40K squad leader orders

[Bubble Ghost]

A system for giving specific orders to units in the shooting phase, now with off-putting wall of text removed from the first post. I didn't do this this because I felt like adding orders to the game, it developed from another objective I was thinking about, so do read the following two posts before forming an opinion.

The leader of a unit of Infantry or Jump Infantry may give one of these orders in the shooting phase, before any shooting for the rest of the squad is resolved. Take a Leadership test - if passed, the order is carried out as described. If failed, nothing happens and the unit acts as normal. The squad leader may not make a shooting attack in the same turn as issuing an order, but this does not otherwise count as shooting, so he may give orders if Running or Pinned, for instance (although being given an order does not allow a unit to do something they would otherwise be prevented from).


--DEAL WITH IT! One model in the squad may fire at a different target to the rest of the unit this turn. May not be issued by a unit leader to an Independent Character.

--OPEN FIRE! This turn, Rapid Fire weapons in the squad may fire twice up to the maximum range of the weapon if the unit remained stationary in the movement phase, or once up to maximum range if it moved.

--TAKE COVER!* The unit's cover saves are increased by +1. In addition, the enemy must roll to spot the unit using the Night Fighting rules, and if failed, may still fire but the unit Taking Cover gains a further +1 to its cover save.
All Rapid Fire, Blast and Template weapons, and all other weapons with at least two shots, gain the Pinning rule when fired at a unit Taking Cover.
Units lose the effect of this order when they move, are engaged in close combat, or carry out the Brace For Charge! order - otherwise it remains in effect.

--PULL IT TOGETHER! The unit immediately recovers from Pinning. They count as having moved in the Movement Phase but otherwise are free to act as normal for the rest of the turn.

--BRACE FOR CHARGE! If assaulted while Braced, the models in the squad gain any and all bonuses for charging, just as if they had charged themselves. Units lose the effect of this order when they move, are engaged in close combat, or carry out the Take Cover! order - otherwise it remains in effect.

--WITH ME!** The unit gains the Fleet rule for the remainder of their turn. Units who have the Fleet rule anyway roll 3 dice and choose the highest roll.

*Units that for whatever reason cannot be pinned (such as Fearless units) may not use the Take Cover! order.
**Units with a 2+ armour save may not use the With Me! order.




OPTIONAL: Speed things up by dropping the Ld test, just have it as a free choice of 'attitude', essentially just a system where we can describe what a unit is doing as well as just where it is.

[Bubble Ghost]

Weird time to be doing this with another edition just around the corner, but hey ho. Here are some tweaks to the basic rules to keep in mind for the following post:

COVER CHANGE: 5+. (this is not a pet hate with cover, it's key to how this all works)


PINNING CHANGE: A unit must take a Pinning test if it suffers casualties from weapons with the Pinning rule, OR if a single enemy unit causes a number of HITS (before rolling to save and wound) with such weapons at least equal to the number of models in the target unit.

For example, if a squad of three Space Marines suffered three hits from a unit with sniper rifles, it would have to take a Pinning test even if it suffered no casualties.

As soon as a unit fails a Pinning test, it immediately carries out the Take Cover! order as described below, and is Pinned until the end of its next turn. While Pinned the unit can do nothing (its leader may give orders in the shooting phase, but this will not allow the unit to do something that being pinned prevents it from doing). If assaulted while Pinned, the unit has an Initiative of 1 in the first round of combat.


GOING TO GROUND CHANGE: This rule no longer exists. The Take Cover! order replaces it. Pinning tests may be voluntarily failed, but units may not Go To Ground merely in response to being fired at.

[Bubble Ghost]

explanation

I didn't do this this just because I felt like adding orders to the game, it developed out of something else I was thinking about. Allowing one side to steam in, shoot their weapons without tradeoff, move again, then gain a load of bonus attacks in the ensuing fight to boot, all without the enemy doing the slightest thing to protect themselves, always bugged me about 40K. It just gives this slightly odd, almost chess-like feel to the proceedings, where units sort of "take" static opponents, and the game feels as though the two armies are literally taking turns to stand stock still while the other pounds on them for a bit.

It's this sort of thing that leads to calls for charge reactions - what it implies is happening just FEELS wrong. It's unsatisfying on both a narrative level and in a gaming sense for the inactive player, who feels a greater degree of helplessness than is desirable.

