PDA

View Full Version : 40K childs play



Guardian
20-04-2005, 08:14
has 40K become tooo childish and simplified?

i mean it would be a little more interesting with to hit modafiers and overwatch again.

Wolflord Bloodangel
20-04-2005, 08:50
Nope, its become playable and fun!

2nd edition just isnt really some golden age, it was painful... fun but painful.

Guardian
20-04-2005, 09:03
i don't mean to intend that 2nd edd was not at all the easiest game to play, but

i feel that if you have a unit standing behind a wall then a -tive to hit would be better than a 5+ cover save

hairyman
20-04-2005, 09:22
has 40K become tooo childish and simplified?


Simple doesn't necessarily mean childish. A lot of the best games out there are very simple to grasp and have very simple sets of rules (Chess & Go as prime examples, or the amazing board game Settlers), but this in no way makes them infantile or lacking in tactical potential.

I never played 2nd edition, but I did play Space Marine and Adeptus. I remember fiddling around with lots of small cardboard counters and having a very stop start game as we sorted various rules out. 40k nowadays flows, and as the rules are getting simpler there's less room to abuse them with lawyering or other such shennanigans.

The game can still be played as a shoot-em-up laugh or with deep tactical thought, and in many ways I think simple rules help rather than hinder this.

sigur
20-04-2005, 09:30
GW should really publish an advanced ruleset for 40k, maybe supplied like the specialist games. (read: free living rulebook; maybe designed as an add-on to current 40k rules)

hairyman
20-04-2005, 09:38
That's a pretty good idea, and it would satisfy everybody, I think.

My problem with making the rules more complex is that the only reason I can see to do that is to make them more realistic. And 40k doesn't really work as a realistic representation of future war (gun ranges, model proportions etc.. you know what I mean). I think its strength, as a game, is in its deliberatley abstracted gameplay.... if I wanted an accurate battle simulator I'd go looking for another game.

Having said that, sure there's still lots of room for improvement, and a basic and advanced game does sound interesting.

Cacodemon
20-04-2005, 09:48
They really tossed the baby out with the bathwater in transition from 2nd to 3rd edition.

BAD MOVES:
* Ditching movement value and then bringing the Fleet of X -rule.
* Ditching armour save modifiers
* Ditching shooting modifier and halving the range of weapons if moving
* Ditching overwatch OR the keeping of IGOUGO
* Infantry does not block LOS

GOOD MOVES:
* Tuning down characters
* Close combat system
* Getting rid of cards and counters
* Simple rules for vehicles

Xhalax
20-04-2005, 10:24
I don't think 40K is childish...I have a hard enough time just trying to work about normal rules for your average footslogger, let alone adding in other stuff to complicate matters.
Though I've only ever played 3 games (2 proper and 1 of Kill Team) and I've only been into the gaming side for a couple of months, so I guess ignorance it to blame. But i look at the rules and wonder how people manage to use and understand all this....but people do.

boogle
20-04-2005, 10:32
you should paint you army fully and play more games Xhalax (mind you so should i as i keep finding loopholes by accident)

Drabant
20-04-2005, 10:38
The complicated part about the rules is how poorly and ambigously they are written. Sure, it's better now in 4th ed. than it was in 3rd edition, but there is still a lot that raises questions. I don't think the good old armour modifier argument is a matter of complicated or not, it simply does not that more time to "calculate" the modifier. (After a couple of games you will know that 3+ with a -2 modifier equals 5+, regardless of how poor you are at math). It is really a matter of balance vs. realism. The current system with AP values is actually closer to how armour really works than the modifier system, but the modifiers makes it easier to balance armies.

What I like about the game post 2nd ed. is the squad based play, but I miss a lot of stuff, like shooting modifiers.

Xhalax
20-04-2005, 10:43
That is easier said than done boogle! As well you know!

Karhedron
20-04-2005, 12:46
i feel that if you have a unit standing behind a wall then a -tive to hit would be better than a 5+ cover save
The problem with "to hit" modifiers is that they affect units with different BS values in a disproporional way.

For example, take the old case of hard cover (-2 modifier) and a Space Marine (BS 4). His roll of 3+ to hit now becomes 5+ so his shooting is half as accurate as before. All simple and fair enough so far.

Now consider the same cover and a Guardsman (BS 3). His 4+ to hit roll has just become a 6 to hit. That means that his shooting is only a third of the accuracy as it was before. Why is a Guardsman affected more by a wall than a Space Marine?

