

If we wanted to preserve this variety using your chart, we'd have to take up more of the Statline values for troops, which would take away from values that HQ's would normally use, and thats where I'd like to see more ambiguity than at the standard troops level, since that Dark Eldar Archon is going to Flay that Guardsman alive just as well as a Hive Tyrant, but the differences between the two is meant to come into play between units of that calibre.

And I see where you're coming from with the chart. I've never met Sisters of Battle. But if you want them to be the tougher combatant then I would bump em up to WS 5.

(with your proposal earlier on this page you had bolters at strength 9? What your scale goes up to 20? )

I'd like to have 2+ show almost certain to hit, and 6+ almost certain to miss, so that vastly mismatched units can show their dominance/weakness while still being to affect each other, while having 3+, 4+, and 5+ be reserved for similarly skilled combatants.

1 point difference = 1/6 chance, it's too limiting

Well if you are going to use a unified resolution chart, is it going to replace modifiers?
Otherwise its just adding another level of needless complication.

(In some historical simulations with things like armour penetration per range band and ammo type , then yes the variety of results needs a table for historical accuracy.)

THE only reason to use a resolution table is to massage results to limit possible outcomes, or to replace modifiers.
(Eg values are summaries of ALL elements of the resolution.)

As I want a much wider spread of results by using stats directly.(1 to 100 if necessary to get the spread of results for an entire universe.)

Pistol: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it gains +1 Mobility. In combat, the model may fire another shot at the its Dexterity. Also, all Pistol weapons have the Assault special rule.
Heavy: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, it suffers -1 Mobility and -1 Dexterity. Also, if the model moves in the Movement phase, it may only fire Snap Shots in the subsequent Shooting Phase.

I think you worded this incorrectly. My chart gives much more leeway for a variety of stat values, because the chances of them are closer together. On a chart like mine, I CAN have 5 different values, because the outcomes are CLOSER together. That's the point. If you make the outcomes FURTHER apart, you can't have the variety.

but what if a unit is at the bottom half of the 5+ comparison between the two units.? That charge bonus wont be enough to pull them out of that 5+ area, so their advantage for taking the charge is no longer an advantage, which would feel pretty irritating.

2 Points difference and then the rest is futile? That IS unbalanced.

If they are at the bottom half of the 5+ area then charging won't give them a bonus, thus the modifier has worked in smoothing the bump. It's hard to understand, but if your unit was 2 points different then you'd play them differently to a unit that was only one point different. So they have been made distinct. It wouldn't irritate the player; they are at a bigger disadvantage being 2 points lower. It certainly wouldn't irritate me, it would make me play them differently.

Ok, now i see what you mean, and thats a pretty elegant way of handling it, I just don't like telling someone "you will never have an advantage for charging" since thats a fairly big part of the game. That being said, lets roll with your chart, i want to see how this distinction influences things, as i see many units becoming much more aggressive while others become a bit more defensive.

My concern is that if we make combat too picky then it will slow down the game

I must admit this isn't a bad idea for once

A laser beam or particle beam passing through air can be absorbed or scattered by rain, snow, dust, fog, smoke, or similar visual obstructions that a bullet would easily penetrate. This effect adds to blooming problems and makes the dissipation of energy into the atmosphere worse.

[Techniques to reduce blooming]: using a very short pulse that finishes before blooming interferes, or focusing multiple lasers of relatively low power on a single target.

I would prefer to simply use Assault values and let the assaults run to conclusion like FoW, rather than add in extra rules for outnumbering etc.

But I thought we were going for minimal rules maximum game play.(Eg 4 times the tactics of current 40k with half the pages of rules.)

You seem to be discussing special rules even before you get the game turn and basic resolution methods defined....

if there's an idea, it'd be good to bring up and discuss it right away, rather than potentially forget it and lose a good idea.

I think Command shouldn't be split. It should be used for COMMAND. Tactics. Strategy. Command shouldn't directly affect assault or ranged fighting, but the core of the fighting.

I was talking to Rabid and I think it's a good idea to split the game into advanced and basic.

I love the idea of a character sacrificing something in order to gain something Bryan…LOVE it.

To see what turn your reserves come on, roll a D3+1. If your warlord has a command value of 8 or higher, you may reroll.

I don't know much about terminators but your changes, I am fully happy with. Loses 2 mobility tho. Power fists are heavy melee weapons, reduce dexterity and mobility by 1. But do tons of damage to compensate3. Also strikes last.

Yeah so you need to move with the slow guy.

