Timing in 40k - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Timing in 40k

  1. #1
    LO Zealot
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Two River WI, US
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,341
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputation
    57 (x3)

    Timing in 40k

    Now i'm trying to think of a more realistic way of figuring things out. Most armies would move and shoot, then let the other guy move and shoot. So leaves me to this. How can you move shoot and assault realistically?

    BTW: Anybody tries that 40k isn't realistic, your not welcome here. I already know that, I'm developing house rules to change that.

    Three Companies of the 26th Vinancium
    143rd Airborne Badgers (99.9% done)
    159th Corsair Rifles (35% done))
    69th Armored Wall Busters (95% done)

    Total 197 men, 12 tanks, 4 Heavy Artillery Pieces

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Forger of Civilization
    Now i'm trying to think of a more realistic way of figuring things out. Most armies would move and shoot, then let the other guy move and shoot. So leaves me to this. How can you move shoot and assault realistically?

    BTW: Anybody tries that 40k isn't realistic, your not welcome here. I already know that, I'm developing house rules to change that.

    Let me start off by saying rules help isn't the place for this.

    And second, it's a game it's not realistic.

    Thirdly, to answer your question, think of it more of firing on the move while you charge at your enemy.
    My armies:
    16,000+ of Eldar (only need flyers)
    7,000+ of Nids (want heirophant)
    6,000+ of Space Marines (need rever titan)
    4,400+ of Cygnar (all models for the faction)
    1,500+ of Legion (just started)

  4. #3
    Member cfoley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    34
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    6 (x1)

    Most armies would move and shoot, then let the other guy move and shoot.
    You could alter the turn sequence a bit to achieve this effect. Move, shoot and assault with one unit before moving onto the next. It would actually be interesting to see the subtle differences in tactics that this would encourage.

  5. #4
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Or play it like epic, where each unit acts seperately, trading off.
    My armies:
    16,000+ of Eldar (only need flyers)
    7,000+ of Nids (want heirophant)
    6,000+ of Space Marines (need rever titan)
    4,400+ of Cygnar (all models for the faction)
    1,500+ of Legion (just started)

  6. #5
    Monkey of Mystery The Paint Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,789
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    743 (x8)

    You want to put a really interesting spin on things? In the shooting phase the player that's not moving shoots. It helps to have counters to keep track of moving but apart from that it's cool.
    No more NG spearmen, thanks! Now I need some pump-wagons!

  7. #6
    LO Zealot Ostsol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,907
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    80 (x4)

    An idea I though of would be for both players to do each phase simultaneously. Players take turns moving units, then take turns shooting (the results of which are simultaneous), then take turns assaulting (units that are assaulted before they can themselves assault get to do nothing but defend). The player who gets to act first in each phase is determined by some sort of initiative roll, perhaps based on strategy dice.

    EDIT: Of course, this is certainly a bad idea, given that the current codices were "balanced" against the existing ruleset. . .
    Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
    Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.

    --Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"

    -Ostsol

  8. #7
    Senior Member TzarNikolai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, UK
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    14 (x2)

    if you've ever played confrontation you could try a turn sequence similar to that:

    first you make a discipline roll to see who goes first based on d6 + the highest discipline value in your army.
    the winner determines who goes first.
    the person that goes first moves one of his models then lets the other player move one of their models. it continues like this till everyone has moved.

    the person with the least number of models has a pass for every model that his opponent has more than him. eg someone with 7 against someone with 9 has 2 passes. a pass being a turn where he doesn't have to move anything and can make his opponent move one of their models.

    (this is a simplified explanation so don't tell me how confrontation actually works)

    also i don't think you should detirmine who gets first turn through the use of any statistic, thats unbalanced for 40k. just roll off for it.

  9. #8
    Member sanguinary lord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Age
    34
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    7 (x1)

    Get a hold of the 2nd edition rules and read up on overwatch. You could incorperate something like that in.
    In an hour of darkness a blind man is the best guide. In an age of insanity look to the madman to show the way.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Hermann Morr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Italy
    Age
    47
    Posts
    416
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    8 (x1)

    Players might write on a paper the orders for their units every turn or phase, then execute them simultaneously. would be an interesting try, but would also cost more time than normal. Hey, this idea might also evolve in a computer moderated multiplayer .

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    410
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    12 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ostsol
    An idea I though of would be for both players to do each phase simultaneously. Players take turns moving units, then take turns shooting (the results of which are simultaneous), then take turns assaulting (units that are assaulted before they can themselves assault get to do nothing but defend). The player who gets to act first in each phase is determined by some sort of initiative roll, perhaps based on strategy dice.

    EDIT: Of course, this is certainly a bad idea, given that the current codices were "balanced" against the existing ruleset. . .
    The one big change I would make is to have the shooting phase be simultaneous like the assault phase and based on initiative. This would of course mean a massive retooling of all units (including giving vehicles initiative values) but would balance out a lot of the "whoever gets to go first has a huge advantage" norm.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts