View Full Version : Psychology and pining

25-10-2008, 17:15

Going through the thread about superiority of WH40/FB over each other I saw many stated that WHFB has ruleset than WH40k. Thats my opinion too. In fact IMHO WH40k has crap game mechanic, but awesome models & background that recompense flaws far more.

OK What disappoint me most is lack of modifiers and oversimplified psychology (to the point of oblivion - except of HTH resolution). As I've tried to talk about modifiers (cover saves as in WHFB and ASM equal to AP) but topics always were turning into blame war how ballistic armor should work. Never mind that now.


Consider that game is design to be fun. Not battlefield simulation, at least fair close to but not too close. In addition I have never be in army and nobody was shooting at me (Emperor protects! :D) so my ideas are based on movies, novels and epic. I believe, right now, psychology influence is too limited, units have far too high Ld but failures are quite unbalanced.

OK - end of talking - my proposition:

Shooting should be more stressing. For an example - new DoW2 trailer, after first casualty sergeant scream TAKE COVER! In most movies when firefight break out soldiers are taking cover at first (company of brothers, black hawk down etc). Cover is important factor, instinctive behavior to hide against what we cannot evade.

If particular unit suffer casualties from shooting is forced to take pining test. If fail have to instantly flee 2D6 to the nearest unoccupied (no enemy in 12" inches) piece of terrain providing cover or get to ground. Such unit cannot move in its next moving turn and shoots as if moved (even if its on the ground and actually not moved at all). Casualties above first one modify Ld test by -1 up to -4. Weapons that have pining special rules gives additional factor -1.

Unit already in cover have to take test as above but without modifiers for casualties. If fail it does not flee, but in its next turn it cannot move and shoots as if moved.

Another solution:

Particular unit is forced to take as many armor saves as it has members. If one armor save fail unit is called to take pining test (with result as above). Modifiers would be -1 Ld for twice armor saves as the squad strength, -2 for triple and so on and so on.

Flaw of above - big units (CSM squads and orkz) are almost impossible to be pinned and thus to be stopped.

Game impact:
* shooters can prevent enemies movement - literary engage them
* cover is even more important
* even one lucky shot can cause full terminators squad to hide

I haven't tested that, cause may playing group is to busy to play from month or two :(

Bear in mind it is my opinion about imperfection of WH40k mechanic. If you want to say that current state is good as it is thats OK. Instead of, I would like to hear (read) constructive criticism, evaluation and another examples of improvement game psychology.

OK! Lets discussion begins!

25-10-2008, 20:17
I belive that Epic rule set is a much better basis for the 40k rules than WH !

I agree that moral and supression should feature in 40k.
And that simple comparisons of stats , and modifiers could result in much simpler INTIUTIVE rules , with much more complex game play.

A simple simulation of modern warfare,adapted to suit the 40k universe, makes more sense than the current mutated simulation of Napoleonic warfare with more patches than rules!

Do you want write a new rule set for 40k?


25-10-2008, 20:31
Just home ruleset ;) nothing more. Currently working on rapid fire weapons, cover save as to hit modifiers, armor save modifiers based on AP value and psychology (and squat codex ;P)

I'm an engineer. Mathematical and practical representation of our world is my work and passion. WH40k background drives me even more ;P But anyway highly unlikely GW will hear any of us.

We can only hope that GW will give themselves a break to see some movies, do some paintball battles, play CS (and similar) and drive a tank (in england its legal as long you have bricks (?) on tracks).

OK - judge my idea. Want to hear if its good or need rework.

27-10-2008, 22:23
Hi Sajuuk.
Out of the two ideas , I prefer the second one.If a unit takes as many armour saves as it has elements-soldiers.It takes a LD test for pinning.Each failed save -1 LD.

Fire density causes supression, so larger units ARE harder to supress than smaller units.
(WWII Russians overwhelmed German MG positions by shear weight of numbers.)

Lots of folk have tried to make 40k more of a wargame for years.
In the end most decided to write a new rule set .It was easier than re-writing Napoleonic rules to suit modern warfare!
(I am also a mechanical engineer, I have worked on advanced ballistic weapon systems for over 12 years.I have played over 40 different game systems, historical and fictional.)


28-10-2008, 20:15
Hmm... interesting comment. Hope you don't mind if I use your opinion for test? ;)

BTW I'm a metrologist in aerospace propulsion. But I'm not so old hkhmm.. I mean experienced like you :D

Now I'm going to work on rapid fire weapons, because I feel its wrong how do it work now.

Anyone want to comment my idea or share with his/her?

28-10-2008, 23:14
Hi again.
What dont you like about the rapid fire rules?
We prefer to use the 3rd ed rule:-

If stationary may fire 1 shot up to full max range.
Or 2 shots up to half max range.

If moving may fire 1 shot up to half max range.

Or if you want to get radical, change weapon definitions to -
Assault weapons used in close combat.
Small arms weapons used in fire fights.
Support weapons , to extend units target capability.
Fire support weapons , to give fire support capability.:eek:

And give weapons Ant tank and Anti personell values like Epic...

I am old, I am allowed to wander off at tangents.:D

Tell me what you dont like and I can sugest some alternatives from other games systems...


29-10-2008, 20:23
Hello again lanrak

I don't like uselessness of the rapid fire weapon. At 12" (current) you're at charge range. Even if I'm playing SM I found bolter to be secondary weapon of the squad. Most damage is done by heavy weapons when ratio is about 1:8.