It gets even worse if you consider Orks (BS 2). They would not be able to hit anyone in hard cover unless you start allowing things like a 6 folowed by a 4+ to count as a 7! Just to point this out that to-hit modifiers are used in Warhammer because shooting is a much smaller part of the game and many units have no shooting ability at all. In 40K, almost everyone has some sort of gun (Nids excepted of course ;)).

At least the 3rd edition system of cover saves means that all shooting is affected equally. A wall will block a fixed proportion of shots and does not depend on the BS of the shooter.

methoderik
20-04-2005, 19:01
Uugh! to hit modifiers...(remembers the endless arguments about what constituted a to hit modifier)

The Rules are simple for a good reason. I believe though that what the Rules lack in complexity, the codexes make up for. If you factor in all the special rules for characters, armys, units, etc... it is actually a somewhat complex rule system.

How many of you have tried to teach someone to play without letting them read the rulebook first, difficult?

twisted_mentat
20-04-2005, 19:11
I never understood why people are so broken up about the loss of overwatch...

I'm going to shoot my oppent as soon as he moved, and my oppent is going to shoot as soon as i move, so we're just going to sit here, because who ever moves first is going to get shot up...

Imagin that now with assult armies?

It would be great for me, as i play shooty armies...but it wouldn't be very much fun for my oppents with their Space WOlves, dark eldar, eldar....well, pretty much every army...

2_heads_talking
20-04-2005, 22:08
Why is a Guardsman affected more by a wall than a Space Marine?

Well, to be fair, its because a space marine is a better shot with his weaponry than the guardsman is. The space marine, being more skilled with ballistic weapons would have a greater chance of hitting those parts of his enemy that were visible from their cover at the wall.

To me, that explains clearly how the modifiers applied in the game world.

the_yuk
20-04-2005, 22:54
The new rules have also made it possible to play much larger battle. Imagine a 10,000pnt mega battle with all those modifiers etc, you would need a super computer to calculate and remember all the rolls, modifiers etc.

Brother Othorio
20-04-2005, 23:46
The new rules have also made it possible to play much larger battle. Imagine a 10,000pnt mega battle with all those modifiers etc, you would need a super computer to calculate and remember all the rolls, modifiers etc.

:eek: true, but then you have to be utterly mad to try playing a battalion sized infantry skirmish in the first place..

oh and yes, Xhalax does need to play more.. :P

Galadrin
21-04-2005, 00:05
I actually do have a few problems with the simplicity of 40k, since position and maneuver are not as important in this system than in other games (Warhammer Fantasy certainly, but also historical wargames). At the same time I love the models and background of 40k and am drawn to it. The way to make it less of a dice-fest may be to add rules about suppression (where suppressed units can't move until they recover), defensive fire (in the same way it functions in WFB) and some concealed movement rules. I've actually compiled these house rules into a PDF if anyone is interested. Does anyone have any more ideas though?

Getz
21-04-2005, 01:11
I never understood why people are so broken up about the loss of overwatch...

I'm going to shoot my oppent as soon as he moved, and my oppent is going to shoot as soon as i move, so we're just going to sit here, because who ever moves first is going to get shot up...

Imagin that now with assult armies?

It would be great for me, as i play shooty armies...but it wouldn't be very much fun for my oppents with their Space WOlves, dark eldar, eldar....well, pretty much every army...

People were pissed at loosing overwatch because it allows some assault units to pop out into LoS and assault an enemy unit while the enemy just stand there and look at them like dumb struck fools.

It's ludicrously unrealistic and is a major contributor to the ascendancy of assault over shooting in 40K - when was the last time you saw an IG or Tau, or even a shooty Marine army, win a GT. Nobody say Iron Warriors, by the way - what makes them tasty is the ability to include four pie plates in the otherwise heavily assault weighted Chaos List. Not the Pieplates in of themselves

grizzly ruin
21-04-2005, 01:22
Nobody say Iron Warriors, by the way - what makes them tasty is the ability to include four pie plates in the otherwise heavily assault weighted Chaos List. Not the Pieplates in of themselves

That's true, adding the extra, points-cheap, pie plates to the chaos list is the big deal with IW, that and the super-use of obliterators.

However, to be fair, IW do lose some of the best (in terms of effectiveness to points ratio) assault units chaos has to offer, namely cult troops and daemons.

WIth that said, I still think there should have been a restriction in that IW can take EITHER a basilisk OR a vindicator.


And with all my griping there are days I do want to make an IW army so I can play my long dreamed of "Obliterator Wing", with 9 obliterators and 4 tooled out dreads modeled as a cross between a dread and an oblit.



some day Grizzly, some day. Now take your pills...