It also causes a lot of weirdness when you consider that 40K players are required to manipulate the turn sequence if they want to do well. For example, it's no good me charging my Striking Scorpions in to try to stall your Thunderwolves, because they'll be wiped out in my own turn, meaning they won't have slowed you down at all and in fact will have given you a free D6" of movement. So instead I park my unit in front of yours and stop. This by itself is fine, this careful arrangement of playing pieces is how the game is played - but when you factor in the aforementioned huge charge bonuses, it becomes very silly indeed. If I want my interception to do what it intuitively ought to regarding delaying your Thunderwolves, I must allow the Thunderwolves to "charge" me - and what ought to be my unit rushing to intercept yours is modelled by the rules as my unit standing there stratching their balls and letting you stomp all over them.

So I figured, there's a simple way of doing this, without introducing drastic changes to the turn sequence: give everyone Counter-Attack. Suggest that 40K's measuring of time has a large enough grain that we should consider what a squad is doing during the enemy's turn.

But sometimes that feel of the glorious charge is actually appropriate, and having it NEVER happen is almost as bad as having it always happen. So I needed to come up with some sort of distinction between a unit that is ready to react to an enemy closing in, and one that isn't, at the discretion of the owning player. Hopefully all this would reduce the wibbly wobbly timey wimey weirdness and give a sense of control to the inactive player.

Here's the core of the intial idea:


Everyone gets Counter-Attack. However, cover is bumped down to 5+. You can get your cover save back up to 5th ed levels by forgoing your newfound ablity to Counter-Attack and actively taking cover, as opposed to merely passing through it.


But I figured I needed to come up with a few more ways to make sure taking cover wasn't just a no-brainer if it was clear that you weren't going to be assaulted (it would be in real life, but this is a game!). I wanted there to be ways in which an assaulting unit could get the drop on their victims, actually deserving the huge advantage that the rules currently give them unconditionally.

I eventually had the idea of dressing it up in a fun little system of squad leaders issuing orders, inspired by the Guard codex and the leaky-fakey-leaky 6th-but-not pdf - it's a narrative way to describe what a unit is doing, as well as just where it is, that carries over into the enemy turn and so hopefully smoothes over the glaring pointy corners of the turn sequence. I think these rules are fairly simple, but they add some dice rolling and decision making so may not be well-suited to large games. On the other hand they buff both shooting and assault so the game might be quicker...

[lanrak]

Hi.
I totaly agree about the counterintuitive game turn mechanic 40k uses.(Its fine for ancient warfare like WHFB, but not for modern warfare, that 40k looks like it should be.)

BUT,why add on order system , that just adds an additional level complication?

When you could replace the game turn mechanic with an interleaved action game turn mechanic.(And use orders to open up options if you wanted too.)

EG.
Player A move.
Player B shoot.
Player A assault.

Player B move
Player A shoot
Player B assault.

(Is 'swaping out the shooting phase' too much change for you?It seems the simplest fix to me...)

Player A 1st action
Player B 1st action
Player A 2nd action
Player B 2nd action.

Orders comprise of a 2 action set, picked from 3 possible actions .Move attack(close assault or ranged,) ready.
Advance ,(move then attack).
Double ,(move then move).
Evade, (attack then move).
Fire support, (ready then attack).
Sneak, (ready then move).

(This is a major overhaul ,giving every unit an order at the start of game turn. but worth it IMO.)

If you want to follow the current 40k development path more closely then fair enough.But I prefer more game play to rules ,than the current 40k development delivers.

I like your idea, but think it would be better to expand it to replace the 'ancient' game turn mechanic, rather than just patch up a bit.

[Bubble Ghost]

I totaly agree about the counterintuitive game turn mechanic 40k uses.(Its fine for ancient warfare like WHFB, but not for modern warfare, that 40k looks like it should be.)

BUT,why add on order system , that just adds an additional level complication?

When you could replace the game turn mechanic with an interleaved action game turn mechanic.

I pretty much knew this was going to be your reply before I even scrolled down to it.

If you want to follow the current 40k development path more closely then fair enough.But I prefer more game play to rules ,than the current 40k development delivers.

I like your idea, but think it would be better to expand it to replace the 'ancient' game turn mechanic, rather than just patch up a bit.

