40k: dark millenium

[Torga_DW]

Hi all, work has progressed on my ruleset and its at another stage where i feel it can be presented. I've managed to playtest it (blood angels vs minions of tzeentch), and with some minor tweaks, it seems to be in a good place. Play testing will continue.

I'm fairly happy with the core ruleset, although you'll notice a couple minor things still need to be finished. You'll notice fluff at the beginning, my eventual plan is to have fluff in each army book too, but as of yet it remains unstarted. This is my take on the fluff of 40k, and you'll notice slight differences at some parts.

Liber space marines is also very much completed, although i haven't yet added the option for black templars. I also need inspiration for the ultramarines (priority) and the dark angels. My army is blood angels, so i have no problem there, but i want all the chapters to stand out as viable choices.

Liber chaos is a monster, but i've got the demon and chaos marine side of things done. Just need to add in the traitors and mutants (which affects alpha legion and word bearers to some degree). I've tried to make the mark and legion system both good and viable for all choices. Mark of Nurgle could probably use some work, but i lack ideas at this point.

Liber imperial guard is ready for playtesting, i've already made some minor tweaks based off writing up an army list for it. But its passable enough at this point to be played. After starting with marines and chaos, it was a breath of fresh air how small their options really are in comparison. But i've gone back to doctrines, which i think mix things up on their basic grunts.

Liber Tau is still a work in progress. I've included it for interests sake, but i'm not sure you can play a game with it yet. On a side note, it really shows the support for the different armies when you compare tau (and to an extent imperial guard) to say space marines.

The event cards are still a work in progress, although nearly at a playable form. I intended to have rare, uncommon and common cards to play during the game. They're not mandatory, but i believe they will add to the gameplay. The trick is balancing utility and effects with balance, as we don't want another virus outbreak on our hands.

Finally, i have plans for 'Agents of the imperium'. You'll notice imperial guard are lacking certain options (which i felt didn't belong in the core army list) such as sanctioned psykers and tech priests. Agents of the imperium will not be a self-playable army list, but more a list of allied forces you can take in your space marine or imperial guard list to mix things up. Grey knights, inquisition, tech priests, assassins, etc. will all go in here.

So i hope this is an interesting read for some. After playing the initial games, i will never go back to standard 40k. But thats just me. I hope you like my take on the grim darkness of the far future.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
Its obvious you have put a lot of time and effort into this, and it is a well presented set of documents.

However , to assess it properly , could you tell me what are the goals of the rule set?

Its just the level of over complicaton in 40k, seems to have crept into your rule set.
(This could be intensional to make it identifiable as '40k advanced'.)

Could you clarify the game turn please.
Is it players alternate taking ONE action with each unit untill they have taken an action with ALL units.And this is one game turn?

(I may have mis understood.)

Its just alternating unit activation can magnify the imballance caused by uneven number of units on each side.(Making balancing armies more difficult.)

Anyhow, if you want some objective critisism (after posting your design goals .) I would be happy to post up some questions and alternative ideas.

All in all a exelent piece of work that needs a few tweeks here and there to the resolution methods.
(To reduce the amount of overcomplication IMO.)

[Torga_DW]

However , to assess it properly , could you tell me what are the goals of the rule set?

Hi lanrak, thanks for replying. My main goal was to capture the feel of 40k, mainly 2nd edition but also the best parts of all the editions. But i also wanted to go further, something i don't think the management of GWplc allow in their designers. Hence things like using D12s for more scope of variation.

Its just the level of over complicaton in 40k, seems to have crept into your rule set.
(This could be intensional to make it identifiable as '40k advanced'.)

I'm aware of the complex/complicated problem. I haven't intentionally made it complicated, but then it might have crept in as i also wanted a fair amount of options to be possible. I haven't noticed any major complications during the playtest, but then i'm also probably too close to the design to be objective here.

Could you clarify the game turn please.
Is it players alternate taking ONE action with each unit untill they have taken an action with ALL units.And this is one game turn?

Player A and Player B roll of for inititiative. Player A wins and chooses to go first. He then chooses a unit and performs an action with it. Player B then performs an action with one of his units.

This continues until Player A runs out of units, at which point Player B makes actions with the rest of his units.

Then special effects, such as morale and/or medics are resolved.

That is a complete turn, and players roll for initiative again in the next turn.

Its just alternating unit activation can magnify the imballance caused by uneven number of units on each side.(Making balancing armies more difficult.)

Yes, i see that. But i'm not entirely sure what to do about it. On the one hand, it'll always be a factor when one side is significantly larger than the other. Any ideas on what can be done about it?

Anyhow, if you want some objective critisism (after posting your design goals .) I would be happy to post up some questions and alternative ideas.

Certainly, i always welcome constructive criticism and feedback.

Thanks again for replying.

edit: typos

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
Using D 12 to allow more variation, and allowing a wider chioce of actions for units IS a good idea!

However, in some places you seem to have used parts of multiple resolution methods instead of just one resolution method that gives a cleaner and more straight forward system.

EG Movement for example. Appears to be a cut and shut of 2nd ed and 5th ed .

Movement modifier AND Dangerous terrain tests, movement values AND random dice rolls.

I think the basic idea of you system is great!(EG 2nd ed 40k developed PROPERLY to allow for larger battles, with well defined and intuitive rules.)

But some of the mechanics-resolution methods could be refined a bit.

Game turn mechanic ....
How do you feel about using alternating phases/actions?

EG
Players A takes ONE action with ALL thier units.
Player B takes ONE actions with ALL thier units

This can be 'Set Phases' like LoTR.
A move
B Moves
A shoots
B Shoots
A assaults
B assaults.