Brunificus
21-04-2005, 01:46
The problem with overwatch and the to hit modifiers and sevral other things in 2nd ed is plain and simple, the game took to long to play, on average 5 to 6 hrs for a game of 6 turns. Now you can finish your average game in 2 to 3 hours. Me and a friend played a 2650 pt game in under 2 and a half yesterday (mind you i was using deathwing and he had Ag'grath the Unbound in his army).

Getz
21-04-2005, 02:09
Agreed. I routinely play 3000 point games in under four hours at my club, and that includes plenty of Beer, Fag and Chat breaks.

The problem with 2nd ed was not overwatch or the modifiers or the equipment cards, etc... It was overwatch and the modifiers and and the equipment cards and everything else besides.

Ouroboros
21-04-2005, 06:25
I agree with Getz it wasn't any single thing that bogged down second ed it was all of them combined. If they'd just altered or deleted some of them like the close combat phase, the number of odd dice used in various situations, all the cards and weirdo one off templates and a few other things I think the game would have come off better for it.

I don't see anything wrong with to hit mods for example and feel they far better represent cover than do cover saves that replace your armour. If cover saves went first it'd be fine but more dice rolling than the simple save mod method that requires grade school math skills.

Really though all I want to see from future eds of 40k is a de-emphasis on list building and more of a focus on tactics and actual gameplay competence to win battles. As things stand now army composition is far too important a factor in victory and is the phase in which 90% of cheese and powergaming occurs. We've all seen situations where you could pick the winner before forces were even deployed. And I don't think anyone would seriously disagree with me that a newbie using a powergamed list is much more likly to win against a veteran with a "crappy" list than he is to lose.

This is wrong in my view. Victory should be mostly determined by on-table gaming talent not how quick you are with a calculator and a codex.

Galadrin
21-04-2005, 11:24
How realistic is having 12 Chosen Knights of Chaos with a Close Combat GOD weilding a burning sword in its ranks, all with marks of khorne halted by five hounds realistic?


You don't have to worry about that in WHF because there is a handy little rule called Overrun. Those hounds would be creamed and the movement would continue.

KhornateLord
21-04-2005, 11:35
Galadrin i think you're missing my point. Rather than the opposing player using hounds to divert/change charges, as you've assumed, i was talking about a clumsy chaos player leaving his mutated doggies in the way of the knights. Now i know that its his fault, but should he automatically lose, despite how brilliant the rest of his plans are, because his knights, frenzied though they are, can't runover their own mutated mutts?

Anyway, i'm just trying to say, 40K and fantasy are different beasts. Fantasy has 'more tactics' ie pedantic movement rules, which some people like. 40k has different tactics, some to do with army selection, but it DOES have many valid tactics.

Its not a kid's game.

hallon_apl
21-04-2005, 11:39
Agreed. I routinely play 3000 point games in under four hours at my club, and that includes plenty of Beer, Fag and Chat breaks.


How do you manage that? I only have armies of a little more than 1000p and when playing my regular playing buddy, it usually takes about 5-6h to finish a game! :D

Sai-Lauren
21-04-2005, 11:59
The problem with overwatch and the to hit modifiers and sevral other things in 2nd ed is plain and simple, the game took to long to play, on average 5 to 6 hrs for a game of 6 turns. Now you can finish your average game in 2 to 3 hours. Me and a friend played a 2650 pt game in under 2 and a half yesterday (mind you i was using deathwing and he had Ag'grath the Unbound in his army).


Agreed. I routinely play 3000 point games in under four hours at my club, and that includes plenty of Beer, Fag and Chat breaks.

And there in lies why all the detail got ripped out of 40k. Not just because people are playing bigger games, but because the armies involved are bigger for the points levels as well - virtually everything got cheaper between 2nd and 3rd (yes ok, there are exceptions).

Decide for yourselves exactly why they got cheaper. I've got my theory. :p

But if you tried those sized armies with 2nd edition rules, you'd need at least a day for a game - not good for pickup battles at your local GW store. But 2nd edition was essentially a futuristic squad level skirmish wargame, not a company level battles wargame like 3rd was and 3.1 is.

Every heard the joke where a sculptor says it's easy to make a statue of an elephant, you just chip away anything that doesn't look like an elephant? Like Ouroboros and Getz, I think there was a lot of things that got taken out which needn't necessarily have gone (movement rates and armour saves in particular IMO), but the combined effect of all of them (and possibly Andy Chambers desire to stamp his mark on the game as head designer) meant the entire lump of stone got thrown out, rather than being examined and chipped away to see what needed trimming, what needed keeping and what needed replacing altogether.