I agree, and your suggestions are always good ones, but "better" is subjective, it depends on what you're trying to do. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here - I like to think that if I was, I'd have come up with something a bit bigger and more imaginative than this. This was a shot at "maximum effect from minimum changes" that I might be able to convince conservatives who basically like 40K as it is to try out, by dressing it up as a spangly exciting new thing.

Given all that, any thoughts?

[lanrak]

Hi Bubble Ghost.
Just voicing my opinion.
If you want to proceed with this as a 'new spangely add on'. I would suggest writing 'special order cards'.Which can be given to players at the start of the game .
And then each card can be played on ONE unit ONCE per game turn.

So they are an additional 'deck of cool cards' that can easily be added to the standard game.(Like the old mission cards).

Maybe a dozen or so cards that give limited random buffs to units.
Then the players have control over when and what units they are apllied to.And It keeps the implimentation realy simple.

Adding deck of cool cards is the way to go IMO.
(Thats why GW did it in 2nd ed with equipment /mission cards ....)

Other wise the amount of written rules you propose for the orders could end up more complicated than the replacement game turn mechanics !

Then after players realise how cool it is to have increased tactical control.
Hit 'em with a new game turn mechanic! LOL.

[Bubble Ghost]

I love the idea of buff cards, I might play with that at some point! I don't know that it would achieve what I set out to here though. Like I said, the point wasn't to create a load of different options per se, it was just to smooth over the turn sequence with the minimum of hassle - like I said, the initial idea that led to all this was simply that you could choose either the 5th ed 4+ cover save OR gain the ability to counter-attack. The rest of it exists to put some meat on the idea and balance it, and disguise what it really is, which is a pet hate with the turn sequence. I may have oversold how 'spangly' I want it to be - I just meant that new is an easier sell than change to people who like it when their expensive rulebook still works.

Specfically regarding cards, I'm not sure how that cuts down on wordage - wouldn't you need the same amount of words, just on cards instead of on a page..? I thought I'd kept it pretty short anyway, compared to what a mechanic like this could have ended up like...

[lanrak]

Hi.
Sorry I may have misunderstood what you wanted .

The use of a deck of specialist cards means the rules only have to deal with a)how the cards are distributed.B)how the cards are used during the game.
ALL the fine detail is on the card, so doesnt have to be learned/ put in the rules.

(Thats why so many games use unit reference cards to cut down on the amount of rules you have to remember.They simply tell you how units interact in a straight forward way.)

If you are simply following the 'hide the inapropriate game mechanics with over complicated rules ' development that GW is persuing with 40k.
I have 2 questions.
A)Why bother.
B)Why not do less and achive more by swaping the shooting phase as outlined below.

I move.
You shoot,
I assault.

You move
I shoot
You assault.

This injects a HUGE amount of tactical interaction , and has minimal impact on current rules codexes.(Slight changes to shooting /asault wording perhaps.)

The ideas you have for squad leaders making tactical desisions are great and I totaly agree with them.(But putting them in the core game turn mechnanic is a more elegant solution IMO.)
However, I have to warn you against 40ks counterintuitive abstracted and holistic rules set.Most elegant logical intuitive rules seem wrong...and end up taking up more time to implement effectivley than a complete re-write...

Thats why I prefer using more aprorpiate game mechnanics, like other game use...
Sorry I have not been much help.

[Bubble Ghost]

However, I have to warn you against 40ks counterintuitive abstracted and holistic rules set.Most elegant logical intuitive rules seem wrong...and end up taking up more time to implement effectivley than a complete re-write...

Thats why I prefer using more aprorpiate game mechnanics, like other game use...

I agree with everything you're saying here in principle, but changes that big are just going to look too radical. Most people, I've found, do not want to be as experimental with the rules as folks like us would like them to be. They like the familiar, and they don't want to 'waste' their one game of 40K every couple of weeks on experimenting - they just want to play games, not write them, and if it isn't going to be a 'proper' game, they're less interested. And I can sympathise with that, to be honest - I can't force people to take rules as seriously as I do and I shouldn't expect to. That's why add-ons are an easier sell to more casual players than changes are - that way you're giving them something, not changing something they like.

Also, I know you're very down on 40K and not without reason, but I don't think anything I've done here is "over complicated". Sadly, rewriting the game cannot be the answer to everything...

Sorry I have not been much help.

I wouldn't have said you hadn't been much help, you're one of the most insightful people we have around here and your perspective is always useful.

