PDA

View Full Version : Running, Hiding, Overwatch



MaraudingMercenary
21-01-2006, 01:40
As an 2nd Veteran, I'd like to have my three favorite rules from that time back, without changing the 4th too much. My biggest concern of course is that the rules would be unfair and bias the point values, making my buddies not wanna play it.

The rules would be simple like this:

Running: Instead of shooting and/or charging, every Infantry Unit may decide to run an extra 3" in the Movement Phase and will eventually get a marker as a reminder.

Hiding: Every infatry Unit that does not shoot, charge and didn't run can hide at the end of the turn, if it is in suitable cover (meaning that at least 50% of the enemys LOS on the model is blocked). Hidden units can't be shot at, unless using a guess weapon. Hidden units will be detected as soon as they fire a weapon,move, or an enemy model comes in the distance of its Initiative*3.

Overwatch: Any Unit that does not fire a weapon, though it is allowed to, can decide to go into overwatch. It can fire during the enemys moving phase. If it is then firing at a unit which just emerged from cover, that unit will get a +1 bonus on its armour/cover roll.


Of course there are a lot of details to work out. Thats why I'm posting it: did anyone try similar rules yet? My first concern are Tau models with jumppacks. They should get protection against the overwatch, as they pay extra for their ability to move fire move (grrrrnnsnarl!!) And armies with tons of guess weapons will have an advantage fighting hidden units.

So if anyone tried things like this please post how it went.

IncubiLord
21-01-2006, 02:39
I tried to write up a decent version of Overwatch for 4ed, but it got little interest. Feel free to take what you like from my thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21477), it's dead anyways.

Also, you forgot that your running rules hurt fleet models...

EDIT: Oops, you're IN that thread. Sorry.

sulla
21-01-2006, 06:19
Running: Instead of shooting and/or charging, every Infantry Unit may decide to run an extra 3" in the Movement Phase and will eventually get a marker as a reminder.

I dunno. Some models like terminators, obliterators, the great unclean one don't look like they should be able to run and jump packs, hoverers or flyers should already be moving as fast as they can don't you think?


Hiding: Every infatry Unit that does not shoot, charge and didn't run can hide at the end of the turn, if it is in suitable cover (meaning that at least 50% of the enemys LOS on the model is blocked).

Should models in brightly coloured clothing/armour be able to hide? Possibly... but what about models that look like they wouldn't be able to crouch... Y'know; terminators, wraithlords and wraithguard, talos etc.


Overwatch: Any Unit that does not fire a weapon, though it is allowed to, can decide to go into overwatch. It can fire during the enemys moving phase. If it is then firing at a unit which just emerged from cover, that unit will get a +1 bonus on its armour/cover roll.

I was never a fan of overwatch as it discouraged movement in the previous game. Yours may work better, I don't know. You should playtest it.

DV8
21-01-2006, 07:20
Overwatch was never really fair if there were no modifiers (-1 for soft cover, -2 for hard cover, -1 for long range, +1 for close range, -1 for fast target, -1 for appearing out of cover, etc etc). Bring those in to balance it out and you'll have to bring in modifiers for every other rule in the game. Then you're back to 2nd.

I think 4th works just fine the way it is. If you love 2nd edition rules so much, go play 2nd edition, as the rules were geared for overwatch, hiding, and running (something which 4th is most definitely not).


DV8

MaraudingMercenary
22-01-2006, 18:49
IncubiLord i saw your thread and posted sth. bout 2nd ed. on it

the fleet models could get the absolute bonus of 3inch too, leaving them with an only relative disadvantage. of course, running is not necessary on a 4'6' table that much.


hiding would be somthing stationary, where the whole body is covered by an obstacle. it's just taking into account that the way a mini is modelled is not the only way a mini could stand on the table - so there is no reason to not have on neon-pink models. with termies etc. thats hard, but i dont want to change anything specifically for one model and mess up the points, so those would have to be included.

the only modifier 'm using is one that should replace the one your mentioning: -1 for appearing out of cover. the others in 2nd. didn't apply especially for overwatch, so why should i put them in? of course the modifier would be cumulative, so being fired at by a unit in overwatch while running through woods in chameloin would give you a +2 save...


finally, i would switch back to 2nd. today, if i could convince my tau enemies though... ;)

IncubiLord
22-01-2006, 18:52
If the enemy runs away from a fleet model, they're much harder to catch now than they were without the rule.

Shoot the tyrnaids till they're close, then run away for the rest of the game

Commissar von Toussaint
22-01-2006, 19:32
I spent a lot of time trying to think of ways to get running, overwatch and such to work with 3rd edition and eventually I just came to the conclusion that it was easier to fix 2nd than to modify 3rd.

MaraudingMercenary
22-01-2006, 22:40
So now did you get on with the point values for 3rd.? To convert the stats. is not a big problem, but i dunno if some units will be better of concerning the stats...

colhodg
27-01-2006, 21:12
We have played a 6" run move for most games of 3rd/4th ed, it works on big boards but blows holes in most of the scenarios with set deployment.
Models starting close (18"?) to the enemy shouldn't be alowed to run either or assault starts to get daft (ie not happen).
You also need to adjust vehicle movement to compansate.

Working out 50% LOS for a unit might cause some "discussion" as to whether a unit is hidden. Howabout units within 18" can hide if out of LOS. Outside 18" they only need to be in cover? Otherwise i think hidden rules are a good idea, esp for a patrol type scenario.

