Warhammer 40k: Checkmate

[JohnPublic]

-Introduction-
Warhammer 40k: Checkmate is a rule system developed as a small fast paced version of Warhammer 40k. It is a combination of Cityfight, Kill Team, and Combat Patrol. It uses Combat Patrol-esque teams in a Cityfight setting and strives to achieve the elite fighting force feel of Kill Team, all while taking advantage of the tactical movement potential of Loose Formations.

It was developed not only as a means of playing small, quick 40k matches, but also as a means to dip into another army's models without having to build a full force. Checkmate provides an opportunity to purchase and model a variety of figures while remaining light on the pocketbook.

You'll find only a single mission written here for the system. This mission should be a starting point as the game is designed to be used with any number of special force type missions of your own design. The sky is the limit in creating your own missions which should consist of rescuing captured comrades, destroying stolen ammo dumps, assassinating an enemy character, etc.

Though it has not been developed as of yet, we hope to build an experience system to accompany Checkmate. This system would allow for the playing of campaigns and would allow models to grow stronger and gain equipment over time. If you have thoughts on this I would love to hear them.

Checkmate has thus far been playtested with Space Marines, Space Wolves, Orcs, Chaos, Tau, Necrons, Imperial Guard, and Deamonhunters. Some armies, such as Necrons, will find their available selections more limited than others due to the composition rules. Feel free to bend these rules with your opponent's consent, though it is not recommended while playing the standard mission provided.

I would very much appreciate any feedback and/or playtesting on the system. As I said, we have playtested the game moderately and almost every game has been fun, fast paced, and close. There are two keys to enjoying a Checkmate match. One is the terrain setup. As you will see in the Setup section a very dense Cityfight sort of board is highly recommended as you want the game to be a chess match of sorts with your models working together to outmaneuver your opponent. For our games we used the custom board seen here: http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/scenery/116153-johnpublics-board-pic-heavy.html You'll see in the most recent pictures Checkmate games in progress.

The other key to the game is an open mind. Checkmate was designed in the same vein as the Kill-Team section of the 4th edition Warhammer 40k codex. In that system there were many mutable laws that allowed you to customize the game to your own wants and desires. Checkmate is the same. If you feel that one of the custom rules is too strict or can be taken advantage of we encourage you to change it for your own needs and have fun with the game. Though I would love to hear about any changes to the system either here in this thread or in a personal message.

Thank you and I hope you enjoy the system as much as we do...

-Army Composition-
Armies are no more than 300 points.
Your entire force must come from a single codex (no allies.)
No special characters.
No Psykers. *
No 2+ saves.
No model may have more than 2 wounds.
No vehicles with a total armor value 33 or more.
No model may have an ordinance weapon.
No bikes, jetbikes, skimmers, or grav platforms.

*Models may be taken that have psychic abilities, but they may not use them in game. If a model is normally required to purchase a psychic ability, he may be fielded without doing so.

After purchasing at least one troop choice, you purchase individual models, disregarding their normal unit makeup. These models use the options they normally have from the unit selections they are from. Use digression when figuring points cost and clear all values with your opponent.

Units that have prerequisites may ignore them if it remains true to the game as per the 4th edition combat patrol rules. For instance, an Imperial Guard force may select an armored fist squad as a troop choice without the presence of an infantry platoon.

When selecting your force each model taken uses a slot in your organization chart. Checkmate uses the following composition:
HQ: 1
Elite: Any number
Troop: Any number
Fast Attack: 5
Heavy: 3

In a case where a model may be taken from two separate sources it counts against both organization slots. For instance, a space marine tactical squad counts as a troop choice and may include a model with a missile launcher. Because you could take the same model as a devastator he counts against both your Troop and Heavy limits. (This rule should be applied within the spirit of the game. There are obvious instances where a model should or should not take up multiple slots and if there is any question you are encouraged to discuss the situation with your opponent.)

-Gameplay-
Checkmate uses the Loose Formation system, thus all normal cohesion rules may be ignored. Any number of non-vehicle models form a unit by purposefully moving within 2” of each other and break away by purposefully moving out of 2” coherency. This means it is not possible to have two separate units within 2" of each other as the proximity automatically joins them into a single unit. Involuntary movement can not combine or break up units. Solitary models should be considered as single model units. Vehicles may form squadrons just as infantry form units with the exception that they must maintain 4" coherency.

The game turn proceeds as in a normal game with one exception. Each player has an additional shooting phase at the beginning of his turn. Any model which fires or runs during this phase may not perform any action during the normal shooting phase and may not move if it fired weapons that would not normally be able to be fired if the unit had moved.

For the purpose of shooting, movement is checked on a model by model basis and vice verse. This is different than the standard game, which checks on a unit basis.

For the purpose of taking morale checks a unit must lose 66% or more of it's models during a single phase rather than the normal 25%.

Units may not perform any ability that allows them to leave the table and then come back into play in another location. Any and all forms of teleportation are prohibited.

Rather than performing its normal actions a unit may perform a single maneuver. Units performing a maneuver do not move, shoot, and assault as normal, instead they may only take the actions outlined in the maneuver for the duration of the maneuver. Furthermore, units may not perform more than one maneuver at any given time. For instance, a unit that wishes to perform a shooting maneuver may not move in the movement phase unless specified in the maneuver.

-Maneuvers-
Aimed Shot: This may only be used by a unit that was not fired upon in the previous enemy turn. All models equipped with rapid fire, assault, pistol, or sniper weapons may target individual models rather than units, provided that those models did not move during the previous turn. Models using aimed shot may only fire once.

Blindside Attack: The unit assaults this turn at +2 initiative. May only be used against enemies that fired weapons at targets other than the assaulting unit in the previous turn. Assaulting units may not shoot this turn.

Careful advance: The unit may move 4” ignoring difficult and dangerous terrain. It may shoot as normal, but may not run or assault.

Charge!: The unit gains the Fleet USR, but must make it’s move, run, and assault moves in a straight line and may not move through difficult terrain.

Crossfire: This maneuver requires two or more units that must be more than 18” apart. All units participating must fire on a single target, which receives -2 to any cover save for the turn.

Overwatch: The unit may make its normal shooting attack during the opponent’s turn instead of its own. At any time during the following player turn declare that you are firing and the opponent must immediately pause his turn and resolve your shooting attack. For instance, Overwatch allows you to shoot at a unit that has just moved, but has yet to make its own shooting or assault actions. You may not fire at a unit which has begun, but not completed, it's movement.

Surprise Attack: May only be used by a unit whose members all have the infiltrate ability. The unit must begin the turn without line of sight to their target(s) and may not shoot this turn. If the unit makes a successful assault move the target unit automatically takes x wounds, where x = twice the number of models assaulting. Saves may be taken as normal. These wounds take the place of the unit’s normal attacks, but the targeted unit makes it’s attacks as normal during the assault resolution.

-Setup-
Checkmate is designed to be played on a standard 6x4' table using 12" short edge deployment areas. There should be roughly 75% terrain coverage with ample buildings or other line of sight blocking pieces. While you may need a good deal of area terrain to provide the necessary coverage, it is important to include pieces that units may use to hide themselves wholly from enemy fire. We find that having multiple levels through trenches, canals, catwalks, platforms, balconies, rooftops, etc. help in providing cover as well as make the game more cinematic.


-Mission-
Ten objectives are placed on the table outside of the deployment areas. These objectives are claimed by having one of your models in base contact with the objective at the beginning of your turn. Once claimed, objectives stay in your control until claimed by another player. The game lasts an unlimited number of turns and the first player to collect seven of the objectives is immediately the victor.

-Deployment-
Models may not deep strike unless otherwise specified in the mission. Any models that normally must arrive via deep strike ability may replace their deep strike ability with the Scout USR.

Models may not infiltrate unless otherwise specified in the mission.

Models may not be held in reserve. All models that normally begin the game in reserve are instead set up in your deployment zone with the rest of your force.

Models with the Scout USR may make a move as per the scout rule prior to the beginning of turn one. Models with the Infiltrate USR may make two moves as per the scout rule before the beginning of turn one. Models with both abilities may only make two moves. If both players have models with these abilities roll to see who goes first then alternate moving models starting with infiltrators.

-Army Specific Changes-
There are certain rules and restrictions that either do not fit the Checkmate theme or disrupt the balance of the game. This section provides specific rule changes.

Necrons:
We'll be back. Players may ignore the need to have a model of the same type within 6".
Phase Out. Necrons do not phase out.

Tyranids:
Synapse. Players may use Hive Mind as normal. It is not restricted as other psychic abilities are.

Tau:
Sniper Drones. Sniper drones may operate independently and do not require the use of a drone controller. They move and fire as infantry.

Witch Hunters:
Faith Points. Each Faithful model contributes a single Faith Point to a Witch Hunters army as per normal, with the exception of Celestians and Seraphim who contribute a single Faith Point (each) regardless of how many models are present. Each Faithful model contributes a single Faith Point by Martyrdom as per normal, with the exception of Celestians and Seraphim who only contribute a single Faith Point (each) once all Celestian or Seraphim models are slain. Sisterhood units eligible to use Faith Points to perform Acts of Faith as normal may do so (the unit must contain a Faithful model and must make a Test of Faith). Additionally, individual Sisterhood models may use Faith Points to perform Acts of Faith regardless of whether they are Faithful or not, and are assumed to automatically pass their Tests of Faith. Sisterhood units that perform an Act of Faith must remain in the same unit during the duration that the Act is in effect.

[ShotgunFacelift]

nice rule set.
sound like a great way to play some smaller games where the tides turn multiple times in a battle.
im gonna try this out
(just for the chance to use overwatch on someone again)


doesnt the list options leave a bit too much for cheese?

any number of elites?
maxing out Sternguard + vanguard vets would make for a unreasonably tough opponent.

but that comes down to the players and the scenario.

[JohnPublic]

Cheese is a factor that we toiled over for some time, but in the end we decided that the openness was worthwhile and that there will always be people that will take advantage of the system to make godly lists. Because this is a system that you should be playing among friends it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Here are the lists I made for my existing armies (They are listed by the model, but there is a normal troop choice in there in each of them):

-Orks-
13x Slugga Boy [78]
2x Rokkit Boy [25]
2x Burna Boy [30]
4x Loota [60]
2x Nob w/ Big Choppa, Eavy Armor [60]
1x Nob w/ Power Klaw, Eavy Armor [46]
=299 points

-Tau Empire-
10x Firewarrior [100]
7x Kroot Carnivore [49]
3x XV25 Stealth Suit [90]
3x Sniper Drone [60]
=299 points

-Space Wolves-
5x Grey Hunter w/ Bolter [90]
4x Blood Claw [56]
1x Grey Hunter w/ Plasma Gun [29]
2x Scout w/ Sniper Rifle [38]
1x Long Fang w/ Missile Launcher [38]
1x Wolf Guard w/ Power Fist, Wolf Pelt [49]
=300 Points

[darkspawn327]

Wow this looks really cool, I want to try this out! Alas I'm away at school right now, but if you don't mind, may I save this rule set and mission to my computer for later playing?

Also, *rep* for a well thought out idea!

-Dark

[frozencore]

It's almost well thought out. Good effort, though.

What's with the eldar hate? No jetbikes, no skimmers, no antigrav, no psykers? Kinda take out quite a bit of the options, what troops are left? Dire Avengers?

You say you tested with Daemonhunters, I am wondering how. You sure didn't use Grey Knights, because every justicar is a psyker, and those aren't allowed in your rules.

Your restrictions on what units to take are pretty much the same as the 4th ed 40k in 40 minutes, with extra arbitrary restrictions that I don't see much of a reason for.\

Your maneuvers are interesting, but they favor certain armies WAY more than they favor others. Also, with being able to break off models from units crossfire becomes insane. You could break off a single model from a normal units and have it and it's original unit fire at the same thing for a -2 cover save. Is this what you intended? Seems wrong to me.

Shooting before moving might make sense at first, but the game is balanced that way for a reason, especially with how much better shooting is than CC in the new edition with the loss of sweeping advance. On that note what is stopping someone from breaking off a single model from their unit to be a sacrifice? This like your other rules favors certain armies over others.

[JohnPublic]

Darkspawn327, you are more than welcome to save the ruleset. I'm that glad you like it. Once any flaws and typos have been ironed out I plan to produce a clean pdf version, so stay tuned for that.

Frozencore,

What's with the eldar hate? No jetbikes, no skimmers, no antigrav, no psykers? Kinda take out quite a bit of the options, what troops are left? Dire Avengers?

First, I addressed this issue in the introduction. Some armies are going to have issues building a well rounded list and I encourage you to make any changes you feel necessary to enjoy the game. That said, with the setup, units that move more than 12" per turn can easily break the feel of the game and thus they are restricted for the same reason that they are restricted in the Kill Team rules.

Second, though we have yet to playtest Eldar, they do have an ample amount of options and units that should make them more than viable in the environment. In fact, by my count, Eldar have more options availible to them than the majority of armies. (Dire Avengers, Rangers, Guardians, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Fire Dragons, Howling Banshies, Harlequins, Dark Reapers, and Warwalkers.)

You say you tested with Daemonhunters, I am wondering how. You sure didn't use Grey Knights, because every justicar is a psyker, and those aren't allowed in your rules.
The Deamonhunter force took a squad of inquisitorial stormtroopers as it's troop choice and then purchased Grey Knights individually.



Your restrictions on what units to take are pretty much the same as the 4th ed 40k in 40 minutes, with extra arbitrary restrictions that I don't see much of a reason for.
I already stated that it used the composition rules of the Combat Patrol system combined with Kill Teams. The point is to create a game that is based on tactical movement.


Your maneuvers are interesting, but they favor certain armies WAY more than they favor others. Also, with being able to break off models from units crossfire becomes insane. You could break off a single model from a normal units and have it and it's original unit fire at the same thing for a -2 cover save. Is this what you intended? Seems wrong to me.
Every army we have played with used approximately the same amount of maneuvers per game. I'm curious to know which armies you feel benefit the most and why. As for crossfire, in most instances it would take more than two turns to move that broken off model more than 18" and with 75% terrain coverage it is harder than you think to draw los to a single target from multiple locations. In the dozen or so games of unlimited turn matches I have played crossfire has only been used a few times.


Shooting before moving might make sense at first, but the game is balanced that way for a reason, especially with how much better shooting is than CC in the new edition with the loss of sweeping advance. On that note what is stopping someone from breaking off a single model from their unit to be a sacrifice? This like your other rules favors certain armies over others.I would argue that close combat is much more brutal in 5th and that it is the close combat armies such as Orks that have been boosted heavily with the advent of the newest addition. Again, with 75% or heavier terrain coverage shooting is generally watered down and in our testing we did not find being able to shoot, then move, to be problematic. All armies benefit from Rapid Fire and Assault weapons. Remember that you can not shoot a rapid fire weapon it's maximum distance and then move, nor can you move after firing a heavy weapon. Lastly, sweeping advance is very much alive and can be found on page 40 of the rulebook.

Nothing stops you from breaking off a single model to be sacrificed. The flip side is that nothing stops me from breaking off a single model to assault your sacrifice and the rest of my unit assaults your unit.

------------------------------------------

You would do well to go back and carefully reread my introduction, particularly the final paragraph. In that introduction I admit that it is not a perfect system and was not designed to be such. It is designed to fill the gap left by the exclusion of kill teams in the rulebook. This is not an in-your-face-tournament-style-who-rules-supreme system. It is a system where you and your buddies can enjoy playing a small, fast paced game in under an hour or spend countless turns attempting to maneuver your sniper up to the belltower for the perfect shot on the turncoat who is in league with the enemy in a story driven campaign.

We have been playing Checkmate and enjoying it a great deal as a change of pace from the existing game, so please do not tell me that it is a system that does not work. I've played it, and though it very well may have some hidden flaws that need sorting out, the game as a whole is working as intended.