Laser weapons, so las, fire prism, all lance weapons, maybe some tau stuff, maybe some necron stuff?

The chances of you getting the turn you want is 5/9. Not bad, but not reliable. The chances of you getting anything but turn 4 (if you don't want turn 4) is 8/9. Very low chance of disaster - your reserves have been intercepted.

Power weapons are obsolete. Replace them with something that actually fits our system.

As for power weapons if we use the weapon types idea, they'd get +1 Power and piercing/force???

It's hardly as much randomness as you say :/

Reserves should be an add-on, not an auto-take.

The chances of you getting the turn you want is 5/9. Not bad, but not reliable. The chances of you getting anything but turn 4 (if you don't want turn 4) is 8/9. Very low chance of disaster

Wanna emphasise on the reality part, 1/9 is FINE to give the extra risk-reward. (think reward, tactical superiority) And the fact that again, anything can happen to those reserves.

Edit: I don't want reserves coming on one at a time.

Now that I know you are a Marines guy I'll figure out some stats for some models - terminators will automatically get the changes you proposed and terminator armour upgrades will modify the user's stats.
Could you post the statlines for space marine stuff?

The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.

But to expand further I need help on the weapon types idea. I'm thinking of two types: Kinetic and Energy. Kinetic is anything physical - bullets, bombs, missiles, shurikens. Energy is everything else - melta, plasma, pulse, laser etc.

Should I move Dexterity to before Marksmanship? Or maybe before Power? Or is it good where it is.
What do you think bikes should do? Imo, for normal bikes: +6 Mobility, +1 Stealth, +1 Vitality. For Eldar jetbikes: +8 Mobility, +2 Stealth, +1 Vitality. This is because I don't think its realistic that bikes increase the riders toughness. I swapped it for another wound to simulate the bike blocking a hit or something.

Also, since the damage resolution is now only 2 steps, I am worried that things will die to easily.
Do you think I should raise the Stealth by 1 for everything? Or lower everyones Marksmanship.

The plan I had been going with was to move everything to the 0-10 stat range. If we move into the 11+ category stats begin to lose some of their meaning. Suddenly terminator armor that would be a 5 by your system would be trivial compared to a trukk. Terminator armor is better than a trukk’s.

I had never though about that. Are you willing to not have any stats go above 10, even vehicle stats? To compensate, vehicles will get more Hull Points, and perhaps make it harder to explode.

What are you thinking for the Bolter vs. Land Raider thing? Unless we are still using the current vehicle damage system If you don't want more HP, then how are you going to assure that Terminator armour is indeed better than a Trukks?

I don't know what these Techmarine things are, I just see a bunch of machine arms on them and stat them appropriately (easier to hit, slower, beefier, another attack from the arm?).

I have a lot on my mind for the distinction, but I can't express it to you since its so convoluted. I was wondering if I could get your unmodified ideas/opinion on it first.

id think something like your laser weapon idea expanded to all energy weapons

id think something like your laser weapon idea expanded to all energy weapons
I think this would be good on melta weapons, but not plasma. Imperial plasma weapons fire a ball of plasma surrounded by a magnetic field to stop it from dispersing, so it's not the same sort of thing.

Rav1rn wrote:
Damage 4? I think it'd be kinda insane for them to be weaker than a space marine punching something.

Edit: nvm retread the chart. Why not just have space marines at strength 5? That would let us open up a stat for things between space marines and guardsman in strength, things like orks, tyranid gaunts, etc, while not actually altering the rolls for anything, as well as firming up the space marine at 5 for every stat.

If you're really into the 5s, 5s everywhere, then we can do that, but then we have to raise command and stealth to average 5, then bearing in mind they'll be M5 which doesn't reflect their power armour.

Shall we say Melta weapons are P8 but gain 1 Power if within half range?

I want command on everyone. If some profiles have another stat but some don't that'll look reaaaaaaaaaaally weird.

Sweet jesus I don't even have excel on this computer. Soz, can you put it in a pdf?

But like I said, since things will die much quicker now, having Stealth as 5 is a balance. Also you want a SM statline to be all 5s, so......?

20 bolters, or 20 bolter rounds? because if it's 20 bolter rounds, that's only ~3 wounds.

i don't want 2 of my Strike Squads to total a vehicle in one turn, even disregarding my psycannons, which let me tell you, can lay down the hurt

Unless there's some really amazing, out there difference between these groups, id say simple is better. For example, that laser idea is definitely worth exploring, and Poisoned has a unique mechanic we need to work into things.

Strike squads are squads of 5 no? with storm bolters I'm guessing? Ok, so 20 bolter rounds goes to ~3 HP. And what do psycannons do? I assume they're meant for AT. 10 Grey Knights with all the add-ons and stuff I'd imagine to be at LEAST 200 points....that's about right if you want to down a 150 point vehicle in one turn.

I don't think there should be a few types that EVERY weapon falls into

440 points or so, but i can do this turn after turn after turn

- Gauss too strong

- What's up with the Boltgun 24" and Boltgun 18"?

- Why are Boltguns better than shuriken catapults -.-

- What would you say Lasguns get 18" P4 A2 Laser (lose 1P if over half range)

- Dire Avengers shouldn't be stronger! We're Eldar guddammit

Why do Genestealers have better Stealth?

- Ork Boy shouldn't have better WS than a Guardian.

- Instead of Scout +1St, I would keep them at St4 but their cloaks amplify cover saves instead

- Tau should be BS3, read mahtamori's comments

In the Secondary Phase a Psyker may challenge an enemy Psyker within 12 x Psyker's Mastery Level to a Psychic Duel. This is similar to combat - the Attacks is the Psyker's current Warp Charge, and the Dexterity is the Psyker's Fortitude.

We should be focused on what makes the system fun to play, not realistic

Scout trainee vs initiated Space Marine, as per Lanrak's ideas

Because you get more shots. I wouldn't mind them being Damage 5, but that could be a bit extreme at 2 shots on some not-expensive models.

The problem with dropping lasgun range is that since guardsman units will not want to move and are slowish, enemy units could just sit outside their range and shoot them all day long

Because they are infiltrating, scout units that just happen to hit like a runaway ice cream van in close combat. Admittedly, stealth 7 may be a bit extreme, but they should be higher than average, maybe higher than even "Stealth average".

a Guardian is more or less just a civilian Eldar pressed into military service, and not an active member of the path of war, where as war and bashing people on the head is not only the only thing orks live for, its what their society is based off of

Again, they're a scouting, infiltrating unit, which means they use stealth. Playtesting will decide it, but im going with this route right now.

Maximum range of weapon is not affected by BS. Potential to hit at range IS affected by BS.

They're fine as they are now, just convert them - same stats as a bolter just without the 24" single shot capability. BTW S4 guns should stay at S4 right now, S5 is for scatter lasers, heavy bolters etc

lasguns are negligible when fired at 24", but decent at 12". That's why I settle at mediocre at 18", strong at 9".

*Bolden words "in close combat". They are just as easy to hit from range, but in combat their WS means they are agile killers.

(Regarding Scouts)Doesn't make them harder to hit in open air. When they use cover, yes they may amplify it

You're right that Guardians are just plumbers sent to battle but they've still got the inhuman reaction's of the Eldar race. Orks, even if they live for it, are just plonkers.

its a battlefield, even if to us it looks like a flat plane. There's wreckage, outcroppings, dust, shadow, hills, valleys, and all sorts of terrain for them to take advantage of that does not have a terrain representative. Plus they're going to do their best to sneak about the place rather than just stomp through it like a Space Marine, so lets show that.

Agreed, which is why Eldar should have "Swift Strike" special rule, while orks have "Sluggish Strike". You're going to hit first, but they are better at hitting, its what they love to do.

No, idk what YOU mean Average infantry value is 4. Average gun is 4. Bolter are shuriken are S4. Las is S3 (most of the time). Pulse and Gauss would be good at 5.

Any ideas for poisoned? I'm all blank.

What's your opinion on splitting WS? I've encountered 5+ situations where dexterity of combat is not the same as hitting in combat.

A plasma round would glow very brightly due to blackbody radiation, leading to quick substantial energy loss. This might also represent a blinding hazard for the operator and bystanders. From basic physics, a 1 cm ball of plasma at 10,000 Kelvin (K) would be equal to a 180 kilowatt (kW) bulb.

Many materials already exist that are highly resistant to plasma, reinforced carbon-carbon used on the Space Shuttle's nose cone for example; or the ceramic inserts used in bulletproof vests.

while i agree with the logic, there needs to be a way to demonstrate faster units and slower units. Necrons may have above guardsman level combat skills, but they are sloooooow. Tau firewarriors may have trash combat skills, but they arnt slow-witted or anything. The idea of giving special rules for attacking or being attacked is exciting and full of potential, but it just feels more confusing than saying this unit is faster than that unit, period. And I can almost guarantee ork players would be up in arms over them not getting two attacks in favor of one slightly stronger attack. And no way would an ork ever hit harder than a space marine. For one, just no, secondly, that ork would be hitting just as hard as a space marine with a power sword under our current system, which is insane, and just as hard as a terminator, which is even more insane.