OR you can use orders (similar to what you propose.)
Player A takes the FIRST action of the order with all thier units.
Playter B Takes the FIRST action of the order with all thier units.
Player A takes the second action of the order with all thier units.
Player B takes the second action of the order with all thier units.

I tend to use the simplest and most straight forward
game mechanics and resolution methods I can , to keep rules writing and confusion to a minimum.I like things simple so I can under stand them.

EG alternative ideas for mobility rules ....
ALL units have a speed value.(Sp) This is the MAXIMIUM distance the unit can move when takeing a movement action.

All units have a movement type.
Legs (L)
Wheels (W)
Tracks(T)
Hover (H)

EG
Standard infantry Sp L4"
Ork Buggy Sp W 12"
Landraider Sp T 6"


(A terrain table shows a basic guide for how types of terrain modify the speed of units crossing them, based on MOVEMENT TYPES vs terrain type.
'+/- X inches ', 'I' means impassible terain for this movement type.)

This gives us detailed information about units mobility, and how units interact with different terrain type on the battlefield.

And we can add Special movement abilities for specialised units.
Amphibious(A) - counts water features as open ground.

Difficult terrain mod (D)- counts scrub-light woods -rubble as open ground.

Jump Jets.(J) allow unit to 'jump over' interveening terrain.(Max jump distance x")

I tend to look at real life interaction to base game mechanics -resolution methods on.So I can arrive at intuitive game play.

Special abilities can be covered by :-
1) Modifying a dice roll.
2) Allowing a re-roll.
3) Ignoring ONE condition.
'Special rules' that contradict invalidate the core rules should be avoided like the plague,IMO.

(40k is very counter intuitive in lots of places due to backwards compatability issues. Your new game should NOT have to suffer this! In most of the wargames I play the rules are far less complicated than 40k, but the game play is far more complex.)

Anyhow.
Ill sugest some alternative ideas , so you can pick what you like best for you game.

[lanrak]

Hj Torga_DW.
ANOTHER game turn alternative.(Based on Epic Space Marine.)

The game turn is broken into 4 phases.

1) First Fire.
Units with First Fire order can make a ranged attack.(May fire Heavy and ordnance weapons as the unit remains stationary.)

2) Charge.
Units with Charge orders can move up to double speed towards enemy unit ,and intiate assault if the chargeing unit moves into BtB contact with an enemy unit.

3)Advance.
Units on advance may move up to thier speed value , and make a ranged attack OR engage a unit in assault if they are in BTB contact.

4) Withdraw.
Units with Withdraw Orders move between thier speed value and double speed value away from enemy units.

Players altenate activating units on;_
first fire orders ,(Red)
then charge orders,(Green)
then advance orders,(Blue)
then withdraw orders.(Yellow)

Because unit activations are spread across the 4 phases, it helps reduce the inballance of large differences in the number of units on each side.(It worked realy well for AT and Epic SM.)

Is it ok if we discuss game turn mechanics until you get the one you are happiest with?
(Then we can look at other stuff a bit at a time ?)

[Torga_DW]

Game turn mechanic ....
How do you feel about using alternating phases/actions?

EG
Players A takes ONE action with ALL thier units.
Player B takes ONE actions with ALL thier units

Can you explain what effect it would have to activate all the units at once compared to one at a time? There would still be a discrepancy between units with small armies compared to large armies i think. Not saying its a bad idea, just looking for information so i can make an informed choice.

The idea behind my individual unit activations was to keep the players involved in the game. One thing i've noticed with 40k is that during a player's turn, you can pretty much go for a beer or a smoke while that player is doing their stuff. With my system, it keeps both players concentrating on the table, with the minimum period of time necessary to switch back to the 'other' player. At least that was my intent, but it seems to work during the playtests i've done.

This can be 'Set Phases' like LoTR.
A move
B Moves
A shoots
B Shoots
A assaults
B assaults.

This is an interesting phenomena i've noticed with just about every game i've seen. I collect rulebooks as a hobby, to see how different companies go about making their games. And i've noticed that (with sometimes small variations), they almost all follow this system of turn resolution. move shoot assault.

But i don't see the reason behind it. It assumes that in a turn, each player will perform 3 different actions with their units. Sometimes a phase will be skipped entirely as no-one is performing any actions in it. Which made me wonder of the necessity of it if it can be skipped so easily. And then (40k example), to make the phases more (busy? interesting? i don't know), you can do things in the phases that they weren't designed for. Like run in the shooting phase, jetpack moves in the assault phase.

My system is based along the premise of a couple seconds (ingame 'real time')going by in each turn. There is enough time to do one thing, but within that context you can do anything permissable. Can you clarify why the defined '3 phase' system works better? I'm not opposed to it, i just don't see the point of it.

OR you can use orders (similar to what you propose.)
Player A takes the FIRST action of the order with all thier units.
Playter B Takes the FIRST action of the order with all thier units.
Player A takes the second action of the order with all thier units.
Player B takes the second action of the order with all thier units.

I actually started out with orders. It was what i liked about the old epic: space marine. Thats largely why actions have corresponding order dice pictures. I even bought a pack of plastic shotglasses and spray painted them all black so that you could assign orders in secret.

The thing i found though, was that it greatly slowed down game play. I needed a phase to assign orders. And the thinking ahead aspect seemed to bother some people as they would give orders only to find that they couldn't make a meaningful action with their unit. It started to feel more like the game was playing itself, as opposed to the players playing it. Again, thats not necessarily a bad thing, and certainly (to me) more realistic (since thats pretty much how battles are fought these days).

But for the moment, i've scrapped the concept. Any ideas on how to make it work better?

