View Full Version : simultaneous shooting

20-05-2007, 13:32
not exactly but currently during assault both sides get to fight
how would it work, if at all, if in the shooting phase the in-turn player shoots, and then the out-turn player unit that was shot at gets to shoot back at the unit shooting it. (units that were not shot at would not get to shoot back)

20-05-2007, 13:45
Since that amounts to a free turn of shooting for one side, it's not terribly helpful. Armies like Tau with long range basic weapons could almost ensure a turn of shooting all the time whilst denying return fire thanks to their extended range.

20-05-2007, 14:03
if the tau shoots first and outrange their target, that is a benefit of range, which i think realistic

but otherwise if you are shot at wouldn't you want to shoot back?
thus the thought that only units that are shot at gets to shoot back, and only at the unit shooting at them.

20-05-2007, 14:07
well in close terrain like cities of death to balance it out a choice to suspend your shooting phase untill after the enemy has shot but before they assault would be more realistic

Mr Zephy
20-05-2007, 14:23
Since that amounts to a free turn of assault for one side, it's not terribly helpful. Armies like Tyrranids with assault troops could almost ensure a turn of killing enemies all the time whilst denying return fire thanks to being in combat.

Whoops, i seem to have misquoted you somewhat...

20-05-2007, 17:08
Those of us with shooty armies would like a rule like that alot. It would balance out the fact that we can die in assault in our own turn.

20-05-2007, 18:40
Whoops, i seem to have misquoted you somewhat...
The game is already balanced to allow for this, though. Those 'nids still have to travel the whole distance to reach you before they can assault you - shooting can be done across the entire board. Casualties from shooting are removed immediately; if two units in CC strike simultaneously, and one wipes out the other, you'd have to leave them on the board through a turn of shooting, despite them being dead. Shooting, on the other hand, doesn't require initiative, relative BS and what have you.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
20-05-2007, 18:51
Those of us with shooty armies would like a rule like that alot.
would we? or would this bit:

(units that were not shot at would not get to shoot back)
mean that we'd never get a shot off against a short ranged/assault based army? :confused:

~ Tim

20-05-2007, 19:40
how would it work, if at all, if in the shooting phase the in-turn player shoots, and then the out-turn player unit that was shot at gets to shoot back at the unit shooting it. (units that were not shot at would not get to shoot back)

It would require the addition of another stat on the statline: an Initiative analog used for shooting. Otherwise the retaliation-shots wouldn't add much variety to the game - I'd shoot twice (at the end of you turn then the beginning of mine), then you'd shoot twice (at the end of my turn and the beginning of yours), then I'd shoot twice, etc.

Or you could make each unit's shots alternate: if it's your turn, then you get to pick one of your units to shoot first, but then the enemy shoots next with one of his units, then you can pick another of yours, etc. Basically I'm looking for some way to break the IShoot-IShoot-UShoot-UShoot pattern.

And I have mixed feelings about only allowing enemy units that are fired upon to shoot back. It does give a nice bonus for concentrating your fire, but it's just bizarre if you view it in terms of fire suppression - the guys who are getting hit with laser beams every time they peek out of their trench are the last ones who should be able to fire. It's good that it would add *some* aspect of fire suppression to the game, it's just that doing it in a suppress-enemy-fire-by-not-shooting-at-them way is kinda :wtf:.

You could go the opposite route - any enemy unit that has been fired on this turn is busy taking cover and cannot shoot back this turn. That way you have an incentive to target the most important enemy units first, and the game has less chance to be dominated by a single uber-unit (since a 2nd-class unit will get to fire twice as much!). If you really want to mess things up, you could make the rule go both ways - if it's your turn, you better fire *now* with those broadsides, or they won't be able to fire at all. :p

It could be fun, but would completely imbalance the points costs of different units as they exist now. :(

21-05-2007, 05:16
If I'm getting this right it seems to be like the active/reactive structure from infinity. Each player gets a turn, during the active player's phase he can pick targets while the reactive player fires back at the unit that is shot (quite a bit like how assault works currently). Thus everyone gets a chance to shoot. It may or may not work in the 40k rules though it would require quite a change in the system. It works well in Infinity because the system is based quite a bit around it, in 40k it would need some reworking to fit well in my opinion.

21-05-2007, 06:37
I would like to see everything done simultaneously, in a way similar to Battletech. For those that are not familiar with that system, you roll off to see who has to move first. They then move a unit and then you move a unit. If you outnumber the enemy by 2 to 1, you move 2 units. All shooting is done simultaneously. All you would do is add the assault phase where you would move guys again according to the initial roll to see who moves first. This in my humble opinion would go a long way to getting rid of the first turn advantage.

21-05-2007, 07:14
If you want to shoot in the other players turn, the easy way of doing this would be to get the overwatch rule back.

22-05-2007, 01:49
Overwatch needs some adjustment though. As many people can attest, it was too often abused. But the idea is a nice one, and gives you some tactical flexibility.

Gorbad Ironclaw
22-05-2007, 05:10
Part of the problem with overwatch was that people played it incorrectly. I know we did at least. There were restrictions to it and plenty of ways to get around it. Although it could lead to dull games at times.

22-05-2007, 08:16
Overwatch was actually quite a good rule when you took into account that you got penalties to fire at models going into/coming out of cover and modles only had a 90 degree field of view (they could not turn and face during your opponent's turn). This meant it was best used as a last resort against flanking forces using cover effectively. The downside is that you gave your opponent the initiative and if he moved his troops in a direction you didn't anticipate then you've wasted overwatch (or if you split fields of fire then firepower was decreased greatly).

In addition to that you couldn't move in your turn (a no-no for many armies that relied on mobility) except for turning. All one had to do was get a skimmer or two in cover, get behind the overwatching unit and unleash a pop-up attack on it (RW landspeeder with a HB and AC would tear the squad apart at close range). Accusations of the abuse of overwatch are simply myths carried on by players who simply couldn't think of a tactic to get around it. If it made a return I would be quite happy as it really was a blow to the tactical side of the game when it was taken out.

22-05-2007, 12:09
which is why i thought that reactive shooting was much simpler a rule to use than overwatch

1. you can only shoot out of turn if shot at, and then only at one of the unit that shot you
2. no heavy weapon can shoot
3. if you are pinned you cannot shoot back

The Song of Spears
22-05-2007, 16:04
Reactive shooting? i dunno, maybe if there was a overwatch rule or some such...

But i think the best way to deal with it would be to combine turns.

Shooting is done in the shooting phase, by both sides, who shoots first is according to maybe some shooting initiative stat or maybe base initiative. Or maybe simply back and forth, one of yours shoot, then one of mine, then yours of yours, etc etc...

The last seems simple enough to eliminate the first turn advantage and at he same time simplify the game by eliminating separate rounds. Because at the beginning of each round, i move one you move one, then i move one etc, till all moving is done, then i shoot one, you shoot one, i shoot one etc. till all shooting is done, then on to assaults similar to moving... with the first turn roll being simply who gets to shoot first, first round, next round the other guy starts off the moving/shooting, then the following round you start off the moving/shooting and so on...