Have you finalized the suppression mechanic ?As this removes the focus on HAVING to cause physical damage to targeted units.
And would you be better served by defining the overlapping zones of interaction , before scaling the effects?

OR they can state the EFFECTIVE RANGE FOR THAT USER, eg better shots hit target further away UP TO the maximum effective range of the weapon.

Actually Ork players will still get 2 attacks, one being an attack from the slugga. Orks are strong right? They're buff as hell...

best idea i have is for any values equal to or less than the poison value, you reroll that die. So a poison 1 weapon would reroll all 1s, poison 2 would reroll 1s and 2s, etc etc etc

my opinion is against this, but i want to explore it, as it could be just as interesting as stealth and BS, so lets find out ASAP.

interesting, but feels way too involved. Ceramite plating would be bonkers as an upgrade, nowhere do you buy protection from one type of weapon, save invulnerable saves.

how too involved? This is a scenic direction How about 1 point per model. For just 10 points, it's a good deal unless you're tight on points.

yes but that's what made tau pulse rifles so good, was their higher than Boltgun damage. There need to be things between a Boltgun and a Lasgun, just like there need to be things above a Boltgun. And if a space marine is Defense 5, I'd like for the very scary weapons to be wounding them on more than a 50% chance.

well for one, it would have to be costed appropriately between armies, and second, its too situational to expect people to consider seriously, so i dont see a point in even having it.

Also stop nerfing the lasguns O.O there doesn't need to be things between a lasgun and a boltgun, bad guns are P3, decent guns are P4, strong guns are P5.

and outstanding guns are Damage 6, while ridiculous guns are Damage 7

a Guardian is more or less just a civilian Eldar pressed into military service, and not an active member of the path of war, where as war and bashing people on the head is not only the only thing orks live for, its what their society is based off of

Rav1rn wrote:

- Why are Boltguns better than shuriken catapults -.-

Because you get more shots. I wouldn't mind them being Damage 5, but that could be a bit extreme at 2 shots on some not-expensive models.

IcyFireKnight wrote:
I was JUST thinking about that. Ya know Shining Spears? Their lasers are short range...

Laser: A weapon with this special rule loses 1 Power for every 12" away it is from the target and 2 Power if firing through smoke.

............................................Rg...P...A...Type
Lasgun.................................36...4...1...Laser
Scatter laser........................36...7...4...Laser
Ranger long rifle...................42...8...1...Laser
Laser lance..........................12...6...1...Laser
Pulse laser...........................48...9...2...Laser
Lascannon...........................48..10..1...Laser
Bright lance..........................48..10..1...Laser
Prism cannon.......................60..12..1...Laser

Not quite. If you utilize a larger spectrum of stats, there is strong fluff foundation for differentiating the physical stats of an Eldar a human military. Eldar are physically stronger, tougher, more refined and also highly resistant to infection and disease. Their psychology is likewise super-human being highly resistant to mind control techniques such as that from Genestealers and also extremely resistant to corrupting influence from chaos which is further reinforced by the path system.

What do you say to this? High Dexterity, along with Nimble Fighter makes them skilful at combat, but still sadly P3. At shooting, Mk 4 reflects their sub-standard training.

Bolters should be P4. As for a Marine punch being stronger than a Bolter round...don't think there's much to do about that, unless we want to make everyone's Power one less, to emulate bullets being stronger than punches.

Bolters should be P4. As for a Marine punch being stronger than a Bolter round...don't think there's much to do about that, unless we want to make everyone's Power one less, to emulate bullets being stronger than punches.

Sniper: If a model has a weapon with this special rule, any wounds it causes are doubled. Also, all Sniper weapons have the Heavy, Rending and Suppressing special rules.

Splitting WS into two parts - like Marksmanship and Stealth?
Plasma having the chance to blind nearby targets?
Morale?

- For example, take a Dreadnought. In combat its Weapon Skill could be 5, but its Dexterity would only be one.
- A Plaguebearer could have a WS of 4 but have a Dexterity of 3.
- A Marine (don't hate!) might have a WS of 5 but a Dexterity of 4 (big armour)
- Whereas a Guardian could have a WS of 4 but a Dexterity of 5.

I dont see why you couldnt just have the really powerful weapons (Pulse rifles, Gauss) be a 6, since we've already said 6 is a rare troop stat, and have bolters and other "Strong" guns at Damage 5, "weak" guns at Damage 4, and weakened lasguns at Damage 3. This would preserve the current way that the Very high power guns damage space marines much more easily on a 3+, Boltguns injure a space marine on a 4+, and weaker units on a 3+, while the weaker guns damage a space marine on a 5+, and weaker units on a 4+ or 3+.

im not sure that there would be enough variety to warrant the differentiation

I still think having initiative tiers defined by special rules will be the way to go for striking order.

Their obvious and straightforward names, like Ballistic skill and Stealth.

Spoiler:

Also, before i forget and lose this idea, id like to radically alter what a tyranid prime is. Id much rather have them be a MASSIVELY customizable model, beyond just about anything else in the codex, instead of an upgraded tyranid warrior. Fluff-wise, say they are a class of mutable leaders that the hive-mind and norn-queens are constantly adjusting and evolving, at a vastly accelerated rate even compared to other units, to better fit the current battlefield and enemy, and maintain as a distinct entity similar to a hive tyrant.

This way, the player can choose to improve them in any way imaginable, from making them an upgraded Warrior, to a mini-hive tyrant, to a super-broodlord, to a pseudo-lictor. Players start with a relatively cheap base model, and then can improve stats, grant special rules and special weapons, ranging from rending claws and scything talons, to bonswords, lashwhips, poison and adrenal glands, movement bonuses, extra wounds, higher toughness through armor or metabolic upgrades, wings, guns, psychic powers and mastery levels, and everything else imaginable. Essentially, the player would be able to access a modified version of what we as designers would have available to design units and price them accordingly. Obviously the player would have to pay slightly more for every increase than a formula would call for, otherwise they would be a bit too good.

I know it's too busy, but it's as balanced as ever. Ever had it where you're hitting on a 5+, and on a 6+ your shots are rending? Exactly, that's why "on a 6" cant work for everything.

I think your bias is showing a little bit, although Marines have very good all-round stats, Boltguns are supposed to be the average gun. If Boltguns wound Marines on a 4+..well then 10cm thick armour isn't doing its job huh

Remember we don't want whole squads hitting before the other squad. In an ideal world, I would do a D3 roll-off for every model, but that would take too long.

The statline shouldnt get out of control. I'd say around 12 stats is a good point to finish at - just look at how much information you're conveying with a simple letter and number. Like I said earlier the more you can fit on there, the less info you have to put elsewhere (up to a point).

if we wanted to go pure fluff and logic route, Bolter rounds would almost never penetrate Power Armor, as in BL novels, they can often take dozens of bolter hits before weakening enough for a space marine to actually be wounded by Bolter rounds. The fact is we need marines to be able to kill each other fairly efficiently, since there are so many of them, and the odds of two marine armies facing each other is so great. And even if you put Bolters at Damage 4, they'd still be wounding a great deal of units on the same values as they would be at Damage 5.

why not? I've yet to see an outstanding mechanic of doing this that isnt incredibly slow, and since most units will be homogenous with the exception of leaders, thats going to be the situation anyways.

why not? I've yet to see an outstanding mechanic of doing this that isnt incredibly slow, and since most units will be homogenous with the exception of leaders, thats going to be the situation anyways.

And on that note, i question splitting WS since we could use nearly the same Argument to split Defense into Toughness and Armor, and damage into Strength and Ap.

that's flawed logic, sure they're rending on 1/6 of all possible outcomes, but they SHOULDN'T be if it's gonna be 50% of the time they hit. E.g.

Whole squads hitting before the other? OP and unrealistic...

With soft cover (+1 stealth) they would be hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's thats 7 shots, just under 2 wounds.

I agree, but i don't know of a simple alternative.

As for it being unrealistic...again, we should not be trying to capture realism, we should be trying to capture fun and engaging, and i havn't seen a system that allows for models to trade blows realistically that doesn't slow everything down to a crawl.

Edit: Also, having started playing with new WS and Dexterity assignments, i would probably say you could raise terminators up to 8 Defense, which means they're approaching vehicle level armor, which starts to help that point from earlier about Terminators and the Trukk.

As of yet, rapid fire is allowing a second shot if you didn't move.

Remember you can't get your whole army into something like area terrain, there's always going to be things out in the open.

It seems like you're discarding reality altogether. Just because you don't know how to make it realistic doesn't mean you immediately resort to the closest and easiest thing. Having your whole opponent throw their attacks at you before you can even make a single swipe is NEITHER fun NOR engaging, but certainly "frustrating".

Sure, as long you put them at some low Dexterity like 3, akin to Tau..

but your system is too complex, if very solid and thought-out, but we need a third direction.

using my own units to provide cover for other units

And you still havn't addressed how to have largely homogeneous units trade blows unevenly without slowing things down. If you have a system that does this, i'd be very interested, but i dont have the slightest idea of how to accomplish it.

COM == N/A

Integrating the old damage roll (weapon destroyed, immobilized, wrecked, exploded

maybe some Universal Special Rules

Imagine Guardians were -3BS.
Do any shots still hit?

Now that I look at it I feel like we should up Stealth by one. Because:
1) There is more room for Tank Stealth
2) Just now I was thinking, it's a bit off that you can get Rending shots on a 5+ if you normally hit on a 3+.
3) Previous stated reasons of needing to nerf shooting a bit so things don't die so easily
4) Marines like 5s

using my own units to provide cover for other units
Any ideas for how we can change this? It's neither "realistic" nor that tactically engaging.
For shooting through your own men, I've kinda thought that on a 4+ one of them steps in your line of sight, so you lose a shot. Is that good?

Each player rolls a D6; they may assign Strike First attacks to the highest Dexterity models in their unit equal to the difference.
I quite like it, but maybe instead of the highest Dexterity models it can be the closest models?

It would dishearten me a bit if 90% of models didn't have a Command stat. And having it like a ranking system would be quite cool, although your "orders" idea can't be implemented like this, because that means the slightest change in Command would mean a massive boost in..everything. We should aim for the variety first, and then flow around that.

Fleet - A model with this special rule adds 1" to its Run and Charge distances.

Sharpshooter - A model with this special rule may reroll failed To Hit rolls in ranged combat.

Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.

I would rather see something like a distance modifier when it comes to tanks, something like for every 12" away from the firing model, the vehicles receives a +1 to its stealth value. This way they are MASSIVE targets close up, but more difficult to hit further away, but not overtly so. For instance, a Land Raider could be stealth 1 base, but at 40" away it'd be stealth 4.

As for the Vehicles damage results, i was thinking of looking for a way to ditch the roll altogether, and have the damage roll determine effects somehow. Maybe have for every point above the necessary value to glance, you move up a slot on the damage chart, so a glance would take off a Hitpoint, but 1 above the glance value is shaken, 2 points is stunned, 3 is weapon destroyed, etc etc. Far from a final idea, but its a direction id like to go.

Feels a bit weak, maybe have models with fleet be able to run without using a command point, be able to assault after running by using a command point, and/or a movement buff.

LUDICROUSLY overpowered if this is going to be assigned to common units, plus having leaders use a command point for a re-roll type situation might make this redundant. maybe have it work like lance but on infantry, they never count a models Stealth / Defense as being higher than a certain value.

Yeah but that means Res 12 Land Raiders are gonna be indestructible

You know how if you're within half range target gets -1 Stealth? Well I know. If you're over half range target gets +1 Stealth. Easy.

I am approaching cautiously with this command point idea, you know if for example running didn't take up a command point then suddenly you might be able to move run charge shoot or something like that...For something of that reason, I wouldn't like a Command stat to determine how many actions something can do. That should be universal.

And I'd rather have the general rule for halving be round down, rather than round up, since i feel if you need to make a special case where you change the rounding, it feels much better for it to be an improvement rather than a penalty. Also, since 40K players are used to having 6" moves as standard, i think changing that would frustrate players at the very least, potentially even turning off many players, for no real benefit in return.

How?

And rounding down because thats whats used now, and i personally like it. But its the second part of the quoted section i worry about.

combined with the new PRC

I'd rather not have the command stat, or any stat, to represent how many commands you can give, because from what you're saying, it could be extremely overpowered and slight changes in command will be devastating/devastatingly good.

Support: This turn, one unit member may reroll failed To Hit rolls (this will probably be the missile launcher or something).
Inspire: The unit gains +1 Fortitude when making a morale check until the end of the opponent's next turn.
Take Cover!: The unit gains +1 Stealth until the end of the opponent's next turn
Hasten: This turn, the unit Runs and Charges +1".
Escort: One unit member (except Characters) gains Safeguard (4+) until the end of the opponent's next turn.

Maybe Independent Characters can have more of these commands, but also unique ones.

Take Cover!: The unit gains +2 Stealth but suffers -1 Dexterity and may only fire Snap Shots (-4BS) until the end of the opponent's next turn.

I would just have Character (Command 2) then, in the commands have the range (just like psychic powers), because some commands don't have range and just affect his unit.

Also, do you want there to be a "command test" like a psychic test?

. For these kind of squads, the commands are the same, they have a 6" point-blank area of effect range (bubble) - this means that if your squad is cheesily spread out, then some of the models might not hear the order.

For stronger leaders like veteran sergeants or autarchs, they might be able to choose from a better pool of commands.

Cool idea, building off of it, there are some orders that take 2 or even 3 command points to issue?

Yeah. Any ways to make it a bit different from psychic powers?

You know how psychic powers have a risk - psychic test/perils, well commands don't have to have this risk, but instead have the risk innate to the actual command. So really, all the commands are bad, except in certain situations.

Commands are made at the start of the Primary Phase. They last for one turn.

Suppressed
Neutralized
Dispatched

I think we need to decide how we want to activate orders after we get a semi-finalized list

I especially like Empty the Mag!, thats just awesome sounding with a cool mechanic behind it, but -3 BS might be a bit too extensive, maybe -2 BS, or even a range reduction too.

Let's Roll! feels like a muted furious charge, so id suggest it be some sort of mobility order with the morale bonus, because 1" difference isn't going to affect things enough. Make it 3", you might have something there, since you'd be doubling the run distance of a normal squad.

As for take cover, i feel like this is going to become the new going-to-ground mechanic, so i like it. Otherwise, if going-to-ground is still something seperate, id suggest making it a -1 BS modifier instead of -2.

I'm not sure we've gone over the morale changes in enough depth, so lets hit that next along with orders/commands, Cool names though, but i don't know if dispatched fits very well.

I'd suggest having to order them first thing in the turn, because some of them don't allow you to move. Think of commands similar Grimdark's command phase

Thank you :> The reason I put -3 BS is because the system could be well-exploited (in a good way) to squads that may be entering combat soon, or squads that are about to die.

Does that mean you want me to make it stronger? I'd like to keep the Strength boost because its a command that gets people swaggered up and gorilla-like. How are we going to balance it? How about a Weapon Skill decrease, for all their Ork-like rage?
Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility, +1 Strength and -2 Weapon Skill. It may not shoot.
Since charging scales off 100% Mobility, +2M would be +4" move. I think a whole 6" is a bit too much.

The reason i suggested adding in a range penalty is for exactly that reason, some armies like orks would be minimally affected by such a penalty, and as such might just go ahead and fire away with this order, since they can maximize their shots for minimal penalty, so a range penalty such as may only fire within 12" would make sure that this is a last ditch about to be killed order.

I thought charging scaled like running, at 50%? And if this was the direction this order took, it would always be used when you wanted to charge an enemy, which isn't really fitting with the idea of the orders. I think something like a quick sprint from one piece of cover to another would make more sense for this order, so something like +2 Morale and +2/+3 Mobility, not allowed to shoot or assault.

As for morale, i liked one of the idea's that we brought up way back in the day. If you lose 25% of a unit, you have to take a morale check, and take a permanent -1 morale penalty. If you fail the morale check, you are shaken, and can move OR shoot, and to get out of shaken status you must pass a morale test on the next activation. If you lose 50% of a unit, you have to take a second morale check, and receive a permanent -2 morale penalty. Should you fail this check, you are considered stunned, and may only respond to assaults, and must pass a morale check next activation to get out of stunned status. Should a unit fall below 75% of its original size, the unit takes a permanent -3 Morale penalty, and must take a morale test. Should they fail this test, they are routed and flee towards the owning players side of the table.

Giving them stronger commands is more than enough to encourage players to move to better commanders.
As for command points, I will ask you: do you want commanders to be able to choose from lower pools of command? And will that mean the worst pool will cost 1 point, the medium 2, the better pool 3 etc?

I think 3 Mobility is a bit much, because that would scale into 5/6" extra. Also, if they aren't charging they wouldn't have their morale raised that much.

I don't think we really need a range penalty, I still want to make the mechanics as real as possible; when people are asked to unload their magazine, they would go nuts and fire away, losing a lot of their precision. And obviously they'd have to reload next turn.

Well, in the secondary phase, you can either run or charge. If you just run it's half your Mobility, if you charge it's all your Mobility.

Let's Roll!: The unit receives +1 Fortitude, +2 Mobility. It may not shoot or charge.
I think 3 Mobility is a bit much, because that would scale into 5/6" extra. Also, if they aren't charging they wouldn't have their morale raised that much.

I'm just thinking, with a clear mind: Suppressed and Neutralised have nothing to do with morale! It just means they're pinned down by fire. Falling back means they've lost morale.
This means: do you want a failed morale test to always be fall back? People can start off with a high morale but lose morale according to how much of their squad has died. So the more people that have died, the more likely it is for them to fall back.
This also means that suppressed and neutralised will only happen as a result of massive amounts of fire directed at a unit. It has nothing to do with morale! This would also create a tactical dimension of focussing fire on a few key units to temporarily suppress/neutralise them. What do you think?

I think 25/50/75% divides it up too much. Even in a squad of 10, they're only going to be falling back with less than 2 men, which kinda makes the routing mechanic obsolete (if it's only going to affect squads that are all but dead anyway).

Yes but we cant just stick to realism, because then we run into situations like Orks right now with snap-shooting, where they may as well run and shoot since it has very little effect on their ability to hit, while it is a massive penalty for the likes of Eldar, Necrons, and Space Marines.

I like the idea of tactical focusing of fire not only to kill someone, but to make them unable to hurt you, is great, but it needs to take a substantial amount of fire, i dont want the first squad to fire to suppress the target immediately. Also, maybe an order that lets someone press on and charge despite suppression, because i dont want a lucky activation phase to completely shut down a charging unit too easily.

That mob of orks doesnt care about how many bullets are coming at them while they charge, neither does that hormagaunt squad, or a squad of fearless death company marines.

We should adhere to realism, because that is what we want the game to be right? Realistic? We should try and fulfill that as much as possible.

Yes, I think this means while Orks and Tyranids have terrible morale and so can fall back easily, they can't get Suppressed or Neutralised easily.
How about a level system where your commander has a Command Level. Each level grants you access to another command.

it suffers from the same irritations as Snap-shots right now, in that i can have a big squad of lootas moving around and firing ungodly amounts of str 7 shots at 36" range, for virtually no penalty, which would be incredibly frustrating, especially when you add suppression on top of that.

Love the names of Target Acquired!, Focus!, and Into the Fray!. Really cool names, any ideas for mechanics behind them?

To top off your list of orders, maybe make the last 2 choices out of the set of 12 (the 2 highest level orders) be army specific? Idk, could be hard to do or not really suitable, but i think itd be interesting.

Target Acquired!: The unit receives +1 Ballistic Skill. It may not Split Fire.

Yes it's a factor, but it shouldn't be a factor. As in, you shouldn't be drawn to those commanders because of their range and their ease of use.

they killed enemy models and probably locked down a key unit, so they've served their purpose. You can't have a defensive order that can be used offensively like that

I LOVE Arise! Thats a really cool order to use in this system, especially since it looks like it'd be restricted to the highest level models.

Is the suppression special rule just something that lets you suppress units more easily? Sort of a pinning special rule deal, where if you wound a model in the unit, they immediately have to take a suppression test? Could be OP, but well see.

Medic! is way overpowered, people would abuse this to no end. I would run this order over and over on my terminators. Maybe have it be feel no pain or something, but even that's problematic, since FnP(5+) would be crazy strong, while FnP (6+) would be overlooked and not worth the order.

Giving Seasoned Marksman to a unit that takes Focus! seems like its going to cause tons of problems. Yes its a high level order so it'd be harder to abuse, but imagine giving that to units like snipers, rangers, missile launcher devastators, pathfinders, etc. They are going to annihilate anything they set their eyes on, and i don't want the game to devolve into commanders stuck to heavy firing units because they maximize damage that way, and will be slaughtered by the opponents commander in a big scary shooter squad.

I'm still hesitant about putting a strength bonus on Into the Fray! because if that stacks with Furious Charge, its going to unstoppable. Getting a +2 Strength bonus on the charge means that you can potentially go from a 5+ to a 3+, which would put the hurt on anything. I'd say keep the strength bonuses in special rules and not orders, because otherwise your devaluing Furious charge on one side and massive buffing it on the other.

Feels a bit weak for how high it's supposed to be, and as for may not split fire, does that mean you agree that that could be done instead of issuing orders? along with the re-roll idea?

Why? We need a way to show that more expensive commanders are actually better than cheaper ones

And i'm still not on-board with a command stat at this point, its just not something that couldn't be done more smoothly with a table or chart rather than a stat.

It's supposed to be used as a last resort, people would rarely use this just because they can.

Moving with a Heavy weapon means -3BS

Wait, you know that this is what the special rule actually does:
Seasoned Marksman - A model with this special rule may allocate any wounds it causes in ranged combat however it wishes.
It's just giving precision shots .__.