All units have a movement type.
Legs (L)
Wheels (W)
Tracks(T)
Hover (H)

EG
Standard infantry Sp L4"
Ork Buggy Sp W 12"
Landraider Sp T 6"

(A terrain table shows a basic guide for how types of terrain modify the speed of units crossing them, based on MOVEMENT TYPES vs terrain type.
'+/- X inches ', 'I' means impassible terain for this movement type.)

This gives us detailed information about units mobility, and how units interact with different terrain type on the battlefield.

I can see where having individual locomotion types could be useful, but doesn't this add complication to the game? First a side note, we'd have to add snake-like body thingy as a movement type for tyranids like trygons and raveners who don't have legs.

Then you have to keep track of different units (and what if units that have different movement types, such as a bike commander joining a tactical squad) vs the type of terrain they're in. Then you need to organize the different difficult terrain types (woods are different than craters, which are different to ruined buildings).

In my system as it stands now, terrain is either difficult to move through or its not. Its either dangerous to be in or its not. The particulars of how a unit moves through it doesn't strike me as important enough to add another layer onto the game.

And we can add Special movement abilities for specialised units.
Amphibious(A) - counts water features as open ground.

Difficult terrain mod (D)- counts scrub-light woods -rubble as open ground.

Jump Jets.(J) allow unit to 'jump over' interveening terrain.(Max jump distance x")

Certainly i can add amphibious movement. I neglected it based on my meta, which has no water features.

I have bulldozer blades in the item sections of the libers, but maybe it would be better to add them to the core rules instead of being written out individually here. I'll add that to my list of things to do.

Jump jets are largely represented by the ability to fly. I also have teleport, which doesn't make a big difference really, but i thought should be included for things like warp spiders and wraiths.

Special abilities can be covered by :-
1) Modifying a dice roll.
2) Allowing a re-roll.
3) Ignoring ONE condition.
'Special rules' that contradict invalidate the core rules should be avoided like the plague,IMO.

I can see your point. The problem is i'm not sure how to represent certain abilities using your 3 rules here. I'll give it some thought, if you have any ideas i'd be interested to hear them. This is a very 40k area for my rules at the moment, i'm just not sure how to get the effects i want while minimizing exceptions.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga _DW.
The only problem with allowing an army OR a unit to take several actions one after the other , is it often causes 'sequenceing issues'.
(Often conditional rules are required to allow interuption of the units/army action set.)
Eg player A charges an enemy unit , they move then move then assault.
The unit that has been charged says 'Hang on a minuite !' WHY cant I shoot at the charging unit?'
SO we have conditional rules like '..if a unit is charged, and has fire suport order , the charging unit has to stop after the first movment action, to see if it is detected by the targeted unit, unless the charging unit has the fleet special rule,but if the targeted unit has enhanced reactions...etc etc.'

Where as limiting an army to ONE action at a time .
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A moves into assault
Player B fights back in assault.
All the armies actions are intergrated naturaly without EXTRA conditional rules.
Thats the only reason I mentioned the interleaved phases.(Cleaner game turn-less writen rules.)


Another altenative for interleaved phases.
Player A moves
Player B attacks.
Player A reacts.

Player B moves.
Player A attacks^.
Player B reacts*.

^ attacks can be ranged or close assault depending what weapons are in range obviously .
*Reactions can be , return fire , move to assault, or simply move.

I meant to say splitting actions into phases (ALA NET Epic .)Seperates the interactions out and prioiritises decisive actions (First fire -Charge.)And in practice helps eleviate the imballance cuased by large differences in unit numbers.(Allowing elite units to perform actions in 2 phases not just one for example.)


Having a movement type ON THE UNIT PROFILE.Adds more detail to the mobility information of the units. The example I posted was from a modern warfare rule set I am developing.
(I can post a link to my system under development .See if there are any ideas in there you like ?)

Unit profile.
Sp L4(How and how far the unit may move.)
Ar 4 (How hard the unit is to damage.)
Dp 10(how much damage the unit can take.)
St 6 (How hard the unit is to spot.)
Mg 3(How willing the unit is to fight.)
Cv 1 (How much command influence the unit has.)

(Unit armament is listed under the unit profile.)
All armament has
'name ', 'effective range', 'damage', 'effect' 'type/special bomus.

Eg
Combat knife , 2" /6/1/assault/-
Boltgun 24"/7/2/small arms -
Heavy bolter/36"/8/3/fire support-D3 supression bonus.
Flamer T/7/T/support ignores cover.


If you want to simplfy to 3 terrain types: -
A)Difficult -2"
B)Hazzardous -4"
C)Impassaible .
Thats fine .

I just objected to the over complication of using movement modifiers from 2nd ed AND the 'roll a D6' used instead of movement modifiers that 5th ed uses.

'Snakey type' monsters can simply use Tracks type movment .(As catapilar revolving tracks are simialr enough to 'snake swish' not to matter.)

Having different movement types just allows far more detail in unit mobility, which is benificial for representing modern warfare tactics. (If that what you want to do ...)

I simply listed the 3 special movement abilities to show how units can be made 'SPECIAL' with simple rules (ignore one condition.)

I prefer to cover everything in general terms in the core rules.
A 'difficult terrain modification' can cover dozer blades , spiky tyres -extra legs -sticky secretions -barbs -buzzsaws and loads of fantastical things found in the 40k universe that helps vehicles and creatures cross terrain easier.
They may look totaly different but the ALL have the SAME function in the game.

'Dozer blade' only applies to a limited sub set of vehicles , and a limited modification type.Needing aditional special rules for umpteen other features that have EXACTLY the same in game effect...

I think the real problem I have with 40k rules , are they are written exclusivley mainly based on physical apearance.(To maximise sales of new minature releases .)
So they tend to have far more rules than needed to cover the game play.
(Special rules for ALL the 13 unit types that are not standard infantry, and extra special rules for different coloured armour .)

Most of my favorite rule sets are writen to cover the fucntion of the game play as elegantly and efficiently as possible.

I am NOT knocking your rule set.(I think its a great concept!)

I have not gone into the fine detail.As I would like to help you finalise the game mechanics and resolution methods you REALY want to use first.
(From a wider range of options than 40k 2nd to 5th ed.)

Question one.Game turn mechanic .
Do you prefer 'set action phases' or orders .
(Newer gamers can be put off by planning ahead by placing orders at the start of the turn.)

Is it ok if we discuss the game mechanics in this order.
Game turn,
Unit interaction,(Moving- observation-targeting etc.)
Physical damage resolution,
Psychology and morale resolution.

I think its important to keep the feel of how the 40k factions should behave on the games table.And not necissarily copying chunks GWs 40k rules.

[Torga_DW]

Hi Torga _DW.
The only problem with allowing an army OR a unit to take several actions one after the other , is it often causes 'sequenceing issues'.
(Often conditional rules are required to allow interuption of the units/army action set.)
Eg player A charges an enemy unit , they move then move then assault.
The unit that has been charged says 'Hang on a minuite !' WHY cant I shoot at the charging unit?'
SO we have conditional rules like '..if a unit is charged, and has fire suport order , the charging unit has to stop after the first movment action, to see if it is detected by the targeted unit, unless the charging unit has the fleet special rule,but if the targeted unit has enhanced reactions...etc etc.'

True, but my system doesn't allow several actions in a turn, only one. I agree, one of the most annoying parts of 40k is when a fast moving unit (like bikers) drive up and park just behind cover, next turn popping out and charging without ever having been seen or the chance to be shot at on the way in.

Where as limiting an army to ONE action at a time .
Player A moves.
Player B shoots.
Player A moves into assault
Player B fights back in assault.
All the armies actions are intergrated naturaly without EXTRA conditional rules.
Thats the only reason I mentioned the interleaved phases.(Cleaner game turn-less writen rules.)

But i still don't see the need for 3 or more separate phases for separate actions, when a unit is likely to only perform in only one of those phases, and perform only one of those actions.

For example, 40k has move, shoot assault. Few very units have the chance to move, then shoot, then assault. The humble eldar guardian being one of those units. The majority of units will only do 1-2 things: stationary shot, move and shoot, move and assault. This implies there is time to do more than one thing (with some things taking longer than others for some reason).

In my system, a game turn is only a few seconds long at most. You have time to get one thing done. What that thing is is entirely up to you. Having said that, i've clarified the rules for charging such that you need LoS to charge a unit, to further prevent the dreaded ninja stealth assault.

I meant to say splitting actions into phases (ALA NET Epic .)Seperates the interactions out and prioiritises decisive actions (First fire -Charge.)And in practice helps eleviate the imballance cuased by large differences in unit numbers.(Allowing elite units to perform actions in 2 phases not just one for example.)

I see what you're saying, but it'll need work. For example, whats to stop say orks performing actions in two phases with their horde as well as say small elite marines? I can definitely see the potential problems in an army with more units compared to the other, i'm just not sure this is the best method to deal with it. I could be wrong though, i just need more clarification.

Having a movement type ON THE UNIT PROFILE.Adds more detail to the mobility information of the units. The example I posted was from a modern warfare rule set I am developing.
(I can post a link to my system under development .See if there are any ideas in there you like ?)

I have an older version on my hard drive. I'd certainly be interested in seeing any updates. One of my hobbies is collecting rule systems so i can see how other people go about making their games.

If you want to simplfy to 3 terrain types: -
A)Difficult -2"
B)Hazzardous -4"
C)Impassaible .
Thats fine .

Thats pretty close to what i have now. The only problem i see, is your hazardous is what (and gw) would call 'very difficult' terrain, not hazardous. To me hazardous implies the risk of death/damage, not slower to move through.

Take lava for example, your average unit in any army is probably going to be cooked if it tries to walk through it. Under my ruleset, i would classify lava as difficult (hard to struggle through), and dangerous (9). Meaning any model trying to move through it would suffer a wound on a 1-9 on 1d12.

I just objected to the over complication of using movement modifiers from 2nd ed AND the 'roll a D6' used instead of movement modifiers that 5th ed uses.

Yes, i see that as a problem. Let me give you the back story to understand why i ended up going this route. One of the things that i noticed of 7th fantasy was that movement was a big issue, particularly for charges. People would line up and shuffle within a 1/2 inch or so of each other's charge range to avoid getting charged first. Granted, there were also significant bonuses to charging that went with it.

But i noticed in 8th (and lotr, wotr) that they had this random charge move. Which got me thinking, why do they charge randomly, but not move/march randomly? So for consistancy, i made moving in general relatively random. But then to get a bit of consistency out of the randomness, i put in rolling 2 dice and picking the highest (giving an average move of 4-6").

And you're right, it is clunky. And i would be happy to just use straight movement. My only worry is that i might end up with a 7th fantasy dilemma, where people spend more time manouvering within that 1/2" gap for advantage. Any ideas on how to prevent this?

Having different movement types just allows far more detail in unit mobility, which is benificial for representing modern warfare tactics. (If that what you want to do ...)

Well, i just think that its an overcomplication. Right now, i only need 4 types of terrain: open, difficult, dangerous and impassable. If i factor precisly how a unit moves through a piece of terrain, then i need to subdivide say difficult terrain into different categories to show the effects of differing movement types in it. Which to me is adding complication.