I do enjoy constructive criticism, but the key word is constructive. Please do not post that something is unbalanced without taking the time to explain the stance and provide examples. It does nothing to further the ruleset.

Along that same line, do not post items that you think break the system without thinking them through first. This is not a ruleset that I singlehandedly came up with this morning in a drunken stupor. We have had a half dozen people picking the entire thing over from top to bottom for more than a month. Chances are, any knee jerk item you can come up with has been thought over already or came up during play. However, if you do see an issue, and after careful thought do not see a solution, I implore you to ask me about it.

Thank you,
-JohnPublic

[frozencore]

I did give reasons to my objections to your rules, and you chose to dismiss them. I play both Eldar and GKs, and I wouldn't be able to play either of my armies with your rule set. Isn't that something to take into account? I informed you that it might be an error that you needed to address. Is there a reason why you chose to exclude this units? You still haven't explained, and it seems arbitrary to me.

The restrictions on certain unit types over others also seems arbitrary. I agree with shotgun that unlimited elites is a bit much. Why don't you have unlimited fast attack or heavy support? Why 5 of one but only 3 of the other?

If you think it is fun, then go for it. You posted your rules here so people could comment on them, and I did. If you can't take any criticism then don't post that you want to hear any critiques. Just because my comments don't say "this is the best thing ever" doesn't mean they are attacking you, and it doesn't make them any less valid.

Getting 18" away is something that can be done in two rounds, and faster if the single model runs. This isn't that big of a downside when only a single model isn't shooting for 1 round to give a -2 coversave on the next. With a large board this could be done fairly easily.

The loss of sweeping advance really hurts CC based armies in the new rules and really helps shooty armies(there were huge discussions on this at the start of 5th edition). Sure you can get into combat faster with running, but once you win you are left high and dry. If someone uses your split off rules to create a single sacrifice unit, that model will be easily lost, and the rest of the unit can fire on the attacker next round because of no sweeping advance. This is something you didn't comment on in your post, and it is something that could easily be abused.

In fact I don't see any real downside to breaking your units apart at all, since they can reform at any time. Perhaps if the orders had minimum model requirements or could only be performed if the unit had a leader (like in warmachine/hordes). This could prevent abuse and be fluffy as the unit leaders are the ones giving the special orders. Maybe Ld checks required, who knows.

I have played Necromunda and city fight quite a bit, and the 75% terrain isn't as limiting once you get a hang of things and are canny with your movement and lanes of fire. Often it is worth it to give your opponent that 4+ cover just because they have to roll to move trough difficult terrain which slows them down and assault at init 1 against your shooty troops.

As I said before this is almost really cool. If you tweak some stuff and think a few more things through I think you will get more people involved rather than just your gaming group. As it stands there are some issues, and people my play it once or twice, and be turned off with it.

[JohnPublic]

Checkmate strives to be a game of tactical movement much like it's namesake Chess. Units that are able to move more than 12" per turn take away greatly from the feel of the game and are restricted, just as they are restricted in Kill Teams, which is the system that this replaces.

Some existing 40k armies can not be translated into Checkmate teams. This was done on purpose. Again, a speedy army that ignores terrain will engage the enemy on turn 2-3 and is able to ignore tactical movement, thus such armies are forbidden. Checkmate is not standard 40k. It is it's own game with it's own feel and different armies will strive than in the standard environment.

Checkmate teams are meant to be elite forces. Think of them as the Navy Seals of warhammer. Thus, you are given free reign to include as many elite choices as possible after fulfilling your troop selection. Fast attack was given five slots in an effort to allow a fast paced feeling army to exist without overdoing it. Heavy support was restricted to three models to encourage players to not field an overly defensive gunline army that just sits backs and fires long range weaponry. The idea is that both armies should be moving forward tactically.

With ample area terrain and models that may not move more than 12" you can not move more than 18" in a single turn. Your opponent also is able to see what you are doing and react to it by moving out of line of sight to prevent the crossfire from occurring. The game is reactionary, just as chess is.

I certainly did comment on the ability to break off a single model as a sacrifice. The assaulting unit is able to break off a single model of it's own and assault your two units.

There should not be any penalty for breaking models off. In fact, in a perfect game, both players are using a large number of individual models running around solo. We purposefully attempted to hinder large units from being successful with rules such as crossfire.

It certainly does feel like an attack when you begin with "It's almost well thought out. Good effort, though." and then proceed to go through a laundry list of items (most of which I addressed in the introduction) without providing any thoughtful solutions. I appreciate your critiques, but ask you to please ignore the thread altogether if you are not able to provide suggestions that address the items that you perceive as problematic.

[frozencore]

With ample area terrain and models that may not move more than 12" you can not move more than 18" in a single turn.

One unit move 6" the other does the same, that is 12" in one round. If both units run that is an average of 19" in one round. If two trains are heading to Sacramento which will get there first?

If all the models are running around by themselves in a perfect game, then why not just play Necromunda? It would be easier and better to just put Orks in Nec than build a system from the start and take out all the flaws.

So in your opinion tactical movement is everyone moving the same? Part of the tactics of 40k (and even chess which you say you are emulating) are that things are different. The fact that assault marines move farther than a tac squad influences how people move, just as a pawn only move one space but a bishop can move any number diagonally.

While I am not going to spend time writing up a diagram a single sac unit could be used and thereby deny you the charge due to range, even if you could break someone off. This is something you didn't address, as I said. If this is your intention, then fine, but it seems gamey.

I keep posting suggestions, but you keep ignoring them. Not every issue needs to be fixed by me, certain thing can be taken out or changed by you, the game designer. Once again, if your intention is to show us what you think is a perfect system so that we might play it as well, don't post that you want critiques.

[JohnPublic]

If both units are running then neither is shooting for the turn in an attempt to set up a situation that your opponent may be able to easily circumvent by moving the model or unit in question out of line of sight. This situation is just the sort of thing the ruleset hopes to accomplish.

Necromunda diverges more from Standard 40k than Checkmate does. The effort is to create a more dynamic Kill Team system for fifth edition where neither player is stuck using brute squads.

I apologize that the system is not one where your ultra fast eldar will be able to pwn any army that they come across. It is designed to be a fast paced game with slow moving units. Now, I have spent the better part of the past two hours systematically addressing your concerns, only for you to say that I am ignoring them and then you bombard me again. I suggested it before, but now I will politely ask that you refrain from posting further in this thread. This is clearly a system that has does not suit your playstyle and we'll both be happier if you would kindly move on and allow others to comment in an effort for the thread to move back on track. If you feel we must continue our dialogue I would be happy to indulge your thoughts via pm.

Thank you sincerely,
JohnPublic.

[kr0w17]

I've played this system.

GK and Eldar can create varied and diverse armies under this rules set. Esp eldar, from JPs post:


(Dire Avengers, Rangers, Guardians, Swooping Hawks, Striking Scorpions, Fire Dragons, Howling Banshies, Harlequins, Dark Reapers, and Warwalkers.)

as far as GK go, outside of the troop choices, you can take assassins, inquisitors(which may or may not have psychic powers), henchmen, vehicles -- all kinds of shit really. When I played GK I did really well.

BUT, as was stated in the intro, this rules set is not designed for all armies.

Essentially you have a small, tactical elite group trying to accomplish an objective by allowing each of its members to fulfill a specific goal. Its a system built with that in mind, and that's what you get when you play it. Eldar would be super fun to play in this system. I know for a fact that GK are a blast.

[frozencore]

I wasn't going to post again, but since you are commenting on something I said I feel it is needed.

Guardian Defender squads need grav platforms to be effective, so they are out. LoS will effect Rangers (Warwalkers and Dark Reapers too). This will be true for most long range units, but that pretty much just leaves Dire Avengers as a the only viable troop choice for Eldar under these rules. You both say that this is how you want it, so that's fine. I think the restrictions are needless, and can be more versatile without them. Getting rid of Grav platforms makes no sense whatsoever. They don't effect movement at all, which is something you want to limit (for some reason) in a game about tactical movement. [NOTE: My suggestion is that you remove the restriction on grav platforms so eldar can have heavy weapons]

As far as GK go, all inquisitors are psykers weather they have powers or not. Yep, read the codex. So that takes out inquisitors, their retinues, and assassins. All Justicars and Brother Captains are also psykers, so there goes your options for power weapons and wargear. Grey Knights are a flavorful force that would mesh very well with your "elite" theme. The restrictions on psykers limits them greatly as a good portion of GK and Inquisitorial units are psykers even if they don't have any powers. Furthermore psykers in small kill teams are a fun and fluffy part of the 40k universe. This restriction also disallows Guardian units to take a warlock leader, something that could be beneficial, and once again is very fluffy. Since Eldar don't have any HQ choices that meet your wound restrictions the warlock could be the pseudo leader of the force, something they are known to do in the background. Tyranids also have problems with you restriction as they need psykers to function AT ALL for synapse. [NOTE: My suggestion is that you remove the restriction on psykers or change it in such a way so that Daemonhunters, Eldar, and Tyranids can build fun lists or even have a list at all]

Why not design the game so the greatest amount of people can enjoy it?

[Hive Fleet Scorpii]

Yeah, looks good in general. I can see the no fast units idea, but I'm curious as to why no Psychers. As a 'nid player, this means that ALL of the HQ units are out, and makes any Troop options besides Rippers(Who can't claim objectives, and therefore would not be very useful) and Genestealers useless. Psychers in general don't tend to be rediculously powerful, too, which makes me even more curious. With the individual-unit stuff, it makes characters like Librarians, who might otherwise be a bit scary, not nearly as.

The anti-grav platform thing also seems odd, I have to admit.

[JohnPublic]

Frozen, I was just very tired after a long day last night and it felt like you were launching an all out attack against the system. I apologize for any offense. I do appreciate you reposting today.

In honesty I added grav platforms without thinking it over simply because they were restricted in kill teams and our Eldar player did not raise any red flags over the grav platform issue. I was not fully clear on it's abilities and am happy to remove it from the restricted list.

As far as psykers are concerned it also found it's way onto the list via it's inclusion in the kill team rules. I felt it was justified given the power of certain abilities. More than anything I did not want players to be able to create one gigantic squad with all of their models and then have them all benefit from abilities that affect the psyker's unit. This is something that can clearly be taken advantage of. I have no issue with psykers as a group, but abilities that affect an entire unit must be restricted to prevent this from occurring. Ideas?

EDIT: Glaring contradiction to the rules removed. Oops!

[frozencore]

We all have bad days, and the internet has a hard time of conveying tone. I really do think quite a lot of your game is good, and it really is almost great. I like the mission, and the concept of the orders is very cool. That being said, I did (and still do) have some issues with some of the things in your game. A lot of the limitations, are odd and unnecessary. They might have been in the kill team rules, but they were odd back then too.

Like Scorpii said, I don't think psykers wil be as much of an issue as you first thought with the smaller units. Of course play testing the most broken thing you can think of is the only way to know for sure.

What you might want to do, in trying to stick with your theme is limit the amount of points someone can spend on a single squad. This would stop someone from making a big psyker-buffed up unit. Just throwing out a number I think 120(maybe less like 100 ) might be about right. This would force people to play with the small squads that you want. having a point cap would also reduce the ammount of over the top heros, and allow people to field vehicles that aren't 33 AV. Sure they wouldn't be able to buy a very good vehicle for that many points, no landraiders, no holofields falcons, but the could still by a transport if they wanted, or even a normal dread(with a less effctive weapon option or extra armor, but not both). Once again, playtesting this option would be needed, but with all the terrain on the board I think the power of vehicles will be much less than in a normal game, and therefore removing the 33 restriction might be ok. In my opinion more options are always better than fewer.

When I first read your description I had envisioned small squads running around, not individual models. SEALS, Rangers, paratroopers, etc. don't run around by themselves. From what I understand it's usually a small group of 2-5 that works in consort. Lots of 3-man squads would still have the multiple unit feel you were going for, and prevent a lot of the gameyness that breaking models off could create with your system.

The orders are a cool twist to add tactics back in a low point game that might lack them otherwise. I still think there should be limits on who can perform them, like model requirements, or having a unit leader nearby. For example if I have a 3-man scorpion squad if I by the exarch he can allow the unit to make the orders. Alternatively if I am in 12" of the 'army leader' any unit can make an order. This could open up interesting possibilities like having Vox casters broadcast the "order bubble" in like 6" around them in addition to the 12" for the leader. Maybe being in synapse range also lets you make orders. There are lots of interesting possibilities that you could be taking advantage of here.

Your orders also favor certain armies over others, as I said before. To expand on that the "aimed shot" rule only works if you have rapid fire weapons or sniper rifles. Certain armies don't have rapid fire weapons. I think removing the restriction on aimed shot to be any weapon that isn't a heavy weapon (as long as they only fire once) might be better. It might also be interesting to allow overwatch to stop an opponent mid-move if they desire, but at a -1 to hit. This would account for the enemy darting from cover to cover and you trying to hit a moving target as they are out in the open. A "surpression fire" might be an interesting idea as well. It would require a multi-shot heavy weapon, and if the weapon hits the enemy has to make a pinning test. Even if they make it they move as if through difficult terrain next turn in the open, or only get to roll 1d6 if they actually move through difficult terrain. You are only ever allowed to cause one wound with suppressing fire and are not allowed to move. Surpressing fire, aimed shot, and overwatch could be good counters to each other, perhaps if you unit is fired upon either one is lost (just like aimed shot).

[kr0w17]

I immediately thought that the grav platform was restricted because of the ability to shoot a heavy weapon and then move 6". It is my understanding that that is the way these platforms work. I felt that would be slightly broken in a game where the ability to shoot and then move behind cover is built into the rules.

I'm not an eldar player, so if this isn't the way they work, then I fully support dropping the restriction. But if that is how the grav platform works, do not remove.

I'm thinking that's why they were restricted in Kill Teams, and that seems necessary to keep balance.

A guy with a Star Cannon that can move 6", shoot someone and then assault is kinda nutty.

Things get really broken when you incorporate overwatch.

I'm completely behind the idea of adding assault weapons to the Aimed Shot tactic.


On a side note, I'm not sure you and the design team are on the same frequency after reading your post about point restrictions on squads. The only unit you purchase as a "squad" would be the mandatory troop choice. The rest of your team would be composed of single models, likely purchased from elites/fast/heavy/and HQs. The idea being similar to the "A-Team" with B.A. Barrakas, being your heavy choice, Col. John "Hannibal" Smith being your HQ, Helicopter Pilot "Howling Mad" Murdock being a fast attack and Lt. Templeton "Faceman" (usually referred to simply as "Face") Peck being your elite multi-faceted spy with specialized equipment and weapons.

[JohnPublic]

Good points Kr0w and until further notice, grav platforms are back on the banned list. I knew there was a reason they were outlawed in kill teams.

I'll add to the elite fighting force theme by point out that once in game, your models are free to form units however you see fit. You might have one unit that consists of two space marines, a scout, a devastator, and a vanguard vet and another unit comprised of two normal jump infantry and a sternguard veteran. Regardless of how you restrict the model selection, once in game you are free to join every model you control into one large unit or break them all apart into a team of lone wolves. With a psyker present, a single large unit would be abnormally powered and thus psykers are restricted. This is the reason kill team banned them and the reason that they remain banned in Checkmate as of now.

In my mind the game strives to achieve three goals:
1. Promote tactical movement.
2. Utilize the potential of the loose formation system.
3. Provide modeling and hobby opportunities through a small, elite force.

[kr0w17]

I think when we put this together we took a few thoughts for granted and didn't want to make the rules so cumbersome and difficult to digest that nobody read them.

For instance the Hive Mind power is more than a psychic ability, it is an army wide universal rule designed to balance the army in terms of playing in a standard 40K 5th edition (obv. the rule was written before 5th) gaming environment. So it would be more than absurd to ban hive mind and the units that have it or are affected by it. The fluff indicates that this power is a psychic power and is effected by things that effect psychic powers, but what it is really is a core army wide special rule and is not restricted or banned.