We commissioned an elephant, and got an express-rhino. ;)

Getz
21-04-2005, 14:51
How do you manage that? I only have armies of a little more than 1000p and when playing my regular playing buddy, it usually takes about 5-6h to finish a game! :D

It's pretty simple actually. When you get in your car and make a special effort to go to a club, pay a pound membership every week and play against other veteran gamers who've done the same thing, once that game starts, you play.

It's not unfriendly, nor is it super competitive, but you don't watch telly for five minutes, or nip downstairs to make a cup of tea, or have your girlfriend/mom/significant other poke their head in to have a moan at you for not tidying your bedroom/mowing the lawn/whatever. We drink and smoke at the table and we chat as we play the game, so we can get quite a lot done without any distractions...


We commissioned an elephant, and got an express-rhino. ;)

Sai-Lauren, as usual, has described my feeling so much more eloquently than I have ever been able to...

Galadrin
21-04-2005, 14:55
Really though all I want to see from future eds of 40k is a de-emphasis on list building and more of a focus on tactics and actual gameplay competence to win battles. As things stand now army composition is far too important a factor in victory and is the phase in which 90% of cheese and powergaming occurs. We've all seen situations where you could pick the winner before forces were even deployed. And I don't think anyone would seriously disagree with me that a newbie using a powergamed list is much more likly to win against a veteran with a "crappy" list than he is to lose.

This is wrong in my view. Victory should be mostly determined by on-table gaming talent not how quick you are with a calculator and a codex.

This is actually very possible to incorporate. Here is my suggestion: Take all those choices which are more or less free, and make them a little less ideal. That means, make moving your assault army directly towards the enemy a little less easy and obvious, make shooting or retreating/advancing a little difficult to decide, holding a position versus movement, striking at a given moment as opposed to waiting. The more the choices are interactive (dependent on you, your opponent, the situation and the possible consequences), the more tactical it will be.

These things can be implemented with the rules I pieced together for defensive firing, suppression of troops and concealed movement. Another problem with 40k is actually not a problem with the rules, so much as how it is often played. If almost everyone has a gun, then almost everyone has a distance or perimeter of engagement. Movement is easy (you can move and turn in 360 degrees), targeting is easier (up to a certain range in 360 degrees) so you have to limit something. The best answer for this is to limit line of sight and movement options with a hefty amount of terrain. Try it, I think you'll have better games.

BoosterX
21-04-2005, 17:17
How realistic is having 12 Chosen Knights of Chaos with a Close Combat GOD weilding a burning sword in its ranks, all with marks of khorne halted by five hounds realistic?

In "real" life the hounds would get slaughtered beneith the hooves of the chargin knights...




Whoa Nelly. Someone stop the uneducated statements from coming out here with this "real life" jibberish. It's a GAME, not a simulation.

You've obviously never seen any footage of police dogs and what they are capable of.

A dog can pull a man out of a moving van if he has the window open. Don't base all your 'knowledge' off movies and poodles.

http://kaktuz.net/msd/massdestraction_com_clips_pdog.wmv

I've got better ones than this...

Oh and I forgot to add this...

What do you think rounds up bulls and other larger than horse caddle? How often does a dog die from cows and other large animals under their hooves? Nuff said.

Ouroboros
21-04-2005, 18:16
Wow that PD must be going through dogs pretty fast training them to charge guys with handguns and grab one arm.

Guardian
21-04-2005, 22:51
now to sound like an absolute tool, hit modafiers in 40K shooting shuold be a simplified modafier.

distance = no mod
why? well they are all shooting guns and all have a pretty good idea of which end not to look into to see if it's working... except orks that is.

light cover no bonus
i'm shooting a gun through a bush, get over it the bullet is going to hit you.

med cover -1

heavy cover -2

that way not everybody is affected by mods, sure orks will have a tough time hitting anything in cover, but aren't they basically a hth assault army anyway?
i think it would add heaps of character to the way orks are played and other armies also.


now overwatch.

this could be a real prick of a thing to make useful again and to remove the standoff type scenario, but houw about this.

overwatch can only be held on a single unit, if a ld test is taken and passed. if failed, your troops have either psyched themselves out or up, that is to say they flee or fight (charge)

now if you have overwatch on a single unit, there is nothing to say another unit (assault marines for example) cannot noisley "sneak" up and blast them.

so overwatch now has some real tension in it, your unit may break and charge over the lines or may flee from the lines, your call. also units can be snuck up on if they are concentrating on another unit.


any thoughts?

twisted_mentat
22-04-2005, 03:03
I don't see how piling more rules into something makes it better...