I prefer to cover everything in general terms in the core rules.
A 'difficult terrain modification' can cover dozer blades , spiky tyres -extra legs -sticky secretions -barbs -buzzsaws and loads of fantastical things found in the 40k universe that helps vehicles and creatures cross terrain easier.
They may look totaly different but the ALL have the SAME function in the game.

'Dozer blade' only applies to a limited sub set of vehicles , and a limited modification type.Needing aditional special rules for umpteen other features that have EXACTLY the same in game effect...

Yeah, well originally it was supposed to be unique enough that it didn't warrant a core rule. But yes, it has shown up in at least 3 army lists now, so i will change that.

I think the real problem I have with 40k rules , are they are written exclusivley mainly based on physical apearance.(To maximise sales of new minature releases .)
So they tend to have far more rules than needed to cover the game play.
(Special rules for ALL the 13 unit types that are not standard infantry, and extra special rules for different coloured armour .)

I think someone quoted mark wells (the ceo i think) as saying something along the lines that rules existed only to drive miniature sales. Which was a big factor in me having a bash at my own rule set. Each new edition of 40k and fantasy is not better, its just different. And they will never try to make a 'perfect' ruleset, because thats not their objective. Their objective is to get people to buy as many miniatures as possible constantly. Either through a target demographic of churn and burn, or by revising rules so that units having different power values through new editions. Lol, you got me started now, i need to have a smoke and calm down. Damn you GW!!!!

I am NOT knocking your rule set.(I think its a great concept!)

I didn't think you were. I rather enjoy discussing rulesets and play mechanics.

Question one.Game turn mechanic .
Do you prefer 'set action phases' or orders .
(Newer gamers can be put off by planning ahead by placing orders at the start of the turn.)

Well i've addressed the issues i have with set action phases above. But i can see adding in orders as an optional addition to my rules fairly easily. Much like my half-developed event cards.

Is it ok if we discuss the game mechanics in this order.
Game turn,
Unit interaction,(Moving- observation-targeting etc.)
Physical damage resolution,
Psychology and morale resolution.

Sure.

I think its important to keep the feel of how the 40k factions should behave on the games table.And not necissarily copying chunks GWs 40k rules.

I agree. That was a primary issue for making just one marine codex. Originally i was going to do one for each chapter/legion/etc. But i quickly realized that through the flavours of army, for example marines, each chapter had enough common units that that would result in a massive amount of redundancy in each book. Even space wolves and black templars, noticably divergent chapters, still have a hell of a lot in common with vanilla smurfs. Personally i think one of the worst things GW has done is to split army books into smaller sub-books, like with chaos marines and demons.

Anyways, lots of typing. Looking forwards to your reply. And as always, anyone else is welcome to chip in and get involved in the discussion. I hope its of interest.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
Oooops I apear to have deleted part of my post explaining my concerns over single action unit activation game turn !(This probably explains why we have been talking at cross purpouses somewhat...)

And I went on to then express concen over alternating activation using orders comprised of multiple actions, and altrnating game turns ...

Anyhow. Back to the begining.My concern is that alternating at the single action for each unit level, could be seen as 'too interactive'.As it reduces the ability to form cohesive tactical plans .And may extend the time taken to play the game?
(And this is why most modern wargames games use alternating unit activation ,{ action sets}, or alternating phases.)

The goal is to allow enough interaction to allow players to feel connected to the game play.With long enough interaction with the game play to make meaningful changes to thier situation.(Your game turn mechanic may not be as strong on the latter.)

I hope that is clearer?


It is easy to justify ANY game mechanic , resolution method or rule with fluffy in game reasononing.(40 k is rife with argument based on intepritation of the fictional hype....)

However, if we can use fluffy arguments to justify 'artistic licence ' with rules writing .(As 40k game developers do...)

Perhaps we should use somthing else to determine what game mechanics and resolution methods we decide on ?

How about efficienctly covering the game play in an elegant and intuitive way?

Examples found in the most popular wargames.
Decide on ONE dice rolling convention.
A)Rolling HIGH is good.
OR
B) Rolling LOW is good.

(Using both is unecissary and just adds complication for complications sake.)

Resolution methods ...

Using data DIRECTLY from the unit/weapon profile.
(To reduce the complication in the rules requiring tables , or subtracting values from an arbuitary amount etc.Like BS ands WS in 40k and WH do)

Assuming effective distance (movements and ranges) will be presented as a number measured in inches/Cm.
And dice size or number dice rolled will be represented numericaly .
(EG Damage ='D8' means roll 'D8' to deternine damage. Attacks 3 means roll 3 Dice when attacking.)

Resolution method 1.
A characteristc can represent the value that has to be rolled over to suceed.
(Eg A units Morale value is 5.Roll over 5 to rally the unit.)

Resolution method 2.
A characteristic used in comparison to an opposeing unit characteristic to determine the chance of sucess.
(Eg attackers weapon damage - targets armour value = save roll required.)


When using a characteristic directly to detemine sucess, we could simply use dice modifiers like this.
Any situation -event that makes the actions easier , add 1 to the dice roll.
Any situation -event that makes the action harder , add 1 to the target score.

( And special ABILITIES can be covers using the 3 simple methods previously discussed.)

Looking at the units in 40k from a game mechanic point of view their are only 2 types .Descrete and indescrete.
(Units that remove models to show damage , and those that record damage seperatley.)