Another clear example is that the Demon Hunter codex says that every single Grey Knight is culled from the very best psykers throughout the Imperium and that being a potent psyker is mandatory to even begin training. The fluff also indicates that all of their special abilites stem from the fact that they are infact psykers. BUT does it make much sense to say that the army is by default banned. No, not really, not much sense at all. And I can see how some might have read that restriction and thought that. Much like the Hive Mind power, the modified night fighting roll to shoot at a Grey Knight isn't really a psychic power so much as a built in special rule that every Grey Knight comes with automatically as with all of the other army wide special rules for Grey Knights and they are also not restricted or banned.

But, in an attempt to be more clear, the rules set was designed around the idea that almost every army has a "Psyker" character available to it. These characters usually come with one or more psychic abilities and usually have the option to purchase more. The abilities granted to these characters should be easy to spot, they come with names like "Lash" and "Transfixing Gaze" and "Doom", etc.

I would argue that you can purchase a special character who can use psychic powers, you can even purchase psychic powers for them, you just can't use the powers in the game. (The powers are what are causing problems, not the character, i.e. Inquisitors are fine, so are henchmen, they just can't be walking around town smiting their enemies with the Emperor's holy psychic wrath.)

These games are yours and these rules are basic guidelines.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Final thought:

This system was designed to promote cinematic scenarios that play out to the point where each game has a story of its own.

i.e. It has a slightly role-playing lean to it. At least a small portion of the fun in playing games of 40k: Checkmate is using your imagination. Who doesn't like to tell the story of their lone sniper taking out an enemy from across the battle field or about how Dark Reaver Dave protected a sacred Eldar relic single-handedly against an imperial interloper?

Players interested in making retardedly powerful lists guaranteed to demolish all comers probably won't have a good time because it wasn't designed with competitive tournament play in mind.

[CaptainSarathai]

Exactly- what Kr0w said.
Players take the points system for granted. They don't care how units fit together according to theme, they just think that if the points are even, then the armies must be balanced and legitimate.
I play a WW1 aircraft game called Canvas Eagles. The game is just as old as Warhammer, and yet it has NEVER had a points system implemented. My friends and I play a highly competitive campaign system which we balanced out, but we still don't use points. We base the battles on historical accuracy, but also worked it out so that even in games where one side has an advantage, the campaign remains balanced. You can win the battle, and still lose the war.

I like this system. I think it would best be played between two similar or identical forces, like:
IG vs. IG
IG vs. Tau
SM vs. SM
SM vs. CSM
Eldar vs. Eldar
etc.

[Aves]

OK this rules never stood near balanced. The "bane" list is broken, if you are designing anything for WH40k you have to get few main principles.
Firstly every army is different, when GW looks at armies they see roles army can fill in, thats why we have no squat army (Space dwarves) cos essentialy their rules were too similar to SM. So trying to cut certain aspects of armies by definition is an idiocy, yes Eldars have grav platforms, but they also have 5+ save, does it ring a bell?
"model cant move more than 12"= bul.... , there are armies and armies movements is balanced into the points,

Now, shooting before movements: its wrong, 1st turn i take positions, 1st oppenents turn he moves, 2nd my turn i start shooting. It destroying the balance.

Special orders, get them simpler, simplicity=playability, more over 40k is a game of chance, so Ld test is a minimum requirement, reasonable requirement=HQ, or squad sergant.

Overal, Looks like u made some system for yourself and you 2-3 mates and since it worked for you, you decided to publish it, it seems u play with tough infantry army and this rules suit this army.

If u want small scale 40k play 400 pts patrol games, (40k in 40 min restrictions), if u want kill team without brutes, just make 2 killteams you dont need broken rules for that.

PS why bane psykers, it costs points to field them, same points as fieding any infantry guy.

PPS Frozen was actualy quite soft on you, so stop giving him that crap about "i am so tired" you did avoided precise answears.

[kr0w17]

Aves,

I think I have a handle on your criticism of the system so let me take them one at a time and if I have something wrong, please reply with what you meant and how I misunderstood it and we can go over it.

I've worked hard on this rules set along with JP, and although I am invested in this I am very interested in your thoughts.


Firstly every army is different, when GW looks at armies they see roles army can fill in, thats why we have no squat army (Space dwarves) cos essentialy their rules were too similar to SM.

40k design staff have balanced the game for the standard 40K rules set, and although each army is different and is (somewhat) balanced for the standard game, aspects of the original had to be modified or restricted to balance 40K: Checkmate. The armies of 40K have been balanced but in this game neither side has an army. Each player is in command of a single squad, essentially, and the standard 40k rules set allowed for abuses and over powered teams as it stood. The ability to shoot a heavy as an assault weapon was deemed over powering. Comparing 40k: Checkmate to standard 40k is apples and oranges and a true comparison cannot be made. I think everyone can agree that in order to play the type of games we are talking about playing some concession to the rules needed to be made and that the two games are distinctly different.


Now, shooting before movements: its wrong, 1st turn i take positions, 1st oppenents turn he moves, 2nd my turn i start shooting. It destroying the balance.

Play the scenario we have provided with the rules we've laid out and tell us your results. I've had no problem where this rule had broken the game balance. Remember this game does not play like a normal game of 40k. It does not feel like one when you play it, but it is also fun and balanced. It is important to note that you start from opposite short edges.


Special orders, get them simpler, simplicity=playability, more over 40k is a game of chance, so Ld test is a minimum requirement, reasonable requirement=HQ, or squad sergant.


I'm not sure what you mean here, the maneuvers available to both sides have requirements based on either movement or a specialized tactic. In most cases they require setup or planning to execute, but they are straightforward and simplistic. I have trouble seeing how adding a die roll or HQ/leader requirement would make them simpler or less convoluted.


Overal, Looks like u made some system for yourself and you 2-3 mates and since it worked for you, you decided to publish it, it seems u play with tough infantry army and this rules suit this army.


This rules set was put together by JP, myself, our local gaming group and a gaming group from 100 miles from where we play. Several people have been involved and it has been a brain child of ours for over a year, although actual rule development started late 2008. We've play tested and are play testing SM/IG/Necron/Tau/Ork/'Nids/Chaos/DH. We borrowed from published rules sets as well as brainstormed among 40k veterans.


If u want small scale 40k play 400 pts patrol games, (40k in 40 min restrictions), if u want kill team without brutes, just make 2 killteams you dont need broken rules for that.


This isn't standard 40k. We set out to make a different game than standard 40k. It is different, it plays different. Give it a whirl and post your impressions after playing a match or 3.

Best of luck,

-Josh

[JohnPublic]

Wow. Just wow.

I'm not "publishing" anything. I'm not asking anything from anyone. We did design a system for our own group to play with no intention on forcing it on anyone. If you don't like the system and you don't think it's viable, then click the damned back button and forget about it.

I posted the ruleset here because we were enjoying it and I thought others might do the same. I have said over and over and over again that it is not a perfect system and that if you like the basic idea, but don't agree with some of the rules, then you should change them to fit your own needs.

I can only assume one of two things:
1. You made no attempt to fully read and comprehend the rules
2. I've just been trolled.

Either way, thanks for playing.

--------------------------------------------

EDIT: I did mean to respond to Frozen's post from earlier in more detail, but was short on time and sidetracked by Kr0w's post...


It might also be interesting to allow overwatch to stop an opponent mid-move if they desire, but at a -1 to hit. This would account for the enemy darting from cover to cover and you trying to hit a moving target as they are out in the open. A "surpression fire" might be an interesting idea as well. It would require a multi-shot heavy weapon, and if the weapon hits the enemy has to make a pinning test. Even if they make it they move as if through difficult terrain next turn in the open, or only get to roll 1d6 if they actually move through difficult terrain. You are only ever allowed to cause one wound with suppressing fire and are not allowed to move. Surpressing fire, aimed shot, and overwatch could be good counters to each other, perhaps if you unit is fired upon either one is lost (just like aimed shot).
We did have overwatch working like that, but we found that overwatch was being used too frequently. We wanted to put the overwatch firer to a decision; "Do I take this shot or wait for a better one while risking not getting it at all?" I do see the point about firing at a unit that is attempting to move from cover to cover, but would want to impose a severe penalty if allowed.

I like the idea of the suppression firing (especially as I have been playing DoW II the past few days) and would like to expand on it. Though I feel at this point that if we add another shooting maneuver that another movement or assault one needs to be incorporated as well. Have anything in mind that might fit the bill?

-------------------------------------------

EDIT #2:
CaptainSarathai, you've hit the nail on the head. I hope that you will try the system and let us know what you think afterwards. Enjoy.

[JohnPublic]

In the name of structure and progress I'll post a few numbered points that cover the current items of discussion. Feel free to comment on them.

1. Grav platforms are overpowered due to the fact that they could shoot and then move out of line of sight. Should they be allowed in the list, but count as heavy weapons rather than assault?

2. Psykers are overpowered due to their ability to affect a single, giant squad with an ability that was never intended to affect a mixed unit of that size. Should Psykers be allowed in the list, but restricted to only using shooting attacks?

3. Suppression - The unit fires a multi-shot heavy weapon at a single target. If it is successful in scoring at least two hits then the target unit must take a leadership test. If it fails it is only able to move 1d6" in the following turn and may not run. Suppression is unable to inflict wounds and is useless against targets that have the Fearless USR.

4. If Suppression is added I feel we need to add another movement or assault based maneuver to even it out. AND / OR Careful Advance is amended to make the unit immune to Suppression.

5. I added assault and pistol weapons to the Aimed Shot maneuver.

6. My thought on limiting maneuvers to certain models is that the Checkmate team is supposedly an elite force. Even though the models come from the various categories, in my mind they are equals. Most armies will have a tough time fielding an HQ due to the two wound restriction and I don't want to force people to take sergeants or team leaders.

If there are other pressing issues that I have omitted, please feel free to bring them up, but for my own sanity, I beg you to do so in a clear, concise manner. Please be very specific as to the issue and your thoughts on it.

Thank you.

[Aves]

Comparing 40k: Checkmate to standard 40k is apples and oranges and a true comparison cannot be made

"I have called game 40k: Checkmate but it has nothing to do with warhammer 40k"


Psykers are overpowered due to their ability to affect a single, giant squad with an ability that was never intended to affect a mixed unit of that size. Should Psykers be allowed in the list, but restricted to only using shooting attacks?


Their head can blow up!
Restricting something because it is "overpowered" is broken by definition, if something cost so many points in 300pts game then yes it should be worth it.

Now u seem to have lost 1 thing, chess are game of strategy because both sides have exacly the same abilitites, if u are trying to make armies as similiar as possible, then its kinda wrong, again by definition, armies are unique.

Nother impression i have, is that everyone is putting cheap troop choice and then puts elites in




I'm not "publishing" anything. I'm not asking anything from anyone.

The sun isnt yellow, sky isnt blue. Mate if u post something on public forum then its called publishing. If you publish something then expect criticis, you dont need to ask for it. + by default isnt forum a place to exchange oppinions, cos if u post something, get screwed for important details, and then say "Well its my system and dont interfere" then close this thread and get lost.

[JohnPublic]

"I have called game 40k: Checkmate but it has nothing to do with warhammer 40k"
It has a lot to do with 40k, but it's simply not the same game. It has different mechanics and behaves differently.


Their head can blow up!
Restricting something because it is "overpowered" is broken by definition, if something cost so many points in 300pts game then yes it should be worth it.
They are not overpowered in the standard game because they are balanced to work with certain units that they are forced to stick with or because the unit is a certain type. In a game where the unit compositions are different than the standard game, the dynamic changes and they gain power that they do not have in a normal game.


Now u seem to have lost 1 thing, chess are game of strategy because both sides have exacly the same abilitites, if u are trying to make armies as similiar as possible, then its kinda wrong, again by definition, armies are unique.
With the restrictions we have imposed the majority of checkmate teams will be similar. Why is it wrong? Because you say so? Think outside the box.


Nother impression i have, is that everyone is putting cheap troop choice and then puts elites in
That is perfectly viable.


The sun isnt yellow, sky isnt blue. Mate if u post something on public forum then its called publishing. If you publish something then expect criticis, you dont need to ask for it. + by default isnt forum a place to exchange oppinions, cos if u post something, get screwed for important details, and then say "Well its my system and dont interfere" then close this thread and get lost.
Mate, you've been around for less than a month and have 16 posts to your name. This forum is absolutely a place to exchange opinions, but if your opinion is that the entire system won't work, then you should either be more concise and helpful or you should simply refrain from posting.

Point blank, you just simply do not understand the point of this ruleset or, I would argue, the hobby as a whole.

[kr0w17]

Our restrictions are there because during play testing and rules development we found they made for a more balanced game that felt and behaved in a way most similar to the way we envisioned the game initially.

In order to promote the free form unit coherency we've implemented here, we tried to restrict those parts of the game that encouraged single unit cohesion. This included, among other things, the exclusion of psykers.

Later, it was brought to our attention that a squad of long range specialists could add a special character to their squad and that balancing issues might arise concerning the use of psykers to improve a model's base abilities whereby giving the unit powerful long range weapons and a psychic boost making them close combat maniacs. Where in the normal world of 40K these two abilities would never meet, i.e. the codex would normally not allow certain combinations that 40k: Checkmate allows, and after seeing some of the retardedly powerful squads our discussion group was putting together we felt the No Psyker rule needed to remain.

Whereas no one was looking to take every codex and carefully rewrite every psychic ability to fit, and whereas it seemed a clear situation of either removing psychic abilities completely or leaving them whole and intact, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

It is our firm belief that, in general, sportsmanship should keep people from building broken lists that abuse a rule, but because we wanted to limit keeping your squads bunched together we included the restriction in our rules set.

As we've been saying, if you don't like a restriction play without it and post back here with your results. No one here feels this system is perfect, but we would urge anyone with doubts about its playability or conceptual and theorized issues with the system, play a few games and post your results.

That's a big goal of this thread, to see if a few people might be interested in giving this system a spin, post back some responses and help make it the best it can be.

_______________________________________


1. Grav platforms are overpowered due to the fact that they could shoot and then move out of line of sight. Should they be allowed in the list, but count as heavy weapons rather than assault?

2. Psykers are overpowered due to their ability to affect a single, giant squad with an ability that was never intended to affect a mixed unit of that size. Should Psykers be allowed in the list, but restricted to only using shooting attacks?

3. Suppression - The unit fires a multi-shot heavy weapon at a single target. If it is successful in scoring at least two hits then the target unit must take a leadership test. If it fails it is only able to move 1d6" in the following turn and may not run. Suppression is unable to inflict wounds and is useless against targets that have the Fearless USR.

4. If Suppression is added I feel we need to add another movement or assault based maneuver to even it out. AND / OR Careful Advance is amended to make the unit immune to Suppression.

5. I added assault and pistol weapons to the Aimed Shot maneuver.

6. My thought on limiting maneuvers to certain models is that the Checkmate team is supposedly an elite force. Even though the models come from the various categories, in my mind they are equals. Most armies will have a tough time fielding an HQ due to the two wound restriction and I don't want to force people to take sergeants or team leaders.

1: I like the idea of having the platforms count as they count in the weapon description. If they are heavy weapons, they act as heavy weapons on a grav platform.

2: Shooting attacks seem fine, but deciding which powers are ok and which powers are not seems like the beginning of a slippery slope. Seems more of an all or none choice. BUT, like with Inquisitors, I see no problem taking psykers that have the option of not purchasing the abilities.

3: I like suppression but feel that adding maneuvers might be put on pause until we get some more feed back from players on the system as is.

4: If added, we will need to balance the shooting/CC/movement ratio again and adding a "counter" ability to an existing maneuver sounds great, but I don't think it would really replace having to add another CC or movement maneuver.