Neather of those ideas would really improve the game...

Guardian
22-04-2005, 06:00
aside from adding more rules,

what don't you like about those ideas?

Galadrin
22-04-2005, 17:52
Wait.. overwatch would cause the overwatch unit to charge the target? Excuse my bluntness, but either I'm not understanding you, or you're not understanding overwatch...

Galadrin
22-04-2005, 22:05
I do like the basic idea though. Here is a similar thing, just reformed a little:

During your Shooting Phase, you may nominate one of your units that has not yet shot this turn to go on Overwatch. The unit may not shoot this shooting phase. During the opponents Movement phase, if any unit enters the line of sight and shooting range of this unit (that was out of line of sight at the beginning of the turn), the Overwatch unit may make a leadership check. If it fails this leadership check, then the unit (through panic, overzealousness or simply a miscommunication in orders) fires too soon, allowing the targeted unit to react and advance more cautiously, counting the Overwatch ability as lost and no effect achieved. If the leadership is passed, then the unit may either fire on the target at any point in its movement and spend its Overwatch, or pass and save its Overwatch for a later enemy. Overwatch may never target a unit that is not the nearest visible enemy to the Overwatch unit.


I think that's simple, it uses your basic idea, and it would not slow down games a lot (in fact, people would only use Overwatch sparingly, as there would be tactical ways to negate it, in particular rushing a unit forward who was already in line of sight to 'cover' the movement of the hidden unit, or through simply pinning the Overwatch unit through pinning fire).


Negative modifiers also do not need to be so complicated. Here is the rule my group uses often:

Before the game, designate with your opponent what terrain features provide soft and/or hard cover, where soft cover represents actual concealment that makes the attacker have problems finding its target, and where hard cover is cover that does not particularly conceal so much as protect harboured units. As an example, a forest of the 40k Jungle trees would count as soft cover, as it is not going to stop any bullets but it is going to conceal locations, where a bunker would be very easy to locate the target but difficult to damage and thus be hard cover, and where a bunker in a forest would provide both soft and hard cover. Hard Cover and Soft Cover both provide a -1 to hit modifiers, but template weapons ignore Soft Cover penatlies and sniper weapons ignore Hard Cover. In this way, the best protection would be hard and soft cover together, at -2 to hit (although this would be rare).

Steel Rabbit
23-04-2005, 07:30
I feel that 3rd has playability, and smooth at that, but has sacrificed the bite that 2nd edition had. I think that they went too far with the transition. Here's what I would have liked 3rd edition to be

-Modern Close Combat (I'm a 2nd edition fan but CC was sloggish)
-Strategy tables instead of cards (roll on a table)
-The modern mission system
-Fantasy 6th edition-style psychic system (psykers have lost their edge)
-elimination of rare weapons (gravatron gun, webber, but bring back the hand flamer, was another template so hard to keep track of?)
-Fantasy 6th edition style Wargear (same as the Magic item rules)
-Fantasy 6th edition style Army structure

I have no complaints with the transition from 4/5th edition fantasy to the current one, in fact I wish that 2nd-3rd were like that.

Granted I think 4th edition gave some edge back into 40K but not as much as a grizzled vet like I would have wanted.

Hercco
23-04-2005, 07:58
I've never understood the idea of making rules more complicated, just to make them umm... more complicated.

Sure, "advanced 40k" would be fun for smaller games and people who have lots of time, but the rules should be something allowing more actions for a individual soldier. Kill-team is kind of step to that direction.

40k basic rules are all right. All they need to do is get the codices right. Same goes for Warhammer fantasy.

A game takes already a bit too much time for me, any more complicated rules and I'll have hard time finding time to play.

Getz
24-04-2005, 01:08
You don't make the rules more complictaed for the sake of complexity. You do so to make them more realistic.

Now, I know that a lot of people get in a huff about the idea of 40k as a realistic TTWG system, but a certain degree of realism is required or else we're just (literally) playing toy soldiers. The very fact that 40K is a wargame unavoidably implies that it is trying to model to a greater or lesser extent, an actual, real situation - that being company level combat in a basically 20th century idiom.

The question is how Complicated (and by implication, how realistic) we want our model to be. 2nd ed was too complex, that nobody will deny, but I think that 3rd and 4th are not complex enough.