The rules should be written to cover ALL units in the game. Not written exclusivley for each unit type to hype minature releases and script interaction.
Its my experiance that if the rules are written for the game play ,(elegant efficient and intuitive.) All the cool in game stuff happens on its own,and you dont need 'special rules' to script the game play!

Any how I have attached my latest rough outline .(Think of it as design notes rather than a cohesive well presented document like yours.)

[Torga_DW]

Hi Torga_DW.
Oooops I apear to have deleted part of my post explaining my concerns over single action unit activation game turn !(This probably explains why we have been talking at cross purpouses somewhat...)

And I went on to then express concen over alternating activation using orders comprised of multiple actions, and altrnating game turns ...

Ah, that makes sense.

Anyhow. Back to the begining.My concern is that alternating at the single action for each unit level, could be seen as 'too interactive'.As it reduces the ability to form cohesive tactical plans .And may extend the time taken to play the game?
(And this is why most modern wargames games use alternating unit activation ,{ action sets}, or alternating phases.)

Well to use your ruleset as a comparison, they're actually very similar. Before this version of my rules, i actually had two action phases (actions and reactions). But during playtesting i found they behaved identically and didn't add enough unique to the game to justify a second phase. It actually becaming slightly confusing to keep track of turns.

The main differences i see is that your turn has orders, which restrict how a unit will perform during the turn. And a special order for shooting heavy weapons, which involves passing in the first phase.

Playtesting so far has run very smoothly in the action phase, it is one thing i seem to be happy with. I would say that the ability to maintain cohesive tactical plans is how good players win games. Which exists in most if not all ttmg's, despite varying rulesets.

The goal is to allow enough interaction to allow players to feel connected to the game play.With long enough interaction with the game play to make meaningful changes to thier situation.(Your game turn mechanic may not be as strong on the latter.)

Possibly, but from play testing it seems to run as intended. In the first couple turns, players may focus more on moving as a whole, but as they move to complete their objectives, they come into conflict with the opposing units and are forced to decide the best way to deal with them.

Examples found in the most popular wargames.
Decide on ONE dice rolling convention.
A)Rolling HIGH is good.
OR
B) Rolling LOW is good.

I've tried to maintain throughout the game that rolling low is good, rolling high is bad.

Using data DIRECTLY from the unit/weapon profile.
(To reduce the complication in the rules requiring tables , or subtracting values from an arbuitary amount etc.Like BS ands WS in 40k and WH do)

I see what you're saying, i just don't know how to accomplish this without just making a different way of doing the same thing. Can you give some examples?

EDIT: I just had a thought while i was having a smoke. To get rid of the 'to hit' chart for melee at least. I could divide melee skill into offensive and defensive. So to hit someone with defense 3 (which is good), you'd have to roll 1-3. But then you add on your offense value (of say 3), which would raise the chance of a hit to 1-6. Using the average defense skill for a unit, this could all be done off the profile. What do you think? I'll give it some further thought when i'm at work today. /EDIT

Any how I have attached my latest rough outline .(Think of it as design notes rather than a cohesive well presented document like yours.)

It seems to be the same as last time. You really need to finish it more, as i'd be interested to see how a game of it goes. An army list or two to see how the rules interact with the units in game would be good.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
I dont have any issues with freeing up actions , (so not placing 2 action set orders.)
As this just reduces the amount of tactical concideration a bit.

If you want to take it in turn alternating performing actions with each unit to make the game 'super interactive'.
Fair enough . Its the game play you want for your game.

However, would you consider making the available actions more straight forward?

Eg move , attack , prepare.

Attack , covers ranged and close assault attacks ,(Dependant on weapons ranges.)Stab , hack , throw a grenade, shoot a pistol , shoot a rifle , shoot a missile , are all attacks , just dependant on range of weapon to which one you use.

Prepare, is situation dependant , unit can improve stealth/take cover /hide -set up heavier weapons , etc.


I listed the dice conventions and resolution methods as a guide line .
(As most great games seem to use them , it might give us some thing objective to work from.)

If rolling under the stat/result is used consistantly throught your rule set thats great.(Although rolling high =sucess could be seen as more intuitive for new players.)

Yes opposed rolls/scores for close assault is a good idea.
Either
A dice score for attack (Roll under to hit opponent.)
And a score for defence ( roll under to dodge /block a sucessful hit.)

Or you could simply use opposed values as you suggested.
Eg attack value of attacker + defence value of target =score required to roll under to hit.

If the same resolution methods are used for all units and all interactions, its easier to learn the rules and more importantly balance the game.

I dont want to change how you rule set plays .I just want to see if we can use the most apropriate mechanics and resolutions to get the rules as efficient and elegant as possible. (Easier to learn , and balance the game play.)

(I could list some examples for 40k units , most of the army lists I am working on are for the WWII version of the game.)

[jt.glass]

Yes, i see that. But i'm not entirely sure what to do about it. On the one hand, it'll always be a factor when one side is significantly larger than the other. Any ideas on what can be done about it?

I read about a game once where you have a card for each unit and you take it in turns to draw a card - whichever unit you draw is activated next. The player with the fewer units has blank cards to make up the difference, so the larger side's extra goes are not all in a tail at the end. Obviously, this only works with Random activation but there might be ways to mitigate that.

I only read about this on Warseer, I've never actually played the game (nor do I even remember what it was called), so I can't vouch for how well it works in practice.

Can you explain what effect it would have to activate all the units at once compared to one at a time?

The former is symmetric - both players get to activate a bunch of units in a row. Alternating-by-unit activation in (potentially) asymmetric, one player gets to activate a bunch of units in a row and the other doesn't.


jt.

[Torga_DW]

Hi Torga_DW.
I dont have any issues with freeing up actions , (so not placing 2 action set orders.)
As this just reduces the amount of tactical concideration a bit.