5: This is a change for the better.

6: See my response to making maneuvers more simplistic by adding die roles or specific model requirements being seemingly opposite ideas.

[MethodicalMeat]

This looks like oodles of fun! My kommandos would like to thank you, sir, for giving them such a fine chance to shine. Ah, here's the nob now.

"Oi wuz just browsin' dis 'ere foe-rum t'day when I seez dis fred and I sez to moiself 'Boss, you gots ta run dis by da uvver boyz and see if dey wants a piece.' Good luck JohnPublic, yooz an hon'rary kommando, far as oim koncerned."

[Aves]

They are not overpowered in the standard game because they are balanced to work with certain units that they are forced to stick with or because the unit is a certain type. In a game where the unit compositions are different than the standard game, the dynamic changes and they gain power that they do not have in a normal game.



Show an example where benefit psyker has overpowers the game, and how much would it cost.


With the restrictions we have imposed the majority of checkmate teams will be similar. Why is it wrong? Because you say so? Think outside the box.


The whole idea about 40k is variety, if u wanna play "your " game put some figure on a chess board. Think outside a box, i am and i see crap.



Nother impression i have, is that everyone is putting cheap troop choice and then puts elites in That is perfectly viable.


This in normal tournament is called powerplay, if ur system suports it it just shows what kind of player are u.



Mate, you've been around for less than a month and have 16 posts to your name. This forum is absolutely a place to exchange opinions, but if your opinion is that the entire system won't work, then you should either be more concise and helpful or you should simply refrain from posting.

Point blank, you just simply do not understand the point of this ruleset or, I would argue, the hobby as a whole.

Have u ever heard about "quality"? cos u appear to understand quantity. And yes my oppinion is that all potential ur ruleset had is ruined by artificial restrictions yet u appear to be a powerplayer, ergo u propose rules that suit u, ur playstyle, and army and present them as good for everyone. Keep this trash for your circle of adoration but if u publish it, deal with criticism. And i am rather consistent, i dont tell u to put + or - 2 somewhere, i tell u that ur general ideas are idiotic.

Point blank enough?

[darkspawn327]

They are not overpowered in the standard game because they are balanced to work with certain units that they are forced to stick with or because the unit is a certain type. In a game where the unit compositions are different than the standard game, the dynamic changes and they gain power that they do not have in a normal game.



Show an example where benefit psyker has overpowers the game, and how much would it cost.


With the restrictions we have imposed the majority of checkmate teams will be similar. Why is it wrong? Because you say so? Think outside the box.


The whole idea about 40k is variety, if u wanna play "your " game put some figure on a chess board. Think outside a box, i am and i see crap.



Nother impression i have, is that everyone is putting cheap troop choice and then puts elites in That is perfectly viable.


This in normal tournament is called powerplay, if ur system suports it it just shows what kind of player are u.



Mate, you've been around for less than a month and have 16 posts to your name. This forum is absolutely a place to exchange opinions, but if your opinion is that the entire system won't work, then you should either be more concise and helpful or you should simply refrain from posting.

Point blank, you just simply do not understand the point of this ruleset or, I would argue, the hobby as a whole.

Have u ever heard about "quality"? cos u appear to understand quantity. And yes my oppinion is that all potential ur ruleset had is ruined by artificial restrictions yet u appear to be a powerplayer, ergo u propose rules that suit u, ur playstyle, and army and present them as good for everyone. Keep this trash for your circle of adoration but if u publish it, deal with criticism. And i am rather consistent, i dont tell u to put + or - 2 somewhere, i tell u that ur general ideas are idiotic.

Point blank enough?

Please leave. This is a great idea that these fine gentlemen have gone incredibly far out of their way to create and share. If you believe in it, please respectably give your comments. Otherwise, please create your own rule set to play with your own group mates.

Back to the subject at hand, it would really cool to have a single army-wide trait to add some flavor. Here were some ideas I had (none being game breaking):

Careful Planning: The army strikes at the objectives under the cover of darkness. The opponent uses Night Fight rules for the first turn. Any models that fire guns are instantly visible and can be targeted without Night Fight rules.

Ambush! : The General has planned ahead and strategically places snipers far off many days ago. The army can make three sniper shots per game at BS 4 with unlimited range.

Stalker Reputation: Each enemy unit must take a Leadership test at the beginning of each turn until they can spot the enemy (using the range of the maximum-range gun). If failed, the unit moves as though in difficult terrain as they slowly and carefully advance.

Quick Response: If the enemy fires upon any of your units, your units may immediately make a D6" move to reposition themselves (at the end of your opponent's shooting phase).

Surprise!: Your general knows of a nasty trap lurking in the battlefield from either recon or history. Note a piece of 3"x3" of area. Any model that passes through this area must take a S5 hit at AP 5.

Fully Equipped: Careful and slightly obsessive, your general has taken extra precaution to come prepared. Roll an extra D6 when measuring to see how far your units can move through difficult terrain.

I think this idea flows well with the feel of Checkmate, adding another element of uniqueness to an elite squad. I hope you like it!

Keep on rockin'!

-Dark

[CaptainSarathai]

I can tell you EXACTLY where the inclusion of psykers breaks this game: Psyker Squads.

Psyker (and his squad) gets +# to their stat. After casting that, the next psyker casts "psyker (and his squad) gets +# to some other stat.
If you did this, it would create an over boosted unit. Additionally, sometimes a certain power will help a certain type of guy. This game allows for free-form squads, where you could have 3 guardsmen and a Sentinel all working together. Add a sanctioned psyker to the mix, and you could easily boost the sentinel. See the point? Psykers give boosts, and since in 40K they were only meant to join flesh-and-blood infantry squads of a single type, they can now boost anything that they wouldn't normally be able to join.

----

For 'Suppression Fire', try the following-

Suppression Fire: your warriors take up positions and lay down a hail of fire, forcing enemies to scramble for cover and ignore other threats
In the first shooting phase of the turn, a unit may elect to provide suppressing fire. The unit fore-goes any further maneuvers for the turn, as they are busy firing weapons. Supression fire does not target a unit, but targets a corridor that equal to the width of the FIRING unit. Enemy units who fall within this corridor (by either moving, or beginning their turn within it) must take a Pinning Test, with applicable modifiers:
-2 if supressing weapon is of type Heavy
-1 if supressing weapon is of type Rapid Fire
-1 if supressing squad is larger than target squad
+2 of supressing squad is smaller than target squad
Units who fail the test must move towards the nearest cover by the most direct route, using whatever movement they have remaining. Once cover is reached, they may make no further maneuvers.
Units who pass the test must switch their maneuver from 'move' to 'careful advance'.
Supressing fire lasts for the duration of the friendly turn, and the opponent's turn. Units who are within the supressing corridor lose 'overwatch' and any 'supressing fire' manuevers that they were currently on.
This maneuver does not generate kills, but rather does exactly what supression fire is meant to do: forces the enemy troops to get their heads down for atleast a turn. But, to keep it all somewhat balanced, units can still move within this area- just at a slower pace as they scramble from cover to cover or crawl along the ground.

For a balanced move, try this:

Death or Glory! The warriors make a desperate charge into the face of their adversaries, throwing them off balance and giving a brief element of surprise
Units who use this maneuver may increase their movement value by half. Furthermore, units who are on Overwatch must take a Leadership test. If they fail, they may not fire on the 'Death or Glory' unit. Units who use 'Death or Glory' while being targeted by supression fire may move normally, but roll a D6 for every inch that a model is moved. On a roll of 6, the model is hit by a weapon (determined randomly) from the firing squad. There is no need to roll against ballistic skill, as this is just a lucky shot. There are modifiers:
-2 if supressing weapon is of type Heavy
-1 if supressing weapon is of type Rapid Fire
-1 if supressing squad is larger than target squad
+2 of supressing squad is smaller than target squad
This rule gives a sort of "march move" from fantasy, to help give combat armies back their bite, by letting them move faster. It also gives your men something of a sprint move if they're too far away from the action. Furthermore, it provides a balance to overwatch and supression fire, with inherent risks.

[Rabbit]

Aves, please tone down your responses and stop with the inflammatory and antagonizing remarks. If you truly feel there's something amiss with JohnPublic's proposal, then your criticism should be worded with diplomacy. JohnPublic has an excellent track-record with this forum, as a man of contribution and high regard. It would benefit you to follow his lead.




Firstly every army is different, when GW looks at armies they see roles army can fill in, thats why we have no squat army (Space dwarves) cos essentialy their rules were too similar to SM. So trying to cut certain aspects of armies by definition is an idiocy, yes Eldars have grav platforms, but they also have 5+ save, does it ring a bell?
As JohnPublic has clearly demonstrated, his system has variances from 40K. Some of these variances generate or potentially generate scenarios beneficial to given model types. Therefore, in order to compensate, he is making further adjustments, such as modifying particular aspects of the game/armies. This is not idiocy, but adaptation.

Continuing...


PPS Frozen was actualy quite soft on you, so stop giving him that crap about "i am so tired" you did avoided precise answears.


There's no justification for this remark. Any lingering confusion has already been resolved on both ends of that discussion. Stop throwing fuel on the fire.



Restricting something because it is "overpowered" is broken by definition, if something cost so many points in 300pts game then yes it should be worth it.


How so? Allowing an overpowered mechanic to go unchecked is equally broken by definition. I might point out that you're asserting a logical fallacy that harks back to your earlier comment, when you said, "I have called game 40k: Checkmate but it has nothing to do with warhammer 40k" If Checkmate has nothing to do with 40K then how can you talk about the cost of a given model/unit being worth it? For that matter, how can you say that "restricting a unit because it is 'overpowered' is broken by definition," if Checkmate has nothing to do with Warhammer?



Now u seem to have lost 1 thing, chess are game of strategy because both sides have exacly the same abilitites, if u are trying to make armies as similiar as possible, then its kinda wrong, again by definition, armies are unique.


Since when does strategy necessitate identical sides? War has strategy, and I doubt you'll find equality anywhere on the battlefield. More to the point, it really does seem that you've missed the bigger picture in JohnPublic's attempts at toning down certain mechanics; he's not endeavoring towards 'sameness,' but balance. These are two very differing concepts.



...cos if u post something, get screwed for important details, and then say "Well its my system and dont interfere" then close this thread and get lost.



Keep this trash for your circle of adoration but if u publish it, deal with criticism.

I won't even justify this with an answer, other than to point out the antagonistic attitude of your comments.

[BossGorestompa]

First, I would like to thank you, Rabbit. I tire of fail Trolls, and feel the need to combat Fire with Fire.. were it not for your intervention I'd have likely gotten myself in trouble ;)

Second, yet most importantly.. Thank you!! JP and Krow, and everyone else on your Dev Team. This is thus far a solid rules set, and I look forward to playtesting! Granted, it may take weeks.. or even months.. as real life tends to keep my Gang apart these days.. but thank you nonetheless!

Regarding JP's concerns over current issues..


1. Grav platforms are overpowered due to the fact that they could shoot and then move out of line of sight. Should they be allowed in the list, but count as heavy weapons rather than assault?
I feel they would simply be overpowered if included, no matter the circumstance. Eldar are left with an incredible amount of variance and power without them, and indeed even the basic Guardian will be much more potent given the style of play. Eldar players may cry, but I think the more cunning Autarchs and Farseers will realize the potential to truly put their specialist Aspects to use.


2. Psykers are overpowered due to their ability to affect a single, giant squad with an ability that was never intended to affect a mixed unit of that size. Should Psykers be allowed in the list, but restricted to only using shooting attacks?
At first I was strongly opposed to your exclusion of psykers.. I feel that they could add quite a bit of flavor to a game, provided the proper restrictions.. however I am now reduced to being fifty-fifty on the matter. I am still prone to believe that, no matter the psychic power, it's use will not break the game.. however I may be mistaken. Should an opponent (I'll use Eldar for example) wish to bunch a Farseer with Fortune along with a Warlock with Conceal.. so be it! There are ten objectives to claim, and a single large squad will be easy to outmaneuver. Those players who attempt this, or similar tactics, will quickly find that they will be better served investing their resources more liberally. Granted, Guide + five Warwalkers may be quite powerful; however, they will be covering a very limited portion of the battlefield.

I still may be wrong on this, but I think it would at least be worth considering.

Might I suggest: A Checkmate Army List may include a single psychic power, but may not include any powers (or wargear) that allow a squad to teleport or otherwise be removed from the game and brought back into play by any means. Furthermore, any model with random psychic powers may not be included in an Army List.

Or as an alternative: Any model that normally must select a psychic power may still be purchased without the need to select a power, provided they meet all other restrictions.

And while I'm on the topic - I would strongly urge you to restrict the use of any wargear that effectively allows a unit to "teleport"! This would include Necron Lords (Veil of Darkness), Swooping Hawks (Skyleap), and Ork Weird Boyz ('Ere We Go). Granted, I do not mean to exclude the units altogether (save for the Weird Boy), but their ability to perform such movements. Granted, there is a great chance of scattering into terrain when 75+% of the board is covered, there is still a 1/3 chance of scoring a direct hit.


3. Suppression - The unit fires a multi-shot heavy weapon at a single target. If it is successful in scoring at least two hits then the target unit must take a leadership test. If it fails it is only able to move 1d6" in the following turn and may not run. Suppression is unable to inflict wounds and is useless against targets that have the Fearless USR.

I rather like Captain Saratha's idea here.. however, I feel both his idea for Suppressing Fire and Death or Glory (the latter in particular) could use a little more refinement.

During the first shooting phase of a player's turn, that player may elect for one squad to perform a Suppressing Fire maneuver. Select a direction, all enemy units moving within 24" of that direction must pass a Morale check, modified by the table below. If failed, that unit must immediately Go To Ground or Fall Back. Units that Fall Back immediately regroup at the end of the phase.
Modifiers: Any targeted units will test for Morale using a Ld score modified by -1 for each of the following...
+If the Suppresing squad contains at least one heavy weapon.
+If the Suppressing squad is firing more shots than are models in the Suppressed unit*
+If the Suppressing squad is lead by an independant character.
*Suppressing Fire has an effective 24" range, regardless of actual weapon profiles; however, you must actually measure range to determine how many models in the Suppressing unit are in range for the purpose of determining Morale check penalties.

Fearless units are assumed to automatically pass their Morale test, but are otherwise considered moving through Dangerous Terrain.


4. If Suppression is added I feel we need to add another movement or assault based maneuver to even it out. AND / OR Careful Advance is amended to make the unit immune to Suppression.

I like the idea behind Death or Glory, but I'd consider something more along the lines off..

Any unit may attempt a Death or Glory maneuver at any time, provided they are not restricted from performing maneuvers for any other reason. (example: another maneuver states that the unit may not attempt any further maneuvers until the beginning of their next turn.) Units attempting a Death or Glory maneuver must elect a model within that unit and test versus that model's unmodified Ld, if failed that model is slain outright and removed from the game. Regardless of the outcome, the remaining unit counts as being Fearless until the end of the phase, but also count as having the Rage universal special rule until the end of their next (or current) player turn. That unit may not perform any other Maneuvers for the duration that it is affected by Rage in this manner.

This creates a maneuver that does specifically counter Suppressing Fire, but is also more universally useable.


5. I added assault and pistol weapons to the Aimed Shot maneuver.

Cheers!


6. My thought on limiting maneuvers to certain models is that the Checkmate team is supposedly an elite force. Even though the models come from the various categories, in my mind they are equals. Most armies will have a tough time fielding an HQ due to the two wound restriction and I don't want to force people to take sergeants or team leaders..

Krow hit this one right on. Do not restrict the use of maneuvers based upon unit composition. The game would become too convoluted, and as I see it they each have their own specific circumstances to be used effectively, therefore required at least a small amount of planning (or opportunism). I even wrote the above suggestions with this in mind, though I'm not quite sure if I succeeded.