What's missing? A proper psychology system and a proper interactive turn sequence - where units can respond to one another as the turn progresses - rather than the clumsy and childish turn based system than is currently used. The former would be a simple patch, but my second request would require complete design of the turn structure and probably the integratation of the assault phase and movement phase, possibly including a complete redesign of the Close Combat system.

However, I think dispensing with the current turn based system would immeasurable improve the tactical elements of play. I used any number of alternative systems including IKWarmachine, Void and Vor, and they're all superior systems to 40k because of that feature alone.

That said, 3rd/4th ed 40K has some good points all it's own, especially the swift and elegant shooting and assault resolution. Few games have a simpler and faster resolving dice rolling mechanic, and this is an area where I firmly beleive simplicity is king.

anarchistica
24-04-2005, 01:41
The way to make it less of a dice-fest may be to add rules about suppression (where suppressed units can't move until they recover), defensive fire (in the same way it functions in WFB) and some concealed movement rules. I've actually compiled these house rules into a PDF if anyone is interested. Does anyone have any more ideas though?
Well if you upload it somewhere (like here (http://www.walagata.com/)), people who are interested could take a look. I'm always interested in stuff like that.

And on topic, yes, 40K has become far too simplistic -technically-, but what do you expect? They're a company, the must make money. They use the D6. Their games come from a long line of games, any new editions are expected to be somewhat similar to the last. The basics concerning profiles, weapons and their workings, terrain, etc will probably never change. They makes games, not simulations. Games are intended to be playable, while sims (i.e. historic warfare) is more about "realism". Alot of GW's customers (and their current target audience) are children. GW is currently spreading it's tentacles, trying to gain a foothold in countries where English isn't the native language or where English education is fairly poor (France, Spain, the US). Of course they want their stuff to be as simple as possible, it will make it easier to sell more stuff.

I think i'm not too far off when i say the game designers are often fed up by their restrictions. Just look at LOTR, they finally had some freedom and what do they do? They make a non-turn based game where skill is more important than equipemtn and with some other nifty new ideas about miniature warfare.

If you're fed up with what 40K has become, look around, there are tons of other decent rulessets. Void, DM, FAD, Dark Age, hell, look at GW's half-aborted children. With some fiddling, you could borrow some rules from Necromunda (or even Inquisitor). Make up house rules, design your own system, etc. Really, if you have a fairly clear picture of what a game should look like, try to find some like-minded people and develop your own stuff. DM has been made with the help of some Portentees and it's quite awesome, with 99% of the rules covered in a 13 page PDF. Clear, mature rules, with no vague wordings or a company intent on making money behind it.

Or, to sum it up, GW isn't evil, they're a company. 40K isn't too simplistic, it's a game made by a company.

Guardian
24-04-2005, 03:18
I do like the basic idea though. Here is a similar thing, just reformed a little:

During your Shooting Phase, you may nominate one of your units that has not yet shot this turn to go on Overwatch. The unit may not shoot this shooting phase. During the opponents Movement phase, if any unit enters the line of sight and shooting range of this unit (that was out of line of sight at the beginning of the turn), the Overwatch unit may make a leadership check. If it fails this leadership check, then the unit (through panic, overzealousness or simply a miscommunication in orders) fires too soon, allowing the targeted unit to react and advance more cautiously, counting the Overwatch ability as lost and no effect achieved. If the leadership is passed, then the unit may either fire on the target at any point in its movement and spend its Overwatch, or pass and save its Overwatch for a later enemy. Overwatch may never target a unit that is not the nearest visible enemy to the Overwatch unit.


I think that's simple, it uses your basic idea, and it would not slow down games a lot (in fact, people would only use Overwatch sparingly, as there would be tactical ways to negate it, in particular rushing a unit forward who was already in line of sight to 'cover' the movement of the hidden unit, or through simply pinning the Overwatch unit through pinning fire).


Negative modifiers also do not need to be so complicated. Here is the rule my group uses often:

Before the game, designate with your opponent what terrain features provide soft and/or hard cover, where soft cover represents actual concealment that makes the attacker have problems finding its target, and where hard cover is cover that does not particularly conceal so much as protect harboured units. As an example, a forest of the 40k Jungle trees would count as soft cover, as it is not going to stop any bullets but it is going to conceal locations, where a bunker would be very easy to locate the target but difficult to damage and thus be hard cover, and where a bunker in a forest would provide both soft and hard cover. Hard Cover and Soft Cover both provide a -1 to hit modifiers, but template weapons ignore Soft Cover penatlies and sniper weapons ignore Hard Cover. In this way, the best protection would be hard and soft cover together, at -2 to hit (although this would be rare).


i think you have hit the warhammer on the head, it's pretty close to what i was imagining.

i would also like to add for two units that overwatch each other, take an LD test for hold or stay.

if the ld is passed, the unit may hold position and the overwatch.

if the ld is failed, the unit must charge (into overwatch) or flee.

myother thought was if overwatch is held on a unit, it can only be used on THAT unit. allowing another unit the ability to take the overwatch by surprise and assault them with no effect of the overwatch.

i think the best way to describe this would be with an example.

1. unit of guard take overwatch on unit of SM tactical
2. end turn
3. SM tac know of overwatch so hold position and call for fast (assault squad or bikes) to zap through to take position
4. fast SM engage guard
5. tac have not moved this turn (e.g. providing bait for guard) and forfit move.
6.end turn.

thoughts?

Praetorian
25-04-2005, 08:59
Yup- to me you guys make excellent points and I have little to add. However, I seem to recall when the d6 concept came out with post-Rougue Trader a lot of old RPG'ers had kittens-"what no d20's, bah, too simple."
It is a game full of subtleties if you let it. And, thank god games don't take 10 hrs anymore.
That terrain advice guy hit it on the head. If you spend every game on an open field with maybe 2 trees on it you'll get fed up lol
Not to mention my hobby is to build the stuff as well :D

Nurglitch_PS
25-04-2005, 09:39
A dog can pull a man out of a moving van if he has the window open. Don't base all your 'knowledge' off movies and poodles.

Yes. Police dogs. Ask yourself a question why they are police dogs and no army in the world uses dogs for assaults. And what chance of survival has a dog running 300-500m under HMG fire.


As to the 'to hit' modifiers - I consider them all right. What you need is just BS3 being the average stat, not the lowest in the game. So - all the races are BS3 with only the marines and some specialised aspects being BS4. Modifiers work just fine then.

As to the overwatch - I accept the problems it had posed. But still - assaulted units should have some chance of defense, like the WFB stand-and-shoot charge reaction if the assault is originating in their LOS. 2nd ed "shooting is the king" may have been flawed, but so was 3rd ed. "assault is the king" - and the proper balance has yet to be reached.

Scabby
26-04-2005, 20:33
People were pissed at loosing overwatch because it allows some assault units to pop out into LoS and assault an enemy unit while the enemy just stand there and look at them like dumb struck fools.

Well now assault units hop out and wait to get shot. Granted jump troops don't but for the most part it's a bit like overwatch is back.

Guardian
28-04-2005, 10:12
that alone does not want me stop wanting 40K Gold, Advance or Colour or whatever it is

The boyz
28-04-2005, 10:37
3rd edition rules just make everything easier and more understandable.

Guardian
28-04-2005, 22:53
true, if your a star cannon wielding power gamer who thinks wraith lords are troop choices.

while i'm all for easability <don't even know if that's a word> and understandability, some advanced rules for a little thing call realism would not go astray.

Lord Icklebum
29-04-2005, 03:40
I'd be all for an "Grim, Dark Advanced Rules Supplement" kinda deal that adds a bit more grit and realism to the game. But I'd make it purely an "opponents consent" option.

You could throw in things like calling in artillery (woohoo Vox casters!), Suppressive fire, hit/armor modifiers, overwatch type rules for snipers or something of the sort, expanded leadership/morale rules, battlefield conditions (pouring rain, heavy fog, oppressive heat), more complex campaign rules (including troop fatigue, resources, ammunition supplies, etc.) and then bundle specialist scenario type rules (Like city fight, beach assaults, etc.) in there as well.

I think this could make a really cool book for the uber-hardcore realism guys but also a really neat ruleset for people just looking for more from the game beyond the already perfectly fine, slightly more streamlined set available. Don't make it mandatory, just optional!

Faust
29-04-2005, 03:57
@Guardian leave the wraithlord complaining out of here. And also about the star cannon, that at maximum with a normal Codex can only achieve a maximum of 3 at BS 4 namely on wraithlords that move 6" a turn. Also to note on the comment you can only have 3 three 3 at maximun even in the Fabled Iyanden list which they count as troops........oh wait they must also take wraithguard in a 1:1 ratio as the wraithlord. Come on bro you can complain way more about other things than the Eldar Codex. What about Marine counterparts getting a indirect battle cannon?
Faust

Galadrin
29-04-2005, 13:48
@ anarchista

I'm too lazy to upload them to a site, but I can just post the ideas here:

Suppression
Whenever a unit is targeted by an attack that rolls as many or more dice "to Hit" as there are models in the unit, and where the attack successfully inflicts at least one wound (before armour saves), the target unit has a chance to be Suppressed. Make a Morale check for the unit, or otherwise the unit is counted as Suppressed until the end of your next turn. Suppressed units may not move or assault while suppressed. Suppression works in a very similar way to Pinning, but allows the suppressed unit to still fire in the shooting phase. Likewise, units that cannot be pinned, also cannot be suppressed. Vehicles can not be suppressed (since they are never 'wounded'), although Monstrous Creatures and models with more than one Wound can be (count each wound as a model in the unit with such models, and count Monstrous Creatures as 10 models).

Concealment
Without good reconnaissance, a force commander will often have only a general idea of enemy composition and displacement. These rules help simulate such a situation. In appropriate missions, one or both sides may deploy some of their force as "blinds," non-descript paper cards, in the place of a certain number of their units. These blinds should have proper annotation or reference on their undersides to show what unit they actually represent. Such information is, however, kept secret from the opponent until these blinds are 'revealed' (keeping the cards flipped over with the information on the underside until this occurs).
You may deploy up to d6+X blinds (rolling in secret, before deployment), where X is the Strategy Rating of your army. The blinds are then deployed in the deployment phase as if they were 'Troops' and are deployed in the place of real units (as described previously) or as 'fake' units to confuse the enemy.
Blinds may only move (in the Movement phase, up to 6"), or they may reveal themselves at any point in the game. Enemies that have line of sight to blinds may attempt to "Spot" them in the shooting phase (instead of shooting), revealing them automatically if they are not within Cover. If they are within Cover, then the spotting unit must make a successful Initiative test to Spot. Units with the "Scouts" special rule automatically spot blinds even when they are in Cover.
When a blind is revealed, simply replace it with whatever unit it represents. If it does not represent a real unit (and is a 'fake' blind), then simply remove it from the board (representing small recon units that the enemy could take for a larger force until they were properly spotted).

Guardian
01-05-2005, 22:42
@Faust
FYI the only 40K army i collect is eldar (and only have one wraithlord), that statement was not so much a complaint but more in the direction of 3ed lists and rules can be manipulated to powergame. that was all.
oh and for the record, eldar do not have any Marine counterparts, i don't see anywhere in the Marine list the ability to include a troop choice hord army with 12" weapons.
So before you go all rules and list lawyer on me, make sure you understand the post, read all the post and interperate it's context.

Guardian
01-05-2005, 22:47
while i like concealment, i feel it should not be available to any vehicles, bikes and jump packs excluded.

Galadrin
02-05-2005, 19:41
On an COMPLETELY unrelated note, that just reminded me how I dislike Marine players (and yes, I play Marines) complaining about Starcannons because they eat Marines alive. What are heavy bolters? Things that DON'T eat Eldar alive? Oh well, maybe it's just me :(


(And yes, I do understand Marines cost more points, Eldar aren't cheap either)

Faust
02-05-2005, 21:24
@ Guardian Not to insult you in the posting of the post. It just irriatates me to no end when Marine players talk about a Wraithlord that only moves 6" a turn unless he is charging. On the note about the Marine Counterparts I was refering to Chaos and them having the Defiler which is an indirect battle cannon. Also I was not going all rule lawyer on you, rather I was pointing out as a "joke" between Eldar players about the Iyanden rule with wraithlords as troops. Also I did read all the posts prior to the last one. Though it was late at night. Tis' nice to see that there are a couple Eldar players out there with the same feeling as I have about the heavy bolters and even the bolter. So as I am a human, I apologize if I misinterperated what you had written.
Faust

Guardian
02-05-2005, 22:23
@ Faust

Not at all,,, and yes there is to be many a joke between eldar players and even marines.

maybe there should be a post for 40K+ or something,
where an advanced set of realism rules can be added and worked upon.

Gop
04-05-2005, 23:01
Overall I think 40k is coming along nicely. It's still developing, and of course you can't please everyone. I do think it's a bit sad with the new rules we'll see less vehicles on the battlefield coz they are some of the coolest models.

Karhedron
05-05-2005, 20:42
I do think it's a bit sad with the new rules we'll see less vehicles on the battlefield coz they are some of the coolest models.
Personally I have found myself fielding my vehicles more often in 4th edition than I did in 3rd. The new rules for defensive weapons means that things like Falcons and Predators are a whole lot nastier and more mobile. Transports took a bit of a hit but I was never a big fan of the Rhino rush anyway and there are still plenty of ways to get your troops into combat.