If you want to take it in turn alternating performing actions with each unit to make the game 'super interactive'.
Fair enough . Its the game play you want for your game.

Well i'm fairly happy with it. I still see the big vs small number of units thing, i'm letting it percolate in my brain for a bit.

However, would you consider making the available actions more straight forward?

Eg move , attack , prepare.

Attack , covers ranged and close assault attacks ,(Dependant on weapons ranges.)Stab , hack , throw a grenade, shoot a pistol , shoot a rifle , shoot a missile , are all attacks , just dependant on range of weapon to which one you use.

Prepare, is situation dependant , unit can improve stealth/take cover /hide -set up heavier weapons , etc.

So instead of ranged and melee, its just attack? Do you think people would realize the restrictions involved between the two? (mainly not being able to shoot while in melee). Certainly doable i think. Would you keep being broken separate to prepare or merge it in? Need a better word than prepare though, not sure what.

I listed the dice conventions and resolution methods as a guide line .
(As most great games seem to use them , it might give us some thing objective to work from.)

If rolling under the stat/result is used consistantly throught your rule set thats great.(Although rolling high =sucess could be seen as more intuitive for new players.)

Is there some sort of convention, like in gambling or something, that says which is better / more widely known? That would be a good one to follow.

Yes opposed rolls/scores for close assault is a good idea.
Either
A dice score for attack (Roll under to hit opponent.)
And a score for defence ( roll under to dodge /block a sucessful hit.)

Or you could simply use opposed values as you suggested.
Eg attack value of attacker + defence value of target =score required to roll under to hit.

I totally see what you mean about rolling off the profile, and the more i think about it the more it makes sense. I just need to figure the right way to go about it. With the 'to hit' chart, its easier to see chances relative to skills. I see what you mean with the roll to hit, roll to dodge, but if you fail that dodge then its roll to save. Not liking the extra roll that comes in. But i'm not entirely happy with what i proposed earlier. Need to think on it some more.

(I could list some examples for 40k units , most of the army lists I am working on are for the WWII version of the game.)

Ah, to be honest i've never really been a big fan of historicals. Always been a sci-fi / fantasy type of person.

[Torga_DW]

I read about a game once where you have a card for each unit and you take it in turns to draw a card - whichever unit you draw is activated next. The player with the fewer units has blank cards to make up the difference, so the larger side's extra goes are not all in a tail at the end. Obviously, this only works with Random activation but there might be ways to mitigate that.

I only read about this on Warseer, I've never actually played the game (nor do I even remember what it was called), so I can't vouch for how well it works in practice.

Interesting idea. I'm assuming each card corresponds to a particular unique unit. Is it one deck for both (ala battlemasters), or one deck per army? I'll give it some thought and see if i can apply it.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
The only reason I mentioned 'rolling high' as a more intuitive convention was the amount of childrens games that re-enforce the idea high/bigger is better.
It realy doesnt matter as long as only ONE convention is used.
(If its simplifies resolution, and you want higher characteristics = better.Rolling low is fine.)

The simple way to ensure players know what weappons can be used and when, is using MINIMUM ranges.

Eg Combat knife 0>2"
Pistol 0>8"
Rifle/gun 2>24"


EG A SM is 1" away from an Ork .He can use his combat knife AND shoot his bolt pistol.But Cannot fire his boltgun at the Ork.

At over 2", to 8" range he can fire his boltgun OR boltpistol at the Ork.But can not use his combat knife.

At ranges over 8", the SM can only use his boltgun.

I used these weapon classifictions.

Assault weapons - used in close assault.

Small arms -common pistols and rifle type weapons.

Support - specialised anti armour /anti personel weapons .

Fire support weapons - specialised anti armour /anti personell weapons that can not move and fire.

As reguard actions why not use symbols on counters ?
Eg.
Move action = Arrow
Attack action = Lightning bolt.
Passive action =Exclamation mark.

How do you feel about using 4 morale states?
Ok
Supressed.(Shaken)
Neutralised(Stunned)
Routed

And use a seperate counter to show units will poor morale.Units on poor morale cannot be given actions.(Untill rallied.)
But follow pre set compulsory actions.

Shaken , may return fire .OR move to cover.
(Cannot move closer to enemy units.Armoured vehicles can turn to put highest armoured facing towards attacker.)

Neutralised , Will NOT perform any action.(Will still retaliate if assaulted.)

Routed, must retire at full movement rate , towards closest table (playing area) edge .

There are several easy ways to model morale damage in a TTMG.(I can discuss these later.)

To help even out the possible imballance in the amount of units a side.
How do you feel anout using Fog Of War?
EG rather than assume every unit can see everything in L.O.S.

Why not assume ALL units have to roll to aquire enemy units.
Aquire means spot, positivley identify as enemy ,and bring weapons to bear.Sort of roll to see and hit combined.(As killing your own troops may still be seen as a bad thing?)

So for close assault we can use the attackers melee value + target defence value = score to roll under to hit .

For ranged combat do you want to use a simple target based skill.( like (Flames OF war, roll over targest battle feild skill level.)

Or follow the close combat resolution method.
Attackers Shooting skill+ target stealth =score to roll under to see & hit .

With simple modifiers to shooting skill and target stealth values.

Eg
Add 1 to dice score if ...
Target is in cover/partialy obscured
Over 36" away.
Using stealth equipment.

Add 1 to shooting skill if...
Target is less than 12" away
Returning fire
Attacker has specialised targeting equipment .(Scouts /recon units.)

Ill stop there , and let you reply...