It's become quite late here, though, and I had intended to write quite a bit more.. but it looks like that will have to wait for another time. I will end by saying I also support Dark's suggestion for adding army-wide tactics.. though you should be careful about their inclusion, as it could simply cause the game to become more convoluted - which you've done a great job avoiding thus far.

Keep up the good work! I look forward to seeing your final release for this, and indeed playing it often (provided I have someone to play against)

Peace!

[JohnPublic]

MethodicalMeat, it is an honor. As a relatively new Ork player I look for any chance to gain respect of the bosses. CaptainSarathai, thank you for that psyker squad example; it was perfect. Rabbit, thank you for the kind words and for the rescue. Now, on to the business at hand.

Army Wide Traits.
I really like this idea and the examples darkspawn327 provided are a great start. This is something that harks toward City Fight stratagems, which I always found to add instant uniqueness to an otherwise bland force. Perhaps we can look at those stratagems for more examples. However, I do not want to force traits upon an army. What if a point value was assigned to each trait and could be purchased as part of your 300 points?

Vehicles in Squads.
Both CaptainSarathai and BossGorestompa referenced units comprising of infantry and walkers. I have to admit that this is not a situation that we had considered and I didn't intend to write in. Unless there are objections I will add language to the rules that prohibits walkers and other vehicles from joining a unit with infantry.

Psykers.
I may have said this prior, but the original draft of the rules did not prohibit psykers. It was only after we began drawing up army lists that we found their presence to be potentially hazardous and they were added to the banned list. I am going to change the wording in the composition section to allow for psyker models to be included in lists, but prohibit them from using any psychic power during gameplay. This is an odd situation, but at this time I feel it's the best solution. The ten objective point is a good one, but the system is designed to allow for other, more story driven, missions and there is potential for abuse there.

Grav Weapons.
I'm fully convinced that Eldar can survive without them and they will remain banned as of now.

Maneuvers.
I would like to clear up their use. Any unit that uses a maneuver is prohibited from any other action for the entire turn and the duration of the maneuver. This includes using other maneuvers. The maneuver replaces all of their normal actions, thus a unit may not move and then use a shooting maneuver that prohibits movement, regardless of the order. By the same token a unit can never perform two maneuvers simultaneously. I will clarify this in the rules.

Teleporting
Good call. I will certainly work this in.

Suppression Fire.
Let me see if I can split the difference between the two proposals:
The unit fires a hail of rounds at their target in an effort to slow the target's movement. The firing unit suffers -1 to it's ballistic skill. If the target unit suffers any unsaved wounds it must make a leadership test at +/- x, where x is the number of models in the target unit minus the number of shots fired. If this test is failed the unit moves as if in difficult ground and may not run during their turn. If the firing unit contained heavy weapons then subtract one die from the difficult terrain test. This ability does not affect fearless units.

This would mean that if I fired 5 shots at 3 models and they suffered an unsaved wound they would take a leadership test at -2. If I fired 7 shots at 10 models and they suffered an unsaved wound they would test at +3. I think it is important to add the unsaved wound as units such as marines are confident that their armor will protect them from enemy fire. It is only when they see the armor fail that their morale is tested. We'll need to run some more numbers to see if this is viable. Anyone up for the mathhammer?

Death or Glory.
The unit gains the Fearless USR until the end of the next player turn and doubles the number of wounds scored against it. These additional wounds are incurred prior to saving throws being made and may be saved as normal. A unit performing Death or Glory may not fire weapons, but may take other actions as normal. Death or Glory may be used during the opponent's turn.

This attempts to replicate the way fearless works in close combat.

Transport Vehicles.
With the current armor restriction every army is allowed to take it's standard troop transport. However, Tau, Eldar, and Dark Eldar are prevented from taking their respective transport because of the anti-skimmer rule. Should an exception be made for these vehicles with a restriction that they may not move more than 12" per turn? Conversely, should the armor value be lowered to prevent any army from taking it's transport?

My feeling is that transports should be allowed as it creates a need for infantry carried heavy weapons, but I'm fully against allowing skimmers. Thoughts?

Missions.
Does anyone have ideas for more "standard" missions? The most important aspect is that they need to promote loose formations. Any mission that is added as standard needs to be nearly impossible for a single large squad to be victorious. Beyond that, try to utilize the entire table by keeping the deployment zones far apart. We've used short edge to short edge to prevent medium and long range weapons from inflicting wounds early. We want to give armies several movements before contact is made.

Lists.
Finally I'd like to see what sorts of lists people would come up with. I have a very specific idea of what a Checkmate force looks like and I'd like to see what others are thinking to expand my own view. Feel free to post ideal fluffy lists as well as "broken" ones. I'm interested to see if the restrictions are where they need to be.

If I missed anything I will comment on it later, I am short on time just now. Thank you to everyone who has posted feedback thus far. Keep the ideas coming.

[kr0w17]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses!

A couple of initial reactions:


There are ten objectives to claim, and a single large squad will be easy to outmaneuver. Those players who attempt this, or similar tactics, will quickly find that they will be better served investing their resources more liberally. Granted, Guide + five Warwalkers may be quite powerful; however, they will be covering a very limited portion of the battlefield.

This is the best argument I can think of for psykers. It is because of this line of thinking that the psyker issue has been so difficult to tackle. If you take advantage of the free-form unit coherency and simply out maneuvers your opponent's single squad, then the issue should begin solving itself after a few failed attempts. We'd prefer to build the system in such a way that it creates lists designed to be both fun and effective naturally. As mentioned, good sportsmanship will prevent most people from purposefully abusing abilities or powers.


Suppression Fire.
Let me see if I can split the difference between the two proposals:
The unit fires a hail of rounds at their target in an effort to slow the target's movement. The firing unit suffers -1 to it's ballistic skill. If the target unit suffers any unsaved wounds it must make a leadership test at +/- x, where x is the number of models in the target unit minus the number of shots fired. If this test is failed the unit moves as if in difficult ground and may not run during their turn. If the firing unit contained heavy weapons then subtract one die from the difficult terrain test. This ability does not affect fearless units.

I'll have to say I disagree on the test modifiers here. Only because it rewards players who keep their models together and promotes larger units. Thoughts about possible impact on game play?


Back to the subject at hand, it would really cool to have a single army-wide trait to add some flavor. Here were some ideas I had (none being game breaking):


I like this idea darkspawn =) It needs more development. JP has floated the idea of having army tactics purchasable at points costs. This will not only add variety but will also help some of the armies who are missing some of their key players under this system (I'm looking at you 'Nids) And making them optional upgrades you can purchase separately keeps the list of core rules from becoming unwieldy.

I have more thoughts but will let them turn over in my head until I have more time (at work) so I can make a clear post.

Thanks everyone for getting this thread back on its rails.

-Josh

[BossGorestompa]

]Army Wide Traits.[/U]
I really like this idea and the examples darkspawn327 provided are a great start. This is something that harks toward City Fight stratagems, which I always found to add instant uniqueness to an otherwise bland force. Perhaps we can look at those stratagems for more examples. However, I do not want to force traits upon an army. What if a point value was assigned to each trait and could be purchased as part of your 300 points?

You mentioned earlier about an experience system.. and I see this as a perfect implimentation for just that! I'm not sure how to balance it.. but then again over the course of a protracted campaign one side will often gain the upper hand, and you can easily keep the lists balanced by keeping the Traits toned down, only adding enough to provide a slight advantage and more character..

And so, I propose combining the two into an Experience / Trait System. The idea I'm playing with is rather unrefined as of yet (and won't be much more than for now.. as I'm groggy and tired as all hell....) But what I am thinking would work something along these lines:
Throughout a campaign, each player is responsible for keeping track of the surviving models in his or her Army List..
+Models can acquire traits by performing specific tasks or achieving requirements throughout the course of one or several battles.
+Models do not need to use the traits they have acquired, but are otherwise free to select up two three traits earned to be in effect for the duration of a battle.
+Only models that have met the requirements for earning a trait may select that trait.
+If a model is slain in combat, they are not necessarily dead.. at the end of the battle, roll an additional armour save for each model slain by a weapon that does not cause instant death. If passed, the model was mearly injured and removed from the battle; however, if failed, the wounds were fatal and the model is dead.
+A model that is dead is lost forever, and hence no longer has access to their traits.

I rather like the idea behind the system.. though as I said it is rather unrefined.. And it gives me a few ideas for traits

Battle Hardened Veterans: The model has survived for four consecutive battles and have gained a profound understanding of the battlefield as well as the importance of their mission. As such, once per battle, any unit containing a model with the Battle Hardened Veterans may re-roll a failed Leadership check.
(This Trait emulates how a model will gain valuable experience throughout a campaign and be given field promotions, or trusted enough by their mates to follow them into the thickest of conflicts.. confident that their leadership will see them through)

Just Won't Die: The model has been slain in combat three times over the course of the campaign, and has yet to be killed, earning him/her a reputation amongst their unit. Any unsaved wounds inflicted on a model with Just Won't Die may be ignored on a d6 roll of '6'.
(Just a little reward for those models lucky enough to be spared death several times)

Unyielding: The model has slain fifteen foes throughout the course of the campaign, and may act as though he had the Relentless USR for one turn per battle.
(I envision the classic G.I. Joe figure.. staring down dozens of enemy troops but not faltering once)



Vehicles in Squads.
Both CaptainSarathai and BossGorestompa referenced units comprising of infantry and walkers. I have to admit that this is not a situation that we had considered and I didn't intend to write in. Unless there are objections I will add language to the rules that prohibits walkers and other vehicles from joining a unit with infantry.

Just to clarify, you do not intend to ban Walkers, simply prohibit them from joining other units? What about walker squadrons?


Psykers.
I may have said this prior, but the original draft of the rules did not prohibit psykers. It was only after we began drawing up army lists that we found their presence to be potentially hazardous and they were added to the banned list. I am going to change the wording in the composition section to allow for psyker models to be included in lists, but prohibit them from using any psychic power during gameplay. This is an odd situation, but at this time I feel it's the best solution. The ten objective point is a good one, but the system is designed to allow for other, more story driven, missions and there is potential for abuse there.

Ah. I see your point. I do appreciate your decision to include psyker models, though without psychic powers. I would also make a point to mention that models who must normally purchase a psychic power do not have to.. as the points would be wasted if they cannot use said power.

I would also like to suggest allowing Force Weapons in army lists. Most models will be 1W, but if you include my suggestion for an Experience system, the added "instant death" weapon could make it worth the points.


Maneuvers.
I would like to clear up their use. Any unit that uses a maneuver is prohibited from any other action for the entire turn and the duration of the maneuver. This includes using other maneuvers. The maneuver replaces all of their normal actions, thus a unit may not move and then use a shooting maneuver that prohibits movement, regardless of the order. By the same token a unit can never perform two maneuvers simultaneously. I will clarify this in the rules.

Teleporting
Good call. I will certainly work this in.

Thumbs up on both points.


]Suppression Fire.[/U]
Let me see if I can split the difference between the two proposals:
The unit fires a hail of rounds at their target in an effort to slow the target's movement. The firing unit suffers -1 to it's ballistic skill. If the target unit suffers any unsaved wounds it must make a leadership test at +/- x, where x is the number of models in the target unit minus the number of shots fired. If this test is failed the unit moves as if in difficult ground and may not run during their turn. If the firing unit contained heavy weapons then subtract one die from the difficult terrain test. This ability does not affect fearless units.

This would mean that if I fired 5 shots at 3 models and they suffered an unsaved wound they would take a leadership test at -2. If I fired 7 shots at 10 models and they suffered an unsaved wound they would test at +3. I think it is important to add the unsaved wound as units such as marines are confident that their armor will protect them from enemy fire. It is only when they see the armor fail that their morale is tested. We'll need to run some more numbers to see if this is viable. Anyone up for the mathhammer?

I'm normally keen on a little bit of mathhammering.. but not today. Though, I still push that Fearless units should count as passing through difficult terrain. It seems much more cinimatic to me, as after all, those shots aren't simply vanishing into thin air because the unit is fearless.. They may not care, but advancing without caution through a relentless hail of fire is likely to cause some casualties at least.


Death or Glory.[/U]
The unit gains the Fearless USR until the end of the next player turn and doubles the number of wounds scored against it. These additional wounds are incurred prior to saving throws being made and may be saved as normal. A unit performing Death or Glory may not fire weapons, but may take other actions as normal. Death or Glory may be used during the opponent's turn.

This attempts to replicate the way fearless works in close combat.

This seems fair.

I did rather like my drawback for using Death or Glory, though. It is not meant to be used unless in times of grave peril, when the unit is being pushed to the brink of destruction and must resort to an act of desperate heroism to survive. As such, the Ld check is to represent one model encouraging his comrads into performing this act, and failing the Ld check to represent that model engaging the enemy too relentlessly, leading to his untimely and unfortunate death. I see this, coupled with the Rage USR, as being a much more flavorful balance to the maneuver than inflicting double the wounds.. As the unit is being goaded into a last stand, a desperate fight for their survival.


Transport Vehicles.[/U]
With the current armor restriction every army is allowed to take it's standard troop transport. However, Tau, Eldar, and Dark Eldar are prevented from taking their respective transport because of the anti-skimmer rule. Should an exception be made for these vehicles with a restriction that they may not move more than 12" per turn? Conversely, should the armor value be lowered to prevent any army from taking it's transport?

My feeling is that transports should be allowed as it creates a need for infantry carried heavy weapons, but I'm fully against allowing skimmers. Thoughts?

I do think Fast vehicles or Skimmers could potentially break the game, though they could still be allowed by nerfing their abilities. However, these qualities are included for in the points cost of the vehicle, and should therefore be compensated for.

I'd say, no Fast or Fast Skimmer vehicle may move at Flat Out speeds, however they are still treated as Fast and/or Skimmers for purposes of determining all other movement based effects (shooting, transporting, etc)

Skimmers must remain low to the ground, and as such cannot fly over impassible terrain.

To compensate for this loss.. Vehicles may make a free 6" Scout move at the beginning of the battle for being Fast or Skimmers, or a free 12" Scout move for being both Fast and a Skimmer.


Missions.[/U]
Does anyone have ideas for more "standard" missions? The most important aspect is that they need to promote loose formations. Any mission that is added as standard needs to be nearly impossible for a single large squad to be victorious. Beyond that, try to utilize the entire table by keeping the deployment zones far apart. We've used short edge to short edge to prevent medium and long range weapons from inflicting wounds early. We want to give armies several movements before contact is made.

I have a few ideas I'll be happy to share with you later.. but as for now I must be getting ready.. work doesn't do itself, ya know ;)

As a final note.. I have not proofread this post, and I apologize for any poor wording or grammatical structure.. I strive to write as clearly as possible, but this morning I'm quite brain-dead tired.. as well as being rushed to finish up quickly..

Peace!

---------- Post added at 17:29 ---------- Previous post was at 17:19 ----------

And as a final final note.. I agree with Krow's assessment on modifiers for Suppressing Fire. I've thought this over while writing my post, trying to find a way to compensate for the problem it causes.. but alas, the only solution I can foresee is negating it altogether.

But there are more complicate implications than I have time to delve into at the moment.. And I am still relatively opposed to simply negating that mechanic. It may affect the other verbiage of the maneuver, and even throw the maneuver off balance (in either direction)

So I will remain 50/50 on this topic as well.. for the time being.. but I will mention once again, that if a player invests too many of it's resources into a single maneuver, they will easily be outmaneuvered and overwhelmed.

[R3con]

Thanks for making this public JP....it will add a bit of variety to our friday night games...I'll be giving the system a shot later this week.

Again thanks again for sharing your hard work.

[JohnPublic]

These posts are getting longer and longer as we add things in. I propose that we make an effort to tackle a few items at a time rather than having to write a doctoral dissertation for every post. To that end, I would say let's set the trait and campaign systems aside for the moment and tackle the basics of the game. Obviously, if a brainstorm arises, please present your thoughts, but let's try and keep the focus on a few items at a time.


I'll have to say I disagree on the test modifiers here. Only because it rewards players who keep their models together and promotes larger units. Thoughts about possible impact on game play?
What if we allow multiple units to participate in a suppression?


Just to clarify, you do not intend to ban Walkers, simply prohibit them from joining other units? What about walker squadrons?
Correct. I just want to prevent the very odd situation of a walker and a non-walker working in the same squad. Walkers may form vehicle squadrons. I will add that in.

I would also make a point to mention that models who must normally purchase a psychic power do not have to.. as the points would be wasted if they cannot use said power.
Will do.

Though, I still push that Fearless units should count as passing through difficult terrain. It seems much more cinimatic to me, as after all, those shots aren't simply vanishing into thin air because the unit is fearless.. They may not care, but advancing without caution through a relentless hail of fire is likely to cause some casualties at least.
Note that my version does not protect the unit from casualties. It causes wounds as normal AND slows them.

On the subject of transport skimmers I'm at a loss. If we allow them, but strip their ability to move over 12" it is a slippery slope. Do we do the same for non transport skimmers? Why not allow bikes to do the same? Perhaps we should disallow all non walker vehicles. Do we go by armor value, points, or abilities? Walkers present the same problem that grav platforms do, they are able to shoot heavy weapons and then move out of line of sight. Why ban one and not the other?

I would love every army to have a transport available and to allow up to AV 24 walkers. Though I don't see it being feasible. The more I think about it, the more tempted I am to remove vehicles all together.

EDIT: Sorry for presenting my entire train of thought there. Are there reasons that vehicles should not be banned?

EDIT2: R3ron, I'm glad to hear that you will be playtesting. Please reply back with army lists and results. Thanks.

[kr0w17]

I think it would be a mistake to remove all vehicles. Vehicles are balanced by other factors. The only imbalance we are talking about here is the ability to move more than 12". What you might think about is using a specific stat line that is balanced and allow armies who only get fast transports to use this stat line for their transports instead.


Walkers present the same problem that grav platforms do, they are able to shoot heavy weapons and then move out of line of sight. Why ban one and not the other?


Because a grav platform costs 20pts? Less? A walker costs 120pts? More?

[JohnPublic]

An Eldar Guardian heavy weapon team with a grav starcannon is 41 points.
An Eldar War Walker with a star cannon is 55 points.
An IG sentinel with an autocannon is 50.

On the transport skimmer issue I don't think making the tanks generic is the way to go. As a Tau player I would be happy to take a devilfish that couldn't move more than 12" as the ability to ignore terrain is godly in this format. Though to be honest, with only 300 points to spend, I wouldn't purchase it any way it goes.

[Tzar_Katztic]

Brilliant!!!

I used something very similar in my games, although the difference was that we did allow any number of fast attacks and maybe one heavy. You could also stage an ambush on an artilelry entrenchement, so someone could use only heavies versus a troop force. See how that goes. I suggest - forget the troop limit altogether. If a player would go gorgonzola on you in this kind of game, you've just made the wrong decision whom to play with. Another option for the mission is: one player takes a command squad and ONLY HQs. This represents the Headquarters of an entire army. At the same time an elite task force attacks the HQ and takes them by surprise.

Aditionally, we used the epic armageddon system for turn sequence: both players roll for initiative at the start of the turn and players alternate activating squads and doing the entire move (except for assault). Afterwards all assaulting groups charge and CC is resolved.

Iwould also suggest an extra order: Regroup - models move and can shoot rapid fire weapons and pistols. You can split or join groups. Thisway i can split a squad into two man task-teams. To join a team back together it is enough to move wthem within 2' - next activation they count as one squad.

Oh BTW - try playing a narrative campaign in such a system. I did, it was the best set of games we ever had. Space Hulk corridors work perfect with this as well, and for the XP system I would propose the Necromunda tables.

[BossGorestompa]

I rather like the use of walkers.. However I could see there being a slight bit of difficulty using them in a /squad/ based game, where players will field significantly fewer heavy weapons..

But, so far as balancing their "Relentless" like abilities, perhaps an amendment to the core rules is in order.

*No heavy weapons may be fired in the preemptive shooting phase.*

This will essentially be the same as.. not moving, and shooting them in the normal shooting phase, but it circumvents the possibility of Walkers or Relentless models from firing their heavies before their movement phase, and then ducking behind cover.

[BossGorestompa]

As well, to solve the vehicle / movement issue, I would restrict all movement to a maximum of 12". That way any Bikes / Jetbikes can still be fielded. As well, Ork Storm Boyz, and three Necron models that would otherwise be inaccessible.

I rather like the idea of replacing any nerfed abilities with Scout (multiple nerfed abilities will stack, to a maximum of 12") Unless you have any other ideas.

And, an ammendment to my previous proposition: I would restrict the preemptive shooting phase to Infantry only. That way Battle Suits, Jetbikes, Walkers, etc.. cannot take advantage of the phase.. but they could still be played fairly.

[JohnPublic]

Iwould also suggest an extra order: Regroup - models move and can shoot rapid fire weapons and pistols. You can split or join groups. Thisway i can split a squad into two man task-teams. To join a team back together it is enough to move wthem within 2' - next activation they count as one squad.
This is not necessary as your models are free to break apart from or join any unit at any time during their movement.

...and for the XP system I would propose the Necromunda tables.
Sounds like a plan worth looking into. Does anyone have a working link to the rules? The GW specialist site seems to have disappeared along with all of the other goodies.

After much consideration I think we had it right the first time around. The game is about tactical movement. If there are jetbikes and skimmers moving around over buildings at 12" a pop while my marines slog 2d6" through terrain then you're not going to be able to win without 12" terrain ignoring movement. The game should center around infantry.

Therefore, for now, we're going to stick with infantry, jump infantry, av33- walkers, and non-skimming dedicated transports. With these restrictions I think that every army is able to field a viable force. If there is an army that has it rough it's Necrons and our playtest army, which contained only warriors, was able to hold it's own against marines.

Let's stick with this and let playtesting tell us if any changes need to be made. So build a list, grab a friend, and knock out some games. I look forward to hearing the results.

[BossGorestompa]

Would you at least consider play testing a game of three, restricting Vehicles from using "Flat Out" speeds, and Bikes / Jetbikes from using "Turboboost" (limiting their movement to 12" tops) as well as disallowing Skimmers, Jetbikes, AND Jump Infantry from moving over terrain (consider it a Dangerous Terrain test as you would any other vehicle) Essentially Skimmers would count as Tanks, except their movement/shooting rules would be slightly different.

As I see it, I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider this option as a possible solution, yet are willing to include Jump Infantry (which can bypass the terrain as well)

As well, I do think limiting the (pre-movement) shooting phase should be limited to Infantry only! I see a great amount of potential for that to be abused otherwise.

[JohnPublic]

I'm open to any and all playtesting, though I will not be able to personally test the system again for at least a few weeks.

My concern is adding in too many changes to the basic workings of models. I don't want to over complicate things by changing the way the models move, shoot, and assault if we don't have to. The fewer "counts as" units the better, both for realism and simplicity.

If we do not include bikes, skimmers, jetbikes, or grav platforms I feel it is not necessary to restrict who may fire in the first round of shooting. With only walkers and relentless models able to fire heavy weapons I am happy to allow it. Remember that we're not talking about jsj'ing here. If the attacker has line of sight to you it is because you either intentionally moved your model into his line of sight to begin with or did not move out of los given the opportunity. I know that I am the one who initially brought this topic up as an item of concern, but I have convinced myself that it is not game breaking.

Lastly, I have no illusion that I will be able to balance every aspect of the system into a single document. Please feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary for both players to build viable lists and enjoy the game.

[CaptainSarathai]

Dev Team:
I know that this has probably been covered in detail, but I'd like to return to the proposed rules for Supression Fire for just a moment.
I think that casualties and movement penalties should be kept isolated. Introducing an order which can not only put enemy models on the floor, but also limit the tactical movement of the game, is far too overpowered. Why would anyone elect to fire normally when, instead, they can potentially freeze an enemy unit, without losing much effect to their fire?
My idea is in line with GW's current "fluff" behind the frag-grenade rule. Marines storm a trench full of guard. Usually the Guard would hit first, as the Marines have to work their way into the cover. However, the SMs carry frag grenade and toss those in, forcing the guard to KEEP THEIR HEADS DOWN. In real life, a fragmentation grenade has an effective range of 3-5 meters and will kill or severely maim anyone in that radius. However, GW doesn't bother with wounds. Same goes for supression fire- it's not meant to kill, it's meant to keep people's heads down. The killing comes when you sneak a second team across the street and flank the pinned unit.
And I understand that the proposed system favors larger squads, but in reality, supression only works with either a high rate of fire (SAWs etc) or a large number of men. A single man can surely blaze away at your cover for a few seconds, but he'll have to reload eventually. If 10 men are blazing away at your cover, they'll coordinate reloading so that you're constantly under fire.

Also- for the skimmers: I agree on not letting them boost or move over buildings. Perhaps just write a catch-all rule like "no model may move over 12 inches during it's turn, for any reason". This will cover teleporting, jump packs, skimmers, jetbikes, and anything else that players might come up with.

For Walkers and vehicles: I say that they should be allowed to form units with infantry. Whether it's a tank advancing alongside some infantry for added protection, or a walker moving alongside a guard squad to give mobile firesupport, I think that it adds to the realism of the game. 40K is wrong- vehicles rarely work in squads of their own, without infantry support. Especially in dense cities or forests.

Finally (sorry for this being so long): I think that there should be a rule that states WHEN a group of models are declared part of a unit, and when units can be split. That way, nobody can say something like "well, if you're using supression fire, I'm just going to remove this guy from the unit right before you start shooting". I think that at the start of each phase, you must declare if the models are a unit or not. Models who operate as a unit in the last phase, count as a unit for the enemy's turn. I don't know- it's a very rough idea, but I know that on my turn, I'd try to group up, and then split apart at the last possible chance before my enemy's turn, forcing him to target individuals.

[JohnPublic]

Why would anyone elect to fire normally when, instead, they can potentially freeze an enemy unit, without losing much effect to their fire?
Perhaps the -1 to ballistic skill is not enough of a penalty. -2?

Another possible solution would be to scrap suppression as a maneuver and build it into the rules as a mechanic to replace falling back.


For Walkers and vehicles: I say that they should be allowed to form units with infantry. Whether it's a tank advancing alongside some infantry for added protection, or a walker moving alongside a guard squad to give mobile firesupport, I think that it adds to the realism of the game. 40K is wrong- vehicles rarely work in squads of their own, without infantry support. Especially in dense cities or forests.
Without writing complex wound allocation rules this would allow a player to protect an expensive walker with a group of cheap troops. IG could protect their vehicles with any number of four point conscripts. It will be difficult enough to kill vehicles in this format without affording them extra wounds.


Finally (sorry for this being so long): I think that there should be a rule that states WHEN a group of models are declared part of a unit, and when units can be split. That way, nobody can say something like "well, if you're using supression fire, I'm just going to remove this guy from the unit right before you start shooting". I think that at the start of each phase, you must declare if the models are a unit or not. Models who operate as a unit in the last phase, count as a unit for the enemy's turn. I don't know- it's a very rough idea, but I know that on my turn, I'd try to group up, and then split apart at the last possible chance before my enemy's turn, forcing him to target individuals.
We have been playing that anytime models are within 2" of each other they are in a unit. This proved to be simple and effective. I will clarify this in the rules.

[kr0w17]

Looking good guys,

Just wanted to drop in and read up on the progress.


Oh BTW - try playing a narrative campaign in such a system. I did, it was the best set of games we ever had. Space Hulk corridors work perfect with this as well, and for the XP system I would propose the Necromunda tables.

Please someone run a campaign with this! Make a new thread and update it as you go. I personally would love to read about an elite squad rising to the highest ranks and honor of their respective armies.

I am also making a formal proposal:

Everyone interested, print off the rules and choose your own "test rule" and sit down with a bud and hammer out a few games this weekend. Honestly It'll be a great night of fun and go miles towards getting hands on feedback. Also, the games are pretty quick.

Suggestion #1: Only choose one of the variations listed in this thread to be added to your "test rules." More than that and it will be difficult to be accurate about pinpointing causes of successes and failures.

Suggesion #2: snacks and beer (if you're old enough :beer:)

[Tzar_Katztic]

The official Necromunda rules are here:

Games Workshop (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=5300010)

They are avilable for free, although it is the 2nd edition Necromunda. The first book was thicker and way better. I do not know why they changed it.

[Astynax]

Ive just read the first few pages, but the rest got to be a bit much and didnt go in depth so I'm sorry if theres reposts of ideas or bringing up dead topics.

First off, I absolutely love this idea not only because every model counts, but it allows you to potentially collect & test out every army GW has produced for cheap! This is what makes it different from Necromunda so you really can't compare the two.

Psykers - As an Eldar player, former Nid player (sold them :'( wish i didnt) & starting SM now, I would totally agree on the no psykers rule. Psykers are supposed to be a rarity in the 40k universe, and the encounters from this game are on the lowest scale. So why would there be a farseer, warlock, librarian, hive tyrant, zoanthrope or warrior wandering around by themselves in the sewers or city ruins? I'm not looking at it as much of a gameplay perspective, but a fluff one too.

Eldar - Theyre dying off, no FS or lock will be around on their own leading 10 guys, or scouting since thats what rangers are for. As for the No HQ choice available argument, at 300 pts why would you even want to spend 1/3 of your points on one?

Nids - If there was even a nid warrior around, you should expect swarms of gaunts soon to come, which you will not here. Tyranid scout forces are primarily genestealers & lictors, both at your disposal here and incredibly dominating at this level. Gaunts - you can take a few and send them off on their own to tie up, esp w hormagaunts. No Ld test required if the unit of 1 dies. Raveners & gargoyles would be fairly effective too.

SM - No librarian should be out without a large contigent of SM around him. Theyve invested way too much to abandon one or send one out on cleanup patrol. As for grey knights, ok theyre deemed psykers, but what ability does that give them? Not much, so why argue about it?

Skimmers, Jetbikes - Gimps Eldar by quite a bit, yes but if not they would be dominating. Ie Vypers with invul saves from moving then unloading a heavy weapon. However, I don't agree with the normal jetbikes since they do not have an armor value. a SM equivalent of that will be an assault marine w a jump pack, so why not remove that? I think restricting fast moving with an AV would be the appropriate treatment. If not, there's still Warp Spiders available which I'd think is invaluable at this level.

Grav Platforms - I would have to disagree here too for a couple reasons. The majority of Eldar heavy weaponry is shorter range than the average heavy weapon, so the move to get closer is often required. Since heavies are restricted to 3, I dont see that 1 to 3 would make a huge difference especially when other armies can stack specials such as melta/plasma and guardian defenders cannot.

[JohnPublic]

Tzar_Katztic, thanks for the link. It looks like a fantastic starting place, but a ton of work will be required to convert it to 40k abilities and wargear. Anyone up for it?

Astynax, thank you for the Psyker breakdown. It is becoming more and more clear that the decision to leave out psykers was a good one.


First off, I absolutely love this idea not only because every model counts, but it allows you to potentially collect & test out every army GW has produced for cheap! This is what makes it different from Necromunda so you really can't compare the two.
I couldn't have said this better and it's 1/3rd of the point of the system.


However, I don't agree with the normal jetbikes since they do not have an armor value. a SM equivalent of that will be an assault marine w a jump pack, so why not remove that? I think restricting fast moving with an AV would be the appropriate treatment. If not, there's still Warp Spiders available which I'd think is invaluable at this level.
Warp Spiders and Swooping Hawks are both Assault Marine equivalent and their presence certainly makes up for the lack of jetbikes. In my mind, Jetbikes are the equivalent of bikers, not assault marines.


Grav Platforms - I would have to disagree here too for a couple reasons. The majority of Eldar heavy weaponry is shorter range than the average heavy weapon, so the move to get closer is often required. Since heavies are restricted to 3, I dont see that 1 to 3 would make a huge difference especially when other armies can stack specials such as melta/plasma and guardian defenders cannot.
To use the marine equivalent again, Dark Reapers are the equivalent to Devastators, which are the long range heavy weapon unit available to Marines in the format. War Walkers offset Razorbacks.

--

I began collecting and playing warhammer during 3rd edition. I knew that it looked like a game I wanted to get into, but was unsure which army I wanted to play. I happened upon the Sons of Medusa in the color scheme section of Krow's 3rd ed Marine codex and decided that it was the army for me. However, when I went in to get the Marine box set they were out of stock. In fact, the only set they did have was a grizzled little army called Space Wolves. I couldn't be happier that fate guided me to my Spacepups, but I never lost the desire to collect SoM. I haven't been able to talk myself into collecting a second marine force in all these years, but with W40K:CM I have the opportunity. Thus I have decided to build the following contingent of Sons of Medusa:

4x Tactical Marines +
1x Sergeant w/ Power Weapon [105]
1x Devastator w/ Missile Launcher [31]
1x Devastator w/ Heavy Bolter [31]
2x Sternguard Veteran [50]
1x Scout w/ Sniper Rifle, Camo Cloak [18]
1x Apothecary [25]
1x Rhino w/ Dozer Blade [40]

That's 300 points even and uses a wide variety of models. I don't think that the Apothecary will be of much use in the format, but I like the model and the idea of having a low level HQ leading my force. I also like the fact that I can have the scout on foot ahead of the army finding a shooting position while the rest of the crew begins embarked in the rhino. I had considered a razorback, which could potentially be a game breaker, but in the end every good marine army needs a rhino. This weekend I slowly started working on them and when I have it complete I'll post it up.

Anyone else have an army they've been itching to collect, but don't want to go at it whole hog? Feel free to share your list, I'm interested to see what people build and why.

[Astynax]

I would definitely go back to nids. If I started with a full army again I'd end up amassing another swarm of 100+ to paint and wouldnt stop...

I'd probably get this as a little scouting force. Not the most competitive but it'll be fun & a lot will depend on all their special rules to enter the board. All Ld 10 or fearless.

Lictor [80]
6 Genestealer - Scuttlers [114]
2 Raveners - ScyTals & Rending [80]
3 Ripper Swarms [30]
=304

I suppose bikes would = jetbikes, but why arent normal bikes restricted then? B/C it doesnt ignore terrain & the extra move? Guardian heavy weapons cant really be seen as comparing reapers to devastators. A devastator is just like a marine in a tac squad with a heavy weapon, while a reaper isnt like a grav platform. I'd see the platform as more like a plasma or meltagun in a squad of marines.. which would lead me to my next group:

Don't have the codex, so I'm not too sure about points,

2 CSM - Meltagun [50]
2 Plague Marines - 2 plasma rifles - 35 each? [70]
4 Berserkers - 21 each? [84]
Skull Champ - Power Fist [61?]
Rhino [35]
=300

Pack them all in a rhino... I'm sure they'll get along. Its just absolute special weapon abuse. Charge in, pop your transport, rapid fire plasma, then mop up.

[frozencore]

I have always wanted to play a warrior tyranid army. HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, all warriors. I like the models for warriors, but not for any of the tyranid troops choices, so I never collected them.

I also like the idea of kroot mercs, but they are so terrible, and need so much converting, I never started them either.

[JohnPublic]

I suppose bikes would = jetbikes, but why arent normal bikes restricted then?
They are. "No bikes, jetbikes, skimmers, or grav platforms."


I'd see the platform as more like a plasma or meltagun in a squad of marines.
A meltagun that fires 48" rather than 12"!


2 CSM - Meltagun [50]
2 Plague Marines - 2 plasma rifles - 35 each? [70]
4 Berserkers - 21 each? [84]
Skull Champ - Power Fist [61?]
Rhino [35]
=300
Note that you must take one normal squad of troops before you can purchase individual models. This prevents a list from being purely special weapons.


I have always wanted to play a warrior tyranid army. HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, all warriors. I like the models for warriors, but not for any of the tyranid troops choices, so I never collected them.

I expect Kr0w's final nid list to be warrior heavy. They should make for some great, cinematic games.


I also like the idea of kroot mercs, but they are so terrible, and need so much converting, I never started them either.
This is something I've been pondering as I already own 30 of the buggers for use in my Tau army. I just wish they had more options.

[Tzar_Katztic]

Tzar_Katztic, thanks for the link. It looks like a fantastic starting place, but a ton of work will be required to convert it to 40k abilities and wargear. Anyone up for it?

I'll have a look. If I'm lucky I'll dig up the first ed of Necromunda. This might take some time as I have a lot of work right now but expect a few tables towards the end of the week.

[kr0w17]

I'm sorry to say but Ripper Swarms are unfortunately not legal in CM (3W) but Warriors surely are and for the points of your rippers you can snag a warrior with enhanced senses, death spitter and scything talons, it would also open up the possibility of adding some gaunts to your mix. (again, hive mind isn't so much a psychic power as an army wide special rule and game mechanic, so for composition purposes hive mind doesn't count as a psychic power)

[BossGorestompa]

I've always wanted to give Chaos Demons a try-out.. but I'm not too interested in starting a full army.. perhaps Checkmate would be a good way to start them out, that is if I can convince my friends to start playing ^-^

HQ: ( 140 )
Herald of Slanesh ............. ( 75 )
+ Pavane of Slanesh, Transfixing Gaze
Troops: ( 225 )
Pink Horrors x5 ............... ( 95 )
+1x Bolt of Tzeench
Daemonettes x5 ................ ( 70 )
Plaguebearer x4 ............... ( 60 )

I'm not sure how it would fair.. but it looks like it could be fun to play around with. The Pavane might be a waste of 75 points, but the potential to move a unit up to 6" in such a tactically minded game seems almost too great not to take advantage of. It'd be like forcing your opponent to make the move YOU want in a game of chess..

I wonder, though.. how to solve the issue of Deep Striking. Half of the army must be held in reserves -- this is a counter balancing mechanic to the entire army being able to deep-strike.. even in missions that don't normally allow for it. I would settle for replacing Deep Strike with Scout, and removing the 50% reserves restriction all together. Would this seem fair?

I've also had an interest in Sisters of Battle ever since I bought the Witch Hunters codex. But I must ask, how would you handle Faith Points? I think it'd be a worthy project to sift through the varying codices and find any "special army" rules that do not work with Check Mate, and rewrite them as such that they may function within the system (as has been done for Tyranid's Synapse ability) At any rate, here is my test list for Sisters of Battle.

Elites: ( 36 )
Celestians x2 ................. ( 36 )
+Heavy Bolter x2
Troops: ( 155 )
Storm Troopers x5 ............. ( 70 )
+Plasma Gun x2
Sisters of Battle x3 .......... ( 51 )
+3x Flamers
Sisters of Battle x2 .......... ( 34 )
+2x Storm Bolters, Frag Grenades
Fast: ( 110 )
Seraphim x5 ................... ( 110 )

It may be a little heavy on special weapons.. but as a veteran task force it seems fitting. I rather like the way it looks, and I think I might enjoy playing this quite a bit more than the Chaos Daemons ^-^ I didn't even bother with Faith Points, as to not cause any complications.

Now that I'm designing lists for Checkmate, I'm getting rather excited about playing ^-^ Thank you guys again for the great system!

[JohnPublic]

I'll have a look. If I'm lucky I'll dig up the first ed of Necromunda. This might take some time as I have a lot of work right now but expect a few tables towards the end of the week.
Thanks for taking this on. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.


I wonder, though.. how to solve the issue of Deep Striking. Half of the army must be held in reserves -- this is a counter balancing mechanic to the entire army being able to deep-strike.. even in missions that don't normally allow for it. I would settle for replacing Deep Strike with Scout, and removing the 50% reserves restriction all together. Would this seem fair?
As it stands, the entire Daemon force would begin on the board. Giving a replacement ability to deepstrikers is something that we seesawed on for quite a while before deciding that it was not necessary, though perhaps in the case of Daemons an army specific amendment is required.


I've also had an interest in Sisters of Battle ever since I bought the Witch Hunters codex. But I must ask, how would you handle Faith Points?
My knowledge of Witch Hunters is limited, but would it suffice to give the Witch Hunter force a set amount of points to begin play with and ignore martyrdom? How many points is adequate? Three?


I think it'd be a worthy project to sift through the varying codices and find any "special army" rules that do not work with Check Mate, and rewrite them as such that they may function within the system (as has been done for Tyranid's Synapse ability)
This has been in the back of my mind as something that would have to be done, but I've been putting it off as it seems like a beast to tackle. Though I suppose there is no time like the present. I will need all the help I can get on this, so everyone please chime in. This list should include not only army wide special rules, but any unit that needs tweaking to fit in with the system.

Necrons:
We'll be back. Players may ignore the need to have a model of the same type within 6".

Tyranids:
Synapse. Players may use Hive Mind as normal. It is not restricted as other psychic abilities are.

Tau:
Sniper Drones. Sniper drones may operate independently and do not require the use of a drone controller. They move and fire as infantry.

Witch Hunters:
Faith Points. Ideas? Set number of points that any squad may use?

I'm sure there are many many more, these are just a few to get us started. Please mention any that you can think of along with a possible solution. I will be tacking this FAQ onto the bottom of the rules as we iron them out.

[BossGorestompa]

Necrons:
We'll be back. Players may ignore the need to have a model of the same type within 6".
I was considering replacing the entirety of the Necron special rule with Feel No Pain. This would likewise eliminate Phase Out, which at such a low point game.. with such limited options and expensive units.. I thought might make Necrons highly undesirable. This would require play testing, of course, and it might "break" the army.. I'm not too sure.

I would also consider replacing all unit entries within the codex that state "count as Jetbikes for movement purposes" with "count as jump infantry for movement purposes" as Necrons already have so few choices.. In the case of Necrons, I do not think this would hurt too much, as they already MUST spend 180 points on troops.. with 120 points to spare and the high cost of just about every other unit in the codex, they won't have too many of these beasties flying around. (Meaning.. they could field 11 Warriors and 2 Destroyers... woop..)

As it stands now, I would NEVER play Necrons in a game of Checkmate.. their force would be so bland compared to another army, and I think reducing the restrictions on a few of their units might help to encourage players to play them.


Tyranids:
Synapse. Players may use Hive Mind as normal. It is not restricted as other psychic abilities are.
Agreed.


Tau:
Sniper Drones. Sniper drones may operate independently and do not require the use of a drone controller. They move and fire as infantry.
I'm not sure that Sniper Drones are much of a concern with Tau.. As they already have Crisis Suits and Stealth Suits.. Though I would consider allowing players to field Pathfinders /without/ the need to take a transport.

If you do remove the restriction on Sniper Drones, how do you determine the cost of the unit? They cost XX points for 1x Spotter and 3x Sniper Drones..

I've also designed a test list for Tau, as this is an army I can actually play (as I still have a rather small Tau force that I've been considering selling off... though I might not now ^-^)

Elites: ( 240 )
Crisis Battlesuit x3 .......... ( 150 )
+Burst Cannon, Missile Pod, Multi-Tracker
Stealth Suit x3 ............... ( 90 )
Troops: ( 60 )
Fire Warriors x6 .............. ( 60 )

Just thought I'd contribute that, as you has asked for conceptual lists that we would use.


Witch Hunters:
Faith Points. Ideas? Set number of points that any squad may use?
I'm not actually sure it would be an issue (as they are already rather potent, I believe), though I would consider something more along the lines of...

Faithful models contribute faith points as per normal. Any single Sisterhood model (Faithful or not) may spend a faith point to perform an Act of Faith without the need to make a Test of Faith. Sisterhood models that are not acting independently must make Tests of Faith as normal.


I'm sure there are many many more, these are just a few to get us started. Please mention any that you can think of along with a possible solution. I will be tacking this FAQ onto the bottom of the rules as we iron them out.

I can't really think of any other issues.. Chaos Space Marines, Daemonhunters, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Orks and Space Marines all contain enough choices to field a very fluffy army, with PLENTY of options, without need of much tweaking.. though I'm not really familiar with all of these.. I know Orks are fine as is, as well as Eldar and Space Marines.. I think the only three that REALLY have an issue are Tyranids, Necrons, and Sisters, with their special rules (which are a necessity to the flavor and play style of these armies). Otherwise none of the other armies are being hurt by their restrictions.

EDIT: And likewise, I think Tau function just fine without any further tweaking.. I only suggested the change to Pathfinders as they are the easiest way to introduce Marker Lights.. which would be HIGHLY useful in such a tactical game.

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

Oh! I almost forgot.. I intend to do so for personal campaigns.. but I also suggest making a note that allows players to play a Chaos Cultist list as found in the back of the Daemonhunters Codex.. And allow them to use psychic powers as normal. In this case, I'd say it warrants a great deal of sense as then the campaign would be to eliminate the rogue psyker.

[JohnPublic]

I was considering replacing the entirety of the Necron special rule with Feel No Pain. This would likewise eliminate Phase Out, which at such a low point game.. with such limited options and expensive units.. I thought might make Necrons highly undesirable. This would require play testing, of course, and it might "break" the army.. I'm not too sure.
In our initial playtesting we had a necron army use FNP rather than WBB and it was quickly decimated. Fifth edition FNP does not come close to replicating the power of WBB and we felt for the points spent that a modified WBB was better than FNP.


I would also consider replacing all unit entries within the codex that state "count as Jetbikes for movement purposes" with "count as jump infantry for movement purposes" as Necrons already have so few choices.. In the case of Necrons, I do not think this would hurt too much, as they already MUST spend 180 points on troops.. with 120 points to spare and the high cost of just about every other unit in the codex, they won't have too many of these beasties flying around. (Meaning.. they could field 11 Warriors and 2 Destroyers... woop..)
I think you're absolutely right on this point, but it is the slippery slope I have desperately been avoiding. If Necrons get to do this, why not all jetbikes across the board? Of course I'm just playing Devil's advocate and it seems that it would be fine with an explanation attached.

I did in fact offer to allow our necron player to include his Destroyers counted as having jumppacks, but he declined saying that he felt that their ability to move 12" ignoring terrain and then fire 48" (or vice versa) was out of place in the system. Perhaps they should move as a walker?


As it stands now, I would NEVER play Necrons in a game of Checkmate.. their force would be so bland compared to another army, and I think reducing the restrictions on a few of their units might help to encourage players to play them.
This is the sentiment I've received from everyone I've spoken to concerning 'crons. It may just be that they are "unplayable" until their codex is updated. I will also say that this is largely not a problem that is limited to Checkmate. Many people would say that Necrons are currently the weakest army in the standard game and they are certainly the blandest.


I'm not sure that Sniper Drones are much of a concern with Tau.. As they already have Crisis Suits and Stealth Suits..
Perhaps it is my own bias showing through, but this item was created through my own listbuilding with the army. I included sniper drones in my list without considering the repercussions of not having the drone controller and once I got in game realized that their movement is listed as "per owner," so a clarification is needed.


If you do remove the restriction on Sniper Drones, how do you determine the cost of the unit? They cost XX points for 1x Spotter and 3x Sniper Drones..
I spoke with my opponent and we agreed to include them at twenty points each. We valued the controller as an equal point model as he is essentially a firewarrior (10 points) with a markerlight (10 points.)