3rd/4th ed is easy to tinker with as the rules are streamlined but for me that's it's main weakness and the reason games seem repetitive over time - don't mean to discourage your efforts but there are loads of other really good games systems out there at the mo... (FOW, Warmachine, Starship troopers?)

Commissar von Toussaint
27-01-2006, 21:23
I guess the real question is: "What kind of game do you want?"

If you like 4th and only want to add one or two things, that's one thing.

But when you start adding overwatch, hiding and running, you're changing some pretty serious mechanics.

That means that not only do the points values start to change, you arguably aren't playing the same game any more.

This in turn means few players will want to embrace your conventions because they are so different.

I found that it was easier to look at what I wanted and find a system like that. I realized that 2nd was pretty much what I wanted to play and that simply eliminating certain weapons/wargear fixed all the problems we had.

This in turn made it easy for me to get other people to play because there was a known rule book and the changes were minimal - on the order with what you'd see in tournaments or clubs.

As a result, our group has expanded and not only are we playing a game we'd basically abandoned, we're expanding our armies.

I'm not telling you to drop what you are doing, far from it. I'm just suggesting that you make sure it is what you want to do.

Going to a different system (like VOID, or 2nd ed) means you lose a lot of stuff. Certainly my 3rd ed. models (vanquisher, vindicator, etc.) don't quite work in terms of points. But we found that an easier hurdle that reforming the system.

One thing you can do is break with all rules sets and make up your own. That's what I did with WHFB and its worked out pretty nicely.

It's harder to find an opponent than if I played WHFB, but since I've written stuff down, I can tell people it's simply another game system and most are open to learning something new.

Nurglitch
27-01-2006, 22:16
I guess the real question is: "What kind of game do you want?" It's certainly a real question, but I don't think that's the question that you'd want to ask. It's too vague, for one thing. Obviously, I'd hope, one would want the better kind of game.

A better question, if I may be so bold, would to ask: "How shall you make the game that you want." Rather than a vague question about kinds, as we know that you want to make a W40k kind of game, it asks how you plan to meet those expectations.

If you like 4th and only want to add one or two things, that's one thing.

But when you start adding overwatch, hiding and running, you're changing some pretty serious mechanics.

That means that not only do the points values start to change, you arguably aren't playing the same game any more. A very good point. Whenever you add rules to a system, you're increasing its complexity. Increased complexity can slow down the game, or it can lead to problems in the rules that require more rules to fix. I couldn't fit these sorts of things into Dark Millennium without abandoning the basic Warhammer system. I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible to add these rules to W40k 4th edition. It's just that I found all of my in-system solutions unsatisfying.

This in turn means few players will want to embrace your conventions because they are so different. Now here's where things get interesting, for me at least. People are fine with embracing conventions when those conventions are simple and effective. Effectiveness is a sufficient condition for acceptance, but simplicity is necessary. People in general just don't like things that they find complicated at first glance.

The problem with Warhammer, as I see it, is that it only fulfills a sufficient condition for people accepting it. Not everybody is interested in Warhammer, and the way that it plays. Similarly not everyone likes Poker or Go. But Poker and Go are much more popular than W40k because they are faster, simpler, and deeper. I would claim that the game of Blood Bowl actually has greater mass market appeal than either of the Warhammer games because it is likewise faster, simpler, and deeper.

Some I think that lots of people forget, is that to beginners, to people unfamiliar with miniature wargaming, Warhammer is frickin' complicated. The rule book is huge, the rules are complicated, and the game itself is clunky. Certainly the spectacle makes up for that somewhat, but the spectacle is just window dressing that can be replicated with other games. The game itself has a slow learning curve, and relatively low interactivity with other players (no bargaining, for example).

I find it much harder to introduce W40k to people than either Blood Bowl, Go, Chess, or Poker. It's too complicated and too slow. By contrast Blood Bowl, and a game called Crossfire, are much simpler, faster, and deeper. The faster part fosters more games, and the deeper part keeps people interested, but the simpler part is what hooks people.

Players, and potential players, will embrace your mechanics if they are simple. If they're fast and deep, then players will continue to play them.

I found that it was easier to look at what I wanted and find a system like that. I realized that 2nd was pretty much what I wanted to play and that simply eliminating certain weapons/wargear fixed all the problems we had.

This in turn made it easy for me to get other people to play because there was a known rule book and the changes were minimal - on the order with what you'd see in tournaments or clubs. Now note what CvT did. He took an existing set of rules, roughly equivalent in complexity and speed to Warhammer 4th edition, and made a slight change so that the game was deeper.

Note that the change was simple, and it improved the game. Voila, new and improved Warhammer. (x2) + good. Note also, that this was with all else being equal. If you're going to make a slightly better product for the same price, under ceteris paribus conditions, then it should be competitive. But you'll only be competitive with the next worst thing. Better compared to Warhammer does not infer better compared to other games.

As a result, our group has expanded and not only are we playing a game we'd basically abandoned, we're expanding our armies. But it's worked, and renewed interest in a moribund game. Projecting this trend into the future, for larks, it sets the stage for further improvements and developments as fans continue to develop it.

I'm not telling you to drop what you are doing, far from it. I'm just suggesting that you make sure it is what you want to do.

Going to a different system (like VOID, or 2nd ed) means you lose a lot of stuff. Certainly my 3rd ed. models (vanquisher, vindicator, etc.) don't quite work in terms of points. But we found that an easier hurdle that reforming the system.

One thing you can do is break with all rules sets and make up your own. That's what I did with WHFB and its worked out pretty nicely. True. In fact there's a huge archive of designs you might want to check out: www.freewargamesrules.co.uk