[Formerly Wu]

B)Why not do less and achive more by swaping the shooting phase as outlined below.

I move.
You shoot,
I assault.

You move
I shoot
You assault.

This injects a HUGE amount of tactical interaction , and has minimal impact on current rules codexes.(Slight changes to shooting /asault wording perhaps.)

This seems like it would, taken on its own, have a great negative impact on:
Weak or lightly armoured assault troops (like Craftworld or Dark Eldar), who would have to weather an entire opponent's shooting phase before making contact.
Weak or lightly armoured shooting armies that rely on cover or transports for protection (like Tau or Guard), who in order to shoot would have to disembark (or break cover), survive a torrent of fire, and then watch helplessly as their erstwhile target moves out of range, before getting a chance to shoot.
Conversely, it would have relatively little effect on Marines, whose armour and toughness would protect them from the worst, and on armies who do not need to disembark from their transports to shoot. It would also worsen the current "metal box" meta of nobody ever leaving a transport, lest they suffer an unopposed round of enemy fire before getting to do anything.

It's a decent idea, and makes sense from a realism standpoint, but would need some other core mechanic changes to allow dismounted, non-power armoured infantry a chance to survive. At which point it's not really a simple fix any more.

Bubble Ghost: I like your ideas, although some of them skim a little too close to the Imperial Guard order system for comfort. I'm very much in favor of Ld tests as ways to expand the tactical flexibility of infantry, however.

One suggestion I might make is to make pinning (or more generally, unit suppression) easier to achieve but less damaging to the unit. Your method works just they way it does in 5th edition, with an added torrent of fire trigger condition. Many units have pretty high Leadership or Fearless abilities though, so wouldn't be much affected. You might consider a penalty on the Leadership test, and a followup "suppressed" condition. The unit would be unable to launch assaults and would shoot at a penalty, but could still move (representing the squad dashing for safer ground or ordering the squad forward while maintaining cover). The "Leakhammer" rules had a mechanism rather like this.

[Exitas-Acta-Probat]

looking at this thread reminds me of the the epic armageddon turn sequence. its beautifully simple and makes for some very tricky decisions as it forces you to prioritise what you want each unit to do. its too complicated to put down here but look it up and take inspiration.

[Bubble Ghost]

One suggestion I might make is to make pinning (or more generally, unit suppression) easier to achieve but less damaging to the unit.

It kind of is...

Your method works just they way it does in 5th edition, with an added torrent of fire trigger condition.

...and it kind of doesn't. There's an order in there that recovers from pinning in time to shoot (counting as moving). The overall effect I was after was that pinning is less of a pain for units that are already where they want to be, because they'll want to be sitting in cover anyway - more stuff gains the pinning rule against them to represent trying to keep their heads down so you can assault them. Essentially pinning has two different ends, subsumed into the same rule - it stops a mobile unit from moving as fast, and it keeps an embedded unit's heads down so you can charge them.

I get what you mean about Ld values and the idea of some sort of sliding scale, and it's something I was thinking about but ditched. One idea I had was that you take a single pinning test each turn, but on 1D6 plus another D6 for each individual unit that triggered pinning. Problem is I couldn't think of a way that doesn't require additional book-keeping or unduly punish poorer quality troops. The objective here was confined specfically to the balance of the turn sequence - having a knock-on effect into also messing with the pinning system is the sort of chain reaction lanrak is talking about, when he says he always sits down to make one change but ends up re-writing the whole game! Very much open to suggestions here.

Fearless units are completely immune to all this, of course, but they're not allowed to use the Take Cover order. So they're marginally easier to shoot out of cover, but much, much harder to assault (because, not having the option of cover, they're likely to have the counter-attack order going). I kind of like that dynamic, and the image of a Fearless unit standing up in cover even as bullets ricochet around them and shouting COME ON THEN!!! as they get their axes out.

looking at this thread reminds me of the the epic armageddon turn sequence. its beautifully simple and makes for some very tricky decisions as it forces you to prioritise what you want each unit to do. its too complicated to put down here but look it up and take inspiration.

Love to, but I can't really justify £30 on a rulebook just for the sake of one 40K house rule... I'm not familiar with Epic Armageddon, but are you specifically referring to the way you issue orders first and then carry them out? Or something more complex and specific than that?

[omegoku]

Or you could check them out for free on GWs website!
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_..._1-4_Oct09.pdf

[Thrax]

I really like the gist of what you are trying to do, trying to allow for more tactical options without disrupting basic game play. I game with a fairly sizable group and we have taken a lot of these ideas and have incorporated our own changes. Your concern that a new edition is imminent doesn't phase us too much, because we see rule changes by GW as lateral, not forward, so we are more likely to pull what we like out of 6th edition than adopt it. Now to address your ideas:

Deal With It ~ good concept. I've always thought it was silly that a tactical squad couldn't protect their heavy weapons operator from attacking his target.

Open Fire ~ makes lots of sense (we already integrated this rule for Rapid Fire weapons as we saw them as a bit anemic) It doesn't help units without Rapid Fire, however.

Take Cover ~ I really like this way of doing things - currently we still use Go to Ground but make it a +2 to cover to make it worthwhile

Pull it Together ~ seems like its too easy to get out of being pinned; maybe after a normal morale check

Brace for Charge ~ not sure the advantages here if you want every unit to get Counterattack. Our group had a long discussion about the advantages of units getting to react, and the while it makes sense if the unit is expecting to react, it shouldn't be bailed out if out-maneuvered. We've incorporated something we call 'Ordered Movement' which on a passed leadership test, allows the unit to try different options at the expense of most of its movement. A unit can split fire, adjust heavy weapons and still shoot, or go On Watch (a variation of Overwatch). On Watch even allows for a Counter Assault if an enemy unit moves within 6".

With Me ~ works for me but most units can Run anyway.

Cover Change ~ yes we've changed most of the cover back to 4th edition levels and shooting thru units confers a 5+ save, 4+ if they are in close combat (we have a rule for shooting into close combat too).

Pinning ~ I like idea of pinning but we wanted a middle ground of sorts. Ironically the "bogus" 6th ed. PDF has something very similar to what we've incorporated. If a unit passes its morale check by the exact minimum required, it is considered suppressed and may not shoot or assault its next turn. Maybe your change to pinning could make a unit suppressed instead?

Overall I think we are striving for similar effects, we just have a different mechanic to achieve that. I think both have merit.

[lanrak]

Hi folks.
@ omegoku.
I agree that EA has a much better rules to game play ratio than 40k does.(And is one of my favorite 6mm/10mm wargames.)

Unfortunatley Bubble Ghost is right about alot of 40k player not wanting anything but the familiar if inapropriate game mechanics.
Even though EA has far more complex tactical gameplay , and far less complication in the rules .Most 40k player wouldnt like it!

@Formely Wu
I agree with your brief synopsis, but simple soliutions,_ more terrain for units to get cover from, OR a simple target aquisition mechanic.(EG Adding a stealth value ...)

If you want include a SIMPLE supression mechanic and streamling damage resolution in the process...

Use a mechanic similar to FoW.

Roll a D6 and add it to your armour value.(Extend AV down to cover other units.)
If the total is OVER the Armour penetration value of the weapon hit, you make your save.
If it is under you fail your save.(If you fail by 5 or more you sustain critical damage loose 2 wounds!)

If it is the same VALUE the model is supressed.(Model placed face down may only move or attack.).
If half or more of a unit is supressed , it goes to ground.

But this is using a different damage resolution mechanic....(I cant help myself!!!)

I like the asthetic and background of 40k, it is very inspiring.
But compared to other rules sets , 40k rules seem to take up a lot of pages to achive relativley little.

The problem is every time I start looking into ways to make 40k better.
Like you excelent idea for unit leader orders.
I see the easiest way to improve the game is use a different game mechanic!So we get more game play for less pages of rules ....and I seem to just keep going...

Eg,

Command Phase.
Place order counters (face down) next to units on good morale.
Request off table support.(Reserves arty-air strikes etc.)

Primary action phase.
Player A takes 1st action of order.(Turn order counters over 1 at a time.)
Player B takes 1st action of order.

Secondary action phase.
Player A takes 2nd action of order.(Remove order counters 1 at a time.)
Player B takes second action of order.

Resolution Phase.
Attempt to rally units on poor morale.
Plot arrivals.(Reserves ,D/S, arty air strikes.)

Orders are made up of 2 actions from the following.Move, attack ready.

This gives you 2 levels of CnC in a realy simple game turn mechanic.(Place order counter, flip counter take 1st action, remove counter take 2nd action.)