Though I would consider allowing players to field Pathfinders /without/ the need to take a transport.
I'm with you 100%. Tau can function fine without pathfinders, but there is no reason to disallow their inclusion based upon their skimming transport requirement. They are full of flavor.


Faithful models contribute faith points as per normal. Any single Sisterhood model (Faithful or not) may spend a faith point to perform an Act of Faith without the need to make a Test of Faith. Sisterhood models that are not acting independently must make Tests of Faith as normal.
In a normal force you only get 1 or 2 points per entire unit, right? If you are adding models then how many points do you get per? 1/5th? How about 1 point per X models that normally contribute?

EDIT: As far as necrons are concerned, I think anyone that enjoys the system enough to play more than a few times will want to build a custom force. Therefore I see no issue with having one or two armies that are not capable of fielding a fun and effective army. This does not mean that I intend certain armies to not be viable, just that I will not lose any sleep over it if it means keeping the rest of the system intact.

[BossGorestompa]

I agree with you regarding Necrons.. Even Dark Eldar.. an incredibly outdated army (my heart bleeds for you DE fans!) can be played rather effectively in Checkmate.. I suppose there is no temporary fix for Necrons until they receive a new codex.

But what of Phasing Out? Did this cause any issues during playtesting?

Regarding Sisters of Battle.. I will explain my logic on this later, as for now I have to get work (Not only am I a nerd, but I'm also a farmer ^-^)

Peace!

[BossGorestompa]

Sisters of Battle and Faith Points:
As is in standard 40k, Witch Hunters have two organizations of units available: Inquisitorial and Sisters. Only Sisters can contribute and use Faith Points for Acts of Faith, but Sisterhood units themselves do not contribute or use Faith Points.. only Faithful models do. Each unit of Sisters has the option of upgrading one model to be Faithful (for more points than the cost of a standard squad member)

So long as a Faithful model remains alive within a unit, that unit is eligible to spend a Faith Point to attempt an Act of Faith.. which requires rolling 2d6 and either resulting in more than or fewer than the number of models in the unit, depending on which Act of Faith is being used. If passed, that unit may use the Act of Faith as described within the Codex.

Celestians and Seraphim are Faithful units and always contribute, and can use, Faith Points.

What I am suggesting is.. each Faithful model contributes Faith Points as normal (including by Martyrdom) but ALL Sisterhood models acting independently may spend a Faith Point to perform an Act of Faith without requiring a test. This should not present any problems for the game, though it should be play tested a few times.. As well, I suggest restricting the number of Faith Points contributed by Celestians and Seraphim to 1, and an additional 1 via Martyrdom when the last Celestian / Seraphim is slain.. regardless of how many models are actually present..

I don't believe this should be a problem, as the player would be spending effectively 2x the cost of the model (plus a few pennies) to field a Faithful model, as well those points would be spent on single models in order to bypass all other restrictions.. causing their effect to be greatly reduced.

On the other hand, Sisters acting as a unit should still be allowed to spend Faith Points to perform an Act of Faith.. but they should be subject to the normal restrictions (the unit must contain a Faithful model, and they must pass their Test of Faith to be allowed it's effects.

I say.. I'm fairly exhausted now.. and I hope I've done a sufficient enough job explaining all that needed to be explained..

[Astynax]

Note that you must take one normal squad of troops before you can purchase individual models. This prevents a list from being purely special weapons.


From:
2 CSM - Meltagun [50]
2 Plague Marines - 2 plasma rifles - 35 each? [70]
4 Berserkers - 21 each? [84]
Skull Champ - Power Fist [61?]
Rhino [35]
=300

The berserkers are a troop choice for CSM, unless you mean that the specials have to have a troop of the same type before they can be taken (ie plague marines)? I think something like this could be squeezed into 300 pts then:

1 Champion - Power Fist, combi-melta
4 Chaos Marines - 3 bolters, 1 melta
4 Havocs - 4 meltas
Rhino - combi-melta

Full out melta spam and allowable from how I understand it?

[Platypus]

Ok glad to see that you are allowing Tyranid warriors now with the clarification on Synapse...also I would suggest that units that have the option to buy psychic powers but are not required to (I.E. Inquisitors, Grey Knight Justicars, etc) are allowed but they are not allowed to purchase any psychic powers.

If that has already been covered then I am sorry but I don't have the time to read all 7 pages...I only got through the first 4.

[JohnPublic]

But what of Phasing Out? Did this cause any issues during playtesting?
In the games that we played phasing out would not have mattered one way or the other. Because it is such a small army and the turns are unlimited, I say we simply allow Necrons to ignore the phase out rule and call the matter settled.


Sisters of Battle and Faith Points:
As is in standard 40k, Witch Hunters have two organizations of...
I'm still not entirely clear on this, but I trust your judgment. Write out the rule as it should exist in the text and I will add it.


The berserkers are a troop choice for CSM, unless you mean that the specials have to have a troop of the same type before they can be taken (ie plague marines)?
You do not need to take a troop of the same type. I had it in my head that the minimum number of berserkers in a squad was higher than five. Both your original and the melta list are legal. My apologies.


I would suggest that units that have the option to buy psychic powers but are not required to (I.E. Inquisitors, Grey Knight Justicars, etc) are allowed but they are not allowed to purchase any psychic powers.
This has been implemented. "*Models may be taken that have psychic abilities, but they may not use them in game. If a model is normally required to purchase a psychic ability, he may fielded without doing so."


If that has already been covered then I am sorry but I don't have the time to read all 7 pages...I only got through the first 4.
Just. Plain. Lazy. = )

[BossGorestompa]

If that has already been covered then I am sorry but I don't have the time to read all 7 pages...I only got through the first 4.
Just. Plain. Lazy. = )

To be fair.. There /are/ seven pages. And I suspect one page's worth is filled with my inane ramblings.. so you can't blame 'em for not wanting to read through all of it ;)

Sisters of Battle and Faith Points:
Each Faithful model contributes a single Faith Point to a Witch Hunters army as per normal, with the exception of Celestians and Seraphim who contribute a single Faith Point (each) regardless of how many models are present.

Each Faithful model contributes a single Faith Point by Martyrdom as per normal, with the exception of Celestians and Seraphim who only contribute a single Faith Point (each) once all Celestian or Seraphim models are slain.

Sisterhood units eligible to use Faith Points to perform Acts of Faith as normal may do so (the unit must contain a Faithful model and must make a Test of Faith). Additionally, individual Sisterhood models may use Faith Points to perform Acts of Faith regardless of whether they are Faithful or not, and are assumed to automatically pass their Tests of Faith.

Sisterhood units that perform an Act of Faith must remain in the same unit during the duration that the Act is in effect.

((Again, this definitely will require play testing, though I cannot imagine there being any issues. A single model performing an Act of Faith should not be an issue.. as it is only a single model.. Otherwise units will likely only be able to perform The Passion (bonus to Initiative), Light of The Emperor (Fearless), and Spirit of the Martyr (Invulnerable Save) as these are the other Acts of Faith require you to roll under the number of models in the unit on 2d6. I included the last bit to prevent several models from banding together to gain the benefit of an Act of Faith for a single Faith Point, then disbanding into individual models.. THAT would be broken.. So.. let me know what you think! ^-^))

[JohnPublic]

To be fair.. There /are/ seven pages. And I suspect one page's worth is filled with my inane ramblings.. so you can't blame 'em for not wanting to read through all of it

Plat's been helping out on another board since Checkmate was first conceived. Didn't realize that sounded as harsh as it did. He knows I was just 'avin a laugh.

My wife is literally standing at the door waiting on me right now, so I'll address the Witch Hunter rule later on.

[BossGorestompa]

Haha. No no, I understood it was a joke and.. attempted to.. reply with a joke of my own, a little slant against myself. :)

[Platypus]

NP, I totaly understand it as a joke....

Anyway, I would also suggust that you might want to add a point restriction on the fast, heavy & elites...I say this because somthing like 5 chaos raptors all armed with plasmaguns can be devistating, so if you limit each non troop choice to only 100 points it can help to balance it out...

[Rabbit]

NP, I totaly understand it as a joke....

Anyway, I would also suggust that you might want to add a point restriction on the fast, heavy & elites...I say this because somthing like 5 chaos raptors all armed with plasmaguns can be devistating, so if you limit each non troop choice to only 100 points it can help to balance it out...

You beat me to the punch line, punk nugget :p.

As Plat has outlined in the raptor scenario, there's clearly some room for power-gaming. While this is inevitable, having a 5 man max for elite and fast, along with a 100 point cap, would greatly reduce this type of abuse. For heavies, I'd take it a step further, and have a 3 man max with 100 point cap (Plat and I talked extensively about this problem today, and put together some very abusive builds that take advantage of your current rules).

A few more things to consider, under the guidance and rambling of myself and Plat :) Food for thought:

Proposal for compensating certain models with Deep Strike: All models that have NO OTHER CHOICE for deployment than Deep Strike receive the scout (or infiltrate) ability, as currently outlined in your system- i.e., additional movement before the game begins. This would restore some balance to models such as Lictors, which really do need some type of movement compensation, since they're easily picked off at range. In particular, this would apply to the entire chaos daemons codex. Really, there needs to be some movement perk for the chaos daemons, since requiring them to footslogg across the whole table is crippling. Obviously, this kind of compensation would not apply to models that have other means for deployment, such as raptors, which are capable of deep striking, though not required to do so.

[JohnPublic]

I hesitate to add a points limit or model count to elites because so many balanced, fun lists will contain a high number of elite selections without being power lists. Also, some armies, such as orks, will depend on a large number of elites to add in any amount of variety.

The common denominator with the broken lists seems to be that they all take advantage of cheap weapons that are intentionally underpriced to compensate for their short supply. Many units have the option to take x number of weapons per y number of models. These weapons are more or less given to the squad for free and if you allow yourself to stack up on that item then you are buying wargear for less than it should otherwise be priced.

The simple solution is to restrict the number of special and heavy weapons. However, I believe that these restrictions are not necessary. I do not want to put a hard limit on items and trust that players can restrict themselves. It is not worth stripping options away from flavorful lists to prevent powergaming. Allowing players to chose models separate from their normal units will always leave the door open for unbalanced lists, short of going through the armies one by one and re-writing all of the options. However, I will work on a rule that prevents players from abusing the "x number of items per y number of models" mechanic. My initial thought is this:

Many units are allowed to take a specific number of items based upon the number of models present in the unit. An example would be a unit that is allowed to take one melta weapon per five models. In these cases you may only ignore the required model count once per option. Using the given example, you could choose to take a single model from the unit with a melta weapon. To claim another you would have to purchase five additional models from the listing. This rule does not apply to the mandatory troop selection. It must obey all requirements as outlined.

On the deep strike note, I will give all deepstrikers the option to perform a scout move. Even in the case of models that have the option not to deepstrike, you are paying for an ability that you are not receiving, and for that, should be compensated. Thoughts?

[BossGorestompa]

I'd rather not see any further restrictions regarding army composition or wargear selection. If a Dark Eldar player should decide to take all Warriors with Dark Lances...... so be it. I have the option to not play versus that opponent if I feel his list composition is too broken.

Conversely, should I find myself playing a progressive campaign and I and my opponent wind up with tonnes of special weapons and wargear.. or we each tactfully select wargear with the intention of designing a fluffy list.. I'd rather be allowed that option regardless of how the few may choose to abuse the system.

To your other point, I agree that ALL abilities being nerfed should be compensated for. You are indeed paying points for an option, though you are not being allowed to take advantage of said option.

I urge you to still restrict this benefit from models that COULD deep strike due to having a Jump Pack or Jet Pack, as these models' abilities are already being emphasized by the system, and I'd say they're already recieving their "points worth".. Adding an additional scout move could make them broken.

[Rabbit]

I suppose it's true that this system is designed out of a compassion for the intent, which is directed at making a fun game, with a versatile force, comprised of many different types of units. In the end, really, that counts for something. After all, we're not playing Magic The Gathering here :p. We can all agree that most Warhammer players enjoy the game for the sake of having a good time, right?




On the deep strike note, I will give all deepstrikers the option to perform a scout move. Even in the case of models that have the option not to deepstrike, you are paying for an ability that you are not receiving, and for that, should be compensated. Thoughts?

Well, the whole reason I hesitated in proposing a universal scout movement for all legal deep strikers is that some models receive deep strike, kind of off the cuff, that is, without any real expectation of them using it. Chaos Raptors are a prime example. They cost only five points more than a basic chaos space marine, but have a jump pack and the option to deep strike. Very rarely do people actually send these guys through an orbital deployment of deep strike, as it's far more tactical simply to hop them across the board. Cases like these make me wary of giving all deep strikers 'scout,' as this would enable a raptor an additional 6" of movement, when he's already blessed with a jump pack.

[JohnPublic]

It's a tough thing to say that players should police themselves and at the same time restrict certain units and models. I don't want to corner people into selecting a certain force because I see it as the ideal one. How do you guys feel about the x per y rule in particular?

On deepstrikers I will restrict it to those that normally only arrive via deepstrike. Is a scout move enough for daemons or do they need 12"? Aren't a high number of them beasts / cavalry? Should we just create a specific rule for Daemons that allows them to more closely use their mechanic?


After all, we're not playing Magic The Gathering here :p.
As the king of the theme deck, I take offense to that. (I more or less quit when wizards took over and began pushing Type II. I still have a dozen or so decks and update them occasionally if a new card comes out that really fits.)

[Rabbit]

On deepstrikers I will restrict it to those that normally only arrive via deepstrike. Is a scout move enough for daemons or do they need 12"? Aren't a high number of them beasts / cavalry? Should we just create a specific rule for Daemons that allows them to more closely use their mechanic?

Daemons have a number of fast moving models. However, their troops are slow. I would think that the 'scout' option should be sufficient, although I'm eager to hear from other members and what they think.



As the king of the theme deck, I take offense to that. (I more or less quit when wizards took over and began pushing Type II. I still have a dozen or so decks and update them occasionally if a new card comes out that really fits.)

Well good then. You should take offense! :p. I played MTG for many years, 1998- 2007. Having a number of friends who went professional, I can tell you that it's a cut-throat game, even in trading. I'm happy to be out of it, even if I miss the casual games and drafts.

[BossGorestompa]

Daemons have a number of fast moving models. However, their troops are slow. I would think that the 'scout' option should be sufficient, although I'm eager to hear from other members and what they think.
I think Daemons would be fine with Scout.. considering they're the only list that EVERYTHING will be able to take a free move! But, I'm not a Daemon player, so I can't really say for sure.

One thought I had is to add another ability in place of Scout (oh no! here we go again!) Don't worry, this one is rather uncomplicated.

Redeployment: Models with redeployment may make a free 6" move once all models have been deployed but before the game begins. This movement may not end outside of their deployment zone.

It is essentially the same as scout, except that the models must remain within their deployment zone.. Rather than stack Scout replacement abilities (via Infiltrate + Scout, or another such situation where they would be granted two Scout moves) it would be possible to replace the first with Scout, then the second with Redeployment. It is slightly nerfed, but it still adds a bit of tactical movement without allowing either army from getting too close to one another right off the bat.

I'm not sure if it's necessary, but it was something I thought of and figured I might as well throw it out there.


Well good then. You should take offense! :p. I played MTG for many years, 1998- 2007. Having a number of friends who went professional, I can tell you that it's a cut-throat game, even in trading. I'm happy to be out of it, even if I miss the casual games and drafts.

Aye.. I'm a long time casual player, I've no desire to go pro, though. Type II is a marketing ploy, which doesn't interest me.. Casual drafts and Type I for me! But I agree, how retarded-ly vicious / evil pro-MTG can be. I've a friend who started placing top three in all the local tournies.. and now he's selling pot and E to high school kids.

The game is Satanic I says you, Satanic! Just like that Dungeons and Dragons. :dance:

[soul of the brood]

hey johnrepeblic man tou have done a great job but.... I really dont think people grasp the idