Getting more out of the AP system

[lanrak]

I prefer to use target based stat, to determine the chance to see/hit.

Eg roll over target stealth value to see/hit it.

Modifiers.
+1 to stealth value if;-
Target in cover ,
Target over 24" away,
(For every 12" over 24".)
Target using stealth equipment/ability.

+1 to dice roll if;-
Attacker stationary,
Attacker has scout/recn equipment /ability.
Target less than 12" away.

This simple to see/hit mechanic takes target and attacker disposition into account.(Where as the fixed roll to hit just ignores everything but the attackers basic skill!)
(We can represent BS of units directly with thier effective range.As better shots can hit things further away!)

But score based on stat modified, and comparative stat based target scores , are my fovorite game mechanics.

[R Man]

I think one does need to be careful with 'Overwatch'. I never played with it myself but I have seen it criticised on this forum before.

[lanrak]

The problem with overwatch is it can be used as a default position with shooty armies.Leading to stalemate games.
Its important the game has a strong driver to keep units moving and or/a strong motive not to just use overwatch all the time. (Which are not realy present in the current game.)

Also it has the inherrant problem of all 'wordy conditional rules '.In that is adds complication to a rule set.In the way more interactive game turns dont.

The basic concept of over watch is straight forward, but them other conditions creep in .Like if the unit is charged from less than 8" more than 8" away.When can heavy and ordanance weapon fire at targets etc.
And the problem of different sized units with variuos levels of fire power in a battle game can unbalance overwatch in a way most skirmish games dont have to worry about.
(Infinity ARO works fine at skirmish level.)

Now we are well off topic.
Would you like to see my alternative game turn mechanic ?(Alternateting phases using simple action set chioce.)

[Haravikk]

The basic concept of over watch is straight forward, but them other conditions creep in .Like if the unit is charged from less than 8" more than 8" away.When can heavy and ordanance weapon fire at targets etc.

It doesn't need to be a 'wordy conditional rule'; declaring Overwatch means you get to fire when an enemy in line of sight moves, this will always be at the first valid target, and you may only fire pistol, assault and rapid fire weapons.
In the to-Hit section would be reminders of -1 to-Hit if firing at an enemy moving into or out of cover, or an enemy that is Assaulting.
Maybe tweak some defensive upgrades such as defensive grenades and Counter Attack, maybe even defended cover, so they don't work if you were in overwatch (unit is not ready to receive a charge).

In this way you're potentially sacrificing the unit's defensive ability for a chance to shoot, meanwhile the enemy may be able to exploit this by using a hard-to-hit unit (e.g - stealthy units) to draw fire uselessly. A stealth unit charging from cover would be a fearsome proposition to actually land any firepower upon; in such a case the unit would be better off firing in its own turn (at the cost of cover removing much of the effect), since it can defend itself normally as you'd assume that firing in your own turn leaves time to ready close combat weapons, grenades etc.


I'd be interested to hear what alternative systems use, but I'm more trying to think of what would work within the current rules, assuming GW doesn't want to make too big a departure (i.e - new stat-lines, turn-ordering etc.).

[lanrak]

Hi Haravikk.
Other systems manage to use 'reactions' in skirmish games in elegant ways.
But usualy in larger battle games , the implementation can be more tricky.(Not impossible.)

And GW has a track record of taking the simplest concept for 40k and writing 14 pages of rules over several sections ,instead of just 2 pages of concise intuitive rules!

EGThey have to describe what units(14 artificialy seperated units) can and can not go into overwatch, how this effects special rules ,USRs , weapon equipment /behaviour etc...

Well to be fair , I belive throwing away WHFB game mechanics and useing modern ones instead, could allow the game play of 40k to 'flow and grow'.

And have half as many pages of written rules, with lots more game play.(The example unified damage mechanic is just one of many.)

Ever since playing Blood Bowl, I want this sort of simple elegance and intuitivness in ALL my rule sets...

However, IF we are stuck with fixed phases , alternateing phases,(as used in Big Squigs re-write) , is much easier to implement than adding overwatch
As it simply adds interation at the most basic level, and requires minimum alteration to the rules.

The thing is allowing players to pick what actions the unit take and what order to take them in adds such depth to the tactical interaction.
And my 'alternative' 'place, flip, remove' sequence of order managment is so easy!
(Epecialy for older gamers who have slight short term memory problems due to to chaps called Jack Daniels , Johnny Walker, etc distracting them...)

If we just look at the core rules for 40k.Exclude the USR, vehicle and special rules .
What is covered?Standard infantry thats it....This is just so wrong , on so many levels.

I understand lots of gamers have learned the 40k rules,And many belive this is the only way to write rules for the game of 40k .
But realy its just an excersice in corperate managment overiding the best intensions and skills of the game developers.

Just look at what the developers do when they escape GW corperate interferance!

Anyway I digress.
'Overwatch' works realy well in a clean and intuitive system.As it can be applied in a straightforward way.
BUT current 40k rules are a poorly defined abstract hollistic mess!(Compared to other game systems.)
That why I belive a complete re-write is the only way to increase game play and reduce the level of complication in the current 40k game rule set.

[Chaos257]

This is something I proposed in this thread (which was discussing whether 3+ saves made marines too powerful), but I thought I'd share it here as a rules idea.

Now the rule is fairly straightforward, and the idea behind it is to get more value of AP4, or even just any AP weapon that is worse than your opponent's majority armour. The rule is fairly simple; if your AP value is better (lower) than the target's armour save, then they don't get to make a saving throw, if your AP is equal to their armour then they suffer a -2 penalty to the roll, and if your AP is one point worse (higher) than their save, they suffer a -1 penalty. Everything else leaves an opponent's save unaffected, as does AP-.

It's a bit of a funny one to get your head around, but I made a little table to illustrate:
Attachment 141406

Now, this may also look a bit strange at first, so it's worth remembering that the diagonal line across equal AP value would actually be 7+ for AP5 versus 5+ save, and 8+ for AP6 versus 6+ save, and these rolls are of course impossible.


What this does is allow 2+, 3+, and to a lesser extent 4+ armour saves to shrug off small-arms fire, but more lethal rounds will begin to threaten them. A side effect of the rule is also that versus 5+ and 6+ armour AP5 and 6 still ignore them as they do currently, but this makes sense due to the lightness or incomplete coverage of the armour, so 4+ saves (typically representing enclosed armour) is where you start to see the ability to shrug off damage entirely.

The result is that the system slightly devalues weapons with an AP at your armour level (no longer ignores your save) but adds value to weapons with an AP one above (worse), so you wouldn't have to shell out for as many expensive AP3 weapons to deal with marines, as a bunch AP4 firepower can be decently effective too. It also serves to distinguish between AP2 and AP1, since only AP1 can ignore all armour saves.


The idea is essentially a compromise between a full-blown armour modifier system (which could end up devaluing all armour). By only applying limited modifiers power armour still shrugs off most damage without losing any effectiveness. Of course it still isn't perfect (no bolt-on rule can be really) as costs would need to change, for lower Strength AP3 and AP2 weapons in particular, but I think it's a good rule, just a shame that it's probably too late to sneak something like this in 6th edition

I like the idea but this would make space marines even more overpowered as they'd be getting 5+ saves against ap3.

Should reduce but no improve saves. This would work for marine guns against 4+ saves which would become 5+.