I just hate to admit to myself that its (statistically) better to assault at 12" than shoot double. And most battles (two chaos players, one nid, one ork and me - blood angels) are determined by swords, fists and teeth ;) with some heavy weapons run-up. We are quite skilled at using covers, maneuvers and so on. Usually at third turn 90% units are involved at hand-to-hand combat or have no target to shoot at (due to HTH combat).

What I feel is 12" double shoot is to short to be really effective and one shoot at full range not enough and forcing being still.

In my (and my gaming group) subjective point of view it would be good if rapid fire weapons could shoot once at full range if moved and double if remained still. But that would make some weapons obsolete (like storm bolter on terminators) and could lead to backward move and fire tactic. What do you think?

BTW I don't want to remove rapid fire weapons. They are necessary.

29-10-2008, 23:37
HI .
I see where you are coming from.
Unfortunatley this is a symptom of GW current 40k development trend.

I take it you would prefer more of a modern warfare simulation? Well any real solution would require an alternative rule set and game mechanics.:evilgrin:

How about grouping all the units small arms into one area effect?

Treat as the units small arm fire as a blast weapon
5''dia ,range 24 Str 4?
And lose 1'' off effective range per casualty.
(Storm bolters could be fired seperatley with special-heavy weapons.)

Used with the fire zone mechanic from SST perhaps?
Measure to the centre of the target unit, and take casualties from the closest models.

If you dont like this idea I can suggest some more...:D


30-10-2008, 04:10
The challenge I see in changing 40k's rules specifically is that part of the background and army design is close combat. Unfortunately it's just not a major part of modern warfare. So the problem comes in trying to make 40k more modern in its rules - you effectively remove the importance of close combat and thus remove a lot of what makes 40k 'cool'.

If you can somehow make it modern AND retain close combat as a valid tactic then you are on your way to an excellent replacement.


31-10-2008, 18:50
HI Hellebore.
When I said 'modern' I was refering to basing the rules set on WWII type actions.
And Close Combat Assaults featured heavily in this conflict.
The only way to take some objectives was close combat assaults.

THQ made DoW(40k) and CoH(WWII) with very simiar game play.Both were well recived PC games.

I belive the OP was asking for supression and out flanking assaults to be brought into the 40k game.

To quote a WWII sergeants tactical aid.
'The 4 Fs'.

Find the enemy,
Fix the enemy (with supressive fire).
Flank the enemy .
Finish them !(Close Assault.)

If you idea of close combat assault in 40k is each trooper squareing up to an oponent and fighting a private duel.Then NO way do I agree with it .

However if you think close combat assault in 40k is throwing grenades, firing from the hip as you charge into melee and finish off survivours with riflebuts/bayonetts etc, then this IS a valid and useful tactic in modern type warfare, and I can totaly agree with its inclusion and equal importance to ranged combat.

I if a rule set had a simple fog of war mechanic , and rules that allowed for supression and neutralisation (shaken/stunned) from shooting on all units , not just vehicles.
We could actualy use real world military tactica , and have a 40k wargame.(Rather than a 40k dice rolling game.:D)


01-11-2008, 10:48
Welcome Hellebore! Hello again Ianrak

First ;) I play blood angels successor chapter. I couldn't imagine WH40k without brute hand-to-hand combat. But current rapid fire weapons - i.e. small arms - doesn't represent their purpose. Why oh why any early handguns developed into modern assault rifles, or WWII ones. Answer is simple - to give user a chance to keep their enemies at bay. Right now its quite hard.

When an enemy comes into 12" its far more better to assault than try to rapid fire. Especially if an enemy chose to come so close he/she is going to do something else than shoot ;) Then I have a dilemma - fire double or charge and take +1A bonus for me. In most cases second option is more logic (statistically) - even with standard tactical squad. Maybe if I were playing IG maybe I would be choosing firing.

And yes - I would love to have an option to prevent enemies movement (by suppression fire). Then, as a bonus for good shooting, be able to safely outflank enemy positions with close combat dedicated units and smash them down.

BTW. Yesterday I was teaching a new guy rules of WH40k. During it I had a chance to calculate my ideas of suppression fire. Right now it developed into: particular unit has to test pining if it receive hits equal or more than it has models. Casualties would modify Ld by -1 per each.

02-11-2008, 14:30
HI Sajuuk.
Il give you supression idea a whirl , next time I play 40k.
It seems like the most logical and simple way to inject supression into the 40k game.


Kinaes Ethyn
06-11-2008, 09:33
Hey Saajuk,

I'm a Fantasy Player... sorry for hi-jacking but love the Psychology/pining/suppression ideas.

A friend and I are working on our own set of rules for our home games.

Would love to borrow your idea.

We have everything from adverse weather conditions:
( affecting visibilty, movement, ranged attacks etc).

Hex Tactics:
( Used in our campaign based game. From pre-preparing an allied Hex to
house defensive structures such as Palisades, trenches etc. To traps like spiked or concealed pits).

Lord/Hero/Champ/Unit development:
Victories earn development Points and characters/unit can buy Tactics/strategies for themselves.

Sliding morale scale:
Which is amazing. A borrowed idea. Which replaces combat res/ld.
Will need modding a bit to fit our interpretation.

Scenario Triggers:
A predefined structure which kicks in when certain circumstances occur.

Again, your ideas are ace... would fit our home games a treat!

06-11-2008, 17:12
Hey Kinaes Ethyn

How could I mind if you use my ideas. Feel free to do so but please, share you opinions after some tests :)

Good luck!

Kinaes Ethyn
06-11-2008, 17:53
No problem.

Shoudn't take too long to implement.