Warhammer 40,000 Edition X

My preference and how I've written the rules for our club's Mordheim games, is a more freeform Activation.

I understand the reasons for sequential phases, but I personally feel it breaks the verssimilitude a little too much. I'd like to shoot and then move, rather than always having to move and shoot. I'd like to be able to kill an enemy in combat and finish my activation somewhere else.

I'd like to see Elements activate diferently rather than the same way each time. Melee doesn't happen at the same time, but at the time it's initiated. The game becomes a little more dynamic that way.

Hellebore

Hi Hellebore.
Do you prefer to allow units to take '2 actions per activation' and list the possible actions.
Or do you list the possible action sets and make the player decide on the action sets BEFORE they take them.

EG do you allow players to make it up as they go along , OR make them think about the forthcomming tactical actions and chose 'orders' for each element apropriately?(Similar to EPIC SPACE MARINE -NET EPIC.)

The other option is to make the players take command checks for each action after the first, to arrive at a semi-variable bound game mechanic. (Similar to Epic Armageddon)

(There are so many options available , I dont want people to miss any of the chioces , due to not being aware of them!)

TTFN

Perhaps the scale of the game can dictate that, Lanrak. I imagine that in a larger battle, it becomes more difficult to change the direction of a unit on the fly, so in a larger game the player would have to decide on both to show the unit committing.

HI Herald of the lost.
COOL idea mate!
For the skirmish -starter game we let the players take 2 actions with thier elements as they activate them.

But as we progress up the scale of game -more advance game, we make the players place orders BEFORE they take actions.

EG.
Command Phase.
Players place order counters face down next to elements.And request off table support, (reserves air-artillery strikes).

Action Phase .
Player take turns alternating activating elements, turn order counter face up and perform the actions .

Resolution phase.
Attempt to rally element on poor moral, plot arrivals.

TTFN

All sounds great, Lanrak. Keep it going.

Lanrak wrote:

HI Herald of the lost.
COOL idea mate!
For the skirmish -starter game we let the players take 2 actions with thier elements as they activate them.

But as we progress up the scale of game -more advance game, we make the players place orders BEFORE they take actions.

EG.
Command Phase.
Players place order counters face down next to elements.And request off table support, (reserves air-artillery strikes).

Action Phase .
Player take turns alternating activating elements, turn order counter face up and perform the actions .

Resolution phase.
Attempt to rally element on poor moral, plot arrivals.

TTFN

Sounds good. Three phases, sort of a Before During and After action. That allows a lot of story building abilities. Some units may use special actions in the other phases to show off their... specialness. You might have a Drop Pod deploy in the Command Phase, The Marines launch their offensive in the Action Phase, and then after scattering their enemies Dig in for a counterattack in the Resolution Phase. Or you might have Warp Spiders deep strike from the warp in Command, Shoot the place up and take some fire in action, and then warp out in the resolution phase. Makes them a bit more ninja. You'd get a phase to do whatever you can against them, but you can't really direct your troops against them. Eldar and the like would really begin to shine as being slippery foes.

Basically you have C1, C2, A1, A2, R1, R2? Players switch back and forth?

I like this. It would allow for strafing runs for aircraft. You choose to strafe in command, they come in for the action phase then after passing through the gauntlet they make their escape.

Hi folks.
The idea is to allow the 3 seperate elements of warfare to be dealt with in a straightforward way.

The 'command phase' could be carried out simultaneously , and results and orders kept secret from the opposing player.
Place orders next to elements, and roll to see if air -artillery support or reserves are available.

The 'action phase', is carried out alternating between players taking it in turns to take a fixed number of actions (2) with thier elements.

The 'resolution phase' would continue to be carried out alternating between players.


What resolution methods do you prefer?

I think we should go for rolling high is good OR roling low is good.
And be concistant.

The 2 resolutions methods I prefer are.

1)Rolling over the characteristic value.(Basic skilll type test.)

2)Rolling over the difference between opposing characteristics.(Basic conflict resolutions.)

EG
1)Moral grade.
All elements have a moral grade from 1 to 8.
To pass a moral test the element has to roll over thier moral grade on a D10.
Modifiers for positive situations-events add to the dice roll.
Modifiers for negative situations -events add to the moral grade.

2)Weapon Damage vs Armour Value.
All weapons cause damage rated from 5 to 15 .(Some weapons get bonus damage determined by dice roll.)
Armour has a value of 1 to 15.

A lazer gun has a basic damage value of 5.
A Raider Pirate has an armour value of 2.
5-2=3.

The Player qwning the Raider Pirate has to roll over 3 to save the it from the lazer gun hit.(A 4+ armour saving throw.)

Just some simple resolution methods that can be used to cover all interactions in a straight forward way.And as its just roll over a modified value OR roll over he difference between 2 values, we could have a lot of detail in the game without slowing it down.

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:

I think we should go for rolling high is good OR roling low is good.
And be concistant.

Agreed, and I think for consistency's sake, we should keep rolling high as the desirable result.

Lanrak wrote:

The 2 resolutions methods I prefer are.

1)Rolling over the characteristic value.(Basic skilll type test.)

2)Rolling over the difference between opposing characteristics.(Basic conflict resolutions.)

I like both of those.

Lanrak wrote:

EG
1)Moral grade.
All elements have a moral grade from 1 to 8.
To pass a moral test the element has to roll over thier moral grade on a D10.
Modifiers for positive situations-events add to the dice roll.
Modifiers for negative situations -events add to the moral grade.

The problem there is this leads to a characteristic that works in the opposite direction of the others. I prefer LotR's courage system where you add a unit's courage value to a roll trying to beat a system-wide value. Granted, this is a further resolution method.

Lanrak wrote:

2)Weapon Damage vs Armour Value.
All weapons cause damage rated from 5 to 15 .(Some weapons get bonus damage determined by dice roll.)
Armour has a value of 1 to 15.

A lazer gun has a basic damage value of 5.
A Raider Pirate has an armour value of 2.
5-2=3.

The Player qwning the Raider Pirate has to roll over 3 to save the it from the lazer gun hit.(A 4+ armour saving throw.)

Are we working with D10 or D6? I'd prefer D10, personally.

HI Herald of the lost.
I was just putting forward some resolution methods for discussion.
The dice we use in the game can be decided later...
If its one dice per interaction, like a moral check then use a D10, or other less common dice.
But if we a rolling 'bucket fulls of dice for an attack per model with high number models in units.
Then maybe using a D6 might be more apropriate?
(And the dice can change depending on the size and scale of the game as we adapt the rules from skirmish to battalion.)

If you prefer using the characteristic as a modifier to the dice roll for 'skill checks' to keep the 'high is good' theme through out, thats a good idea.If we are going to use some modifiers anyway, so if we add the characteristic values as modifiers this follows with the 'common theme'.

If we a re happy with the basic game turn mechanic, and the 2 basic resolution methods?

Perhaps we could look at what atributes we wish to give to the elements (models/units,) in the game.

I think its important to discuss what we want to include , and NOT just put stuff in because other games use it.
Lots of game focus on different areas , and load them differently.
Eg some focus on the command and control aspect , and simplify the combat resolution, other focus on the combat resolution ans simplify the command and control aspect.

So simply 'cherry picking' bits from other games can lead to an over complicated game, or uninsipring game play.
(Or if you are realy unlucky an overcomplicated game with uninspiring game play...cough40k cough. )

Often asking questions untill the RIGHT questions are asked , means its the only way we reach the right answers.

I think it might be important to define the TYPE of movement as well as the distance of maximum movement.
This allows for more variation in how elements interact with terrain types in a easily definable way.
EG
Legs,(L) Wheels,(W) Tracks,(T) Hover.(H)

Heavy infantry L 4.(Moves up to 4 inches on legs.)

Motorbike scouts W 12(Moves up to 12 inches on wheels.)

Meduim tank T 6 (Moves up to 6 inches on tracks.)

Anti grav speeder.H 12 (Moves up to 12 inches OVER terrain.)

Then we can simply list +/- a number of inches for movement over specific terrain type , dependant on the mmovment type in a simple table.(And a I for impassible to this type .)

EG
Terrain type/ Legs/Wheels/Tracks/Hover.
Roads/ +1 /+2 /+1 /+0
Rubble/ -1 / I /+0 / +0
Water/ I/ I / I / +0

We could use general 'terrain types ' and then let the player define the EXACT effect game to game.(As ther is such a vast array of terrain , anything else is a bit OTT.IMO.)

Also then use SPECIAL abilities NOT special rules ,like Amphibious, (A), Dozer blade, (D) Jump pack(J ) to allow elements to ignore certain terrain types, and deliver even MORE more variation.
Eg
Amphibiuos counts water features as open ground.
Dozer blades counts light woods and rubble as open ground.
Jup Jets allow elements to jump over terrain,(Distance and hight restrictions apply.)

I would like (with your help,) to cover ALL interaction in the MOST straight forward way possible.
As this allows for far more detail and depth in the game play.

Are you happy with the basic MOBILITY resolution ideas?
Have you any comment or other ideas on 'Mobility' you want to discuss?

The other areas to discuss are...

Defencive capabilities.

Offencive capabilities

Comand and Control capabilities.

Are there any others I have missed?(Moral and psychology could be covered in the obove capability lisings.)

I know this a bit slow , but it is VERY important to get the foundations right , and allow everyone to input ideas.

TTFN

I prefer D6, simply because I don't have any D10s.

I like your characteristics for movement, Lanrak.

Hi SeaSwift.
IF we are going to use lots of dice per resolution, I agree that D6s are better simply because lots of people have them!
I think if we use ONE larger sided dice,(D10 etc.)for the resolution that is used for the 'unit' , rather than the individual model-weapon in the units.(Buying ONE D10 is not going to break the bank is it?)

IF everyone is happy with the basic movement mechanic outlined above .

Perhaps we could discuss the basic characteristics and interactions we use to define the rest of the game play?

These are just basic outlines for discussion , what we call them and actual values etc can be changed as we develop the game ....

A starter for 10...

Defensive Characteristics.

Stealth. The elements ability to avoid detection on the battle field.(A combination of size, mutability and skill)

Assault Survival.The elements BASIC ability to defend itself in close combat assaults.

Armour/Resistance to damage. How difficult it is to damage the element.

Damange Capacity.How much damage the element can take before its counted as 'out of action.'

Offencive Characterisitics.
Awarness . The elements ability to spot AND identify enemy units.

Assault power. The elements BASIC ability to cause damage in assault.

Rather than list basic weapon profiles then modify them depending on the element using them.
How do you feel about listing the weapon abilities per element?

EG ALL weapon used by the element are listed in its profile under 'Weapons ' and maybe have a standard characteristic profile for ALL weapons?(Removing the 'composite characteristics' from the element -weapon profiles and replacing them with a direct effect characteristic in the weapon profile.)

Name Class Range/Effect/Damage/Bonus effect.
Combat knife . Assault 2"/1/5/-

Laser Rifle . Small arms 24"/1/5/-

Flame thrower. Support TD Temp'./TD Temp'/ 6/ Ignores cover.

Missle launcher. Fire Support.
HE missile. 42"/ 3"dia / 6 / +D6 to supression vs soft targets.
AP missile 42"/1/ 10/ +D6 to penetration vs hard targets.

Name -name of weapon.

Class. Type of weapon.
Assault -basic close combat weapons.
Small arms- basic ranged weapons .
Support- specialised weapons the have BONUS effects.
Fire support - specialised weapons that can not move and fire.(And have bonus effects as above.

Range - effective range of weapon.

Effect- number of models effected or template used.(Teardrop-3"dia 5" dia etc.)

Damage - the maximum damage the weapon can inflict, ( this is modified by the armour /rtd of the target.)

Bonus effect- the special effects of support -fire support weapons.(Extra supression ,better armour penetration, ignores cover , etc.)

Command and Control
Moral Grade.The value added to the dice roll when attempting to pass a moral check.

Command value The value that can be added to off table support requests, moral checks of units in command range etc.

Command Range The area of effect the elements command value on other friendly units.

Resolutions to hit at range , attackers awarness vs targets stealth.
Resolution to hit in assault. attackers assault power vs targets assault survival.

Resolution of damage , weapons damage vs targets armour/RTD.


This is getting a bit long...Ill stop here and let you comment, add ideas and generaly discuss this strting point.

TTFN

So for a unit of Imperial Guardsmen versus a unit of Ork Boyz on a bowling-ball world, with IG player going first:

1) The Imperial Guardsman player would place a counter face down dictating their action next to the unit.
2) The Ork player would do the same.
3) The IG player would perform their first action (movement or shooting).
4) The Ork player would perform his first action (movement or shooting).
5) The unit(s) with the highest Awareness (probably Guardsmen in this case) perform their second action (shooting or Assault). If it is a draw, players roll off and the winner performs the action of all units with the highest Awareness.
6) The unit(s) the the next highest Awareness (probably Ork Boyz in this case) perform their second action (shooting or Assault). If it is a draw...

Hi SeaSwift.

Ill run through this , see if it helps explain it a bit better.
Assuming we are using units in a similar sized game to current 40k.IG vs Orks .

Command Phase.
BOTH the IG player and Ork player place order counters face down next to thier units.(A single order counter per UNIT.Differnt orders can be placed next to friendly units.)

Both the IG and Ork player attempt to request off table support.(Manticore battery, Uge gunz battery , fighta bomma sweep, Valkiries ,etc.)(They keep WHAT units are ariveing and point of arrival secret.)

Action phase.
The IG player goes first,(is the attacker) and turn over an order counter next to his selected unit. that unit performs the actions of the order.
EG 'Advance' the unit moves , then can attempt make an attack, shoot or assault if in weapons range .

The IG unit try to spot a ork boys mob.
The Ork boys mob have stealth 9, the IG unit have awarness 6.
The diference is used to determine the chance of a sucessfull aquisition.(Either using a table or direct subtraction of one from the other.)

As the IG unit spotted a target they may attempt to attack it if they are in effective weapons range .
We assume they are within 20" of each other.Effective range is the range a weapon will HIT the target.(It may not have any efect but it will hit it. )

The IG squad fires 7 lasgun shots (Damage 5) ,
And a frag grenade from thier suport weapon ,grenade launcher.(Damage 6 /3"dia)+D3 supression.
(They can not fire thier fire support weapon , a heavy bolter because they moved .)

The orks then roll saves.
If the orks have an AR of 2 .
5-2=3 the orks need to roll 3+ to save the las gun hits.

There are 2 orks caught under the 3" dia template of the grenade launcher.They need to roll 6-2=4 4+ to save the hits.

3 Orks fail thier armour saves and are removed as casualties.

(I have a simpe idea for supression caused by ranged weapons,Ill discuss later, to add more depth to the game play.)

Then the Ork player select a unit and turns over its order counter.
Advance . The ork player moves his warbikes into assault with an IG unit.

The Ork player has to determine how many ork warbikes get to fight ...as some cowardly 'Umies may have dived out of the way.

The orcs assault power is 12 IG assault survivial is 8 .This dertemines the number of warbike that sucessfuly engage the IG troopers.(Either a table or subtraction.)
Each warbike model will roll to see if it sucsssfuly engages an IG trooper in assault.

IF 4 warbikes engage IG troopers.

Then the Warbikes resolve Damage on the IG troopers.
Warbiker
Weapons
Assault , hand weapon ,Range 2"/ Damage 6 /Effect 2/-

Each IG trooper AR 2 ,6 -2 =4 , so the IG player has to roll 8 X 4+ saves.(Each ork warbiker effects 2 models with his attacks.)
The IG player fails 4 saving throws, so 4 IG trooper are removed as casualties

The IG player and the orks player takes turns selecting and taking actions with thier units.

The resolution phase is when and where off table support arrives,and players attempt to rally units on poor moral .

I hope this helps.

If you prefer to have the actions of the order split up to allow more interaction, would you want this to be done at the army rather than the unit level?

TTFN

Hi again.
I probably over detailed the last post and confused people.

I think the basic structure of command phase- action phase - resolution phase is a good basic frame work to use for the game turn mechanic.

The actual interaction during the action phase can be done is several ways.
If we assume we use the 'order counter' option of determining what happens.

We could go with the Epic SM method of alternating activating units in order prioritised phases.

(Eg players altinate taking actions with units on first fire orders.Then units moveing on charge orders. Then advance orders, etc.)

OR
We could just altinate between players taking actions with units .(Each unit completes its order.)

OR
We could let player A take the first action with all thier units, player B takes the first action with all thier units,then the player A takes the second action with all thier units, then Player B takes the second action with all thier units.


Are there any more methods of alternating I have not mentioned?
What do you folks prefer?

TTFN

Hi agian.
Here are some examples of the alternative activation methods so you have a better understanding of what we could use.(Hopefully. )

1) Activation ORDER PHASES.(Epic Space Marine.)
Player A activates a units on Fire Support.
Player B activates a Unit on Fire Support.
When all units on Fire support order have been activated.
The players alternate activating units on Double orders.
Then players alternate activating units on Advance , followed by Evade then Creep.

Pros.Increases the importance of the order placement, and makes activation follow a ridged structure, an ideal stop gap from ACTION PHASES used in WHFB and 40k type games.

Cons . Makes it possible for one player to take alot of actions without any responce from thier opponent.Good players can easily overpower new-inexperianced players.

2)Alternating unit activation.
(The most common game turn mechanic after army level IGO-UGO action phases.)
Player A picks a unit and takes all thier actions , (dictated by the order counter.)
Player B picks a unit and takes all thier actions ,(dictated by the order counter.)

Untill all units have been activated.

Pros, Easy to implement and straight forward.

Cons, if un even number of units (elements) are used , then suportiung mechanics have to eleviate the difference in lots of small units- compared to a few large units.(This can be very difficult)

3) Alternating Actions.
Player A turns over thier order counters and perform the FIRST action of thier units order (one at a time.).
Player B turns over thier order counters and perform the FIRST action of thier units order (one at a time.).

Player A removes thier order counters one at a time and performs the second action of thier units order (one at a time.).
Player B removes thier order counters one at a time and performs the second action of thier units order (one at a time.).

Pros. Easy to implement and straight forward.
Cons.Requires attaker-defender type balancing or random initiative sequencing to balance the army level single actions.

As I am not very good at explaining my ideas, please fee free to ask questions and post your ideas and comments.

I have outlined a new rule set.NOTHING is fixed in stone.But perhaps a 'overview' of some of the new ideas might help illistrate how they work.(Its a 14 page PDF , JUST a rough outline of basic ideas and mechanics.NO polish at all!)

TTFN