TTFN

[Torga_DW]

Hang on, still chewing on the last bits.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
Ill just try to clarify the last bits.

If units need to aquire enemy units before the lauch an attack.It gives us an extra tool to help balance things out.

Eg a Ratling sniper is a small and lightly armoured target that relies on stealth to survive.And is far more dificult to spot than , a 15 foot high 20 foot long armoured vehicle painted bright red...

This extra stealth factor is useful in lots of ways as you may imagine.
An example.

In my rules system .
A SM sgt tries to aquire enemy units.
The SM player picks a point on the table within LOS of the SM sgt.
The SM sgt can try to aquire ANY enemy target within 6" of this point.

There are 2 Ork units within 6".
A Battlewagon Stealth value 4
And a Kommando squad Stealth value 8

The Kommando squad is in light cover and over 36" away.(+1 to stealth value for each= modified stealth value =10.)

The Battlewagon is over 18" and under 36" away , and not obscured.(No modifiers apply.)

The SM player has to roll over the modified stealth values to aquire the targets.(The SM unit may split fire between aquired targets in the target zone.)

The SM player fails to aquire the Kommando squad,(rolls 8)
But aquired the Battlewagon with a roll of 5.

The SM squad may fire any weapons that are in effective range of the aquired Battle wagon.
If the SM unit fails to aquire any targets that LOSE the chance to attack!

I hope that helps.
I am happy to clarify anything I may not have explained that well.

[Torga_DW]

No i meant still trying to think of a good way to do melee combat off the profile. I'm thinking the defending player rolls a d12 (2d6?) and adds his melee for the defense score. Then the attacking player rolls all his attacks (1d12 + melee), having to beat this score. But i'm not sure.

I had a thought about making high rolls the 'success', and what sort of changes i'd need to implement. Had an interesting idea for saves, they're like this: 3+ / 2. So a 3+ saves, but 2 points of ASM are needed before you can modify the save. 6+ / 0, would be 6+ to save, and any ASM would start immediately modifying it. This was basically because i wasn't happy with expressing an extremely good save as like -5+. Still doable, but the negative thing could be a bit confusing.

As to the shooting thing, basically you're saying you need to roll to see before you can roll to shoot? Even if the enemy is out in the open and 6" away? Seems to be adding an extra step that i would largely consider part of line of sight.

[lanrak]

Hi Torga_DW.
Here are some options to use characteristics directly to resolve close combat.

Option 1.
Oposed values.
Offencive value /defencive value.
Simply subtract the targets Defencive value from the attackers Offencive value to arrive at the score required to hit.

EG
SM Offencive value 10.
Ork defencive value 3
10-3=7.

The SM has to roll Under 7 to hit the ork in melee.

(The dice score required alters , the amount of 'attacks' stays the same.)

Option 2.
Opposed rolls.
The Attacker has to roll under thier Assault value to perform an accurate strike.
The defender has to roll under thier assault value to perform a sucessfull parry /dodge.

Eg
SMs have to roll under 8 to make a sucsessful attack.
Orks have to roll under 8 to makes sucsessfull block/dodge.

(The number of attacks alters , the dice score stays the same.)


I was saying replace the fixed chance to hit anything anywhere in LOS, 'rolling to hit 'in 40k.(7-BS).

With a system that takes the disposition of attacker and defender into account.Making the game more tactical , AND reducing the amount of 'conditional targeting restrictions /rules'.

In 40 you ...
1)Roll to hit.
2)Roll to wound.
3)Roll to save.
(Magicaly after being mortaly wounded the armour heals you and sucks out the projectiles and self repairs...)

My suggestion .
1) Attacker rolls to aquire target(for ranged combat.)

2) Defender rolls targets units saves,(weapons ALWAYS hit in effective range, thats why I call it effective range.)

3)Attacker determines detailed results ,(morale damage or M/C -vehicle damage chart.)


This way the BS skill of the unit can be directly represented by thier effective weapon ranges.(Better shots can hit things further away.)

I was trying to model modern combat , using the simplest game mechanics and resolution methods I could.(This may not be aplicable to your rules?)

Modern warfare uses;-
Mobility to take objectives, fire power to control enemy movement, and close assault to contest objectives.

And I used the following assumptions.
You cant hit what you cannot see.

You dont shoot unless you are sure your going to have an effect on the target.(Make them slow down -stop-change direction,not necissarily inflict physical damage.)

Better balistic skill means you hit things further away.

Better melle skill means you get more attacks in melee.

Armour has a constant effect.Weapons have a constant damage potential.
Thefore weapon damage -armour effect = chance of damaging target.

Supression is comparing volume of fire to confidence of unit .
Confidence in numbers (size of unit) and in saftey (how well armoured/ protected.)

Etc, etc ,etc

Ill stop there...

[Torga_DW]

I see what you're saying, but i'm not sure its the best solution here. While there are differing levels of skill (exceptional, trained and wild), the primary factor in my system is range. On top of that, i have two firing modes (aimed and burst), with differing accuracies that can be performed by models in the squad.

Having only 1 roll to hit would reduce dice rolls, but it would also reduce statistical normalization wouldn't it? Making the success of the shooting more reliant on outright luck (one roll to 'spot'), with an all or nothing consequence (potentially 30 bolter rifle hits from a 10 marine squad, or else straight 0).

Back to melee, wouldn't it be another stat to look after if you split melee skill into offensive and defensive? What about if you had a base 1-6 chance (out of 12) to hit, and then added/subtracted melee from there? So a marine (4) attacking a guardsman (3) has a 1-7 chance to hit, which is about where it is now with the 40k style lookup chart. I'm leaning towards this at the moment, would be interested to hear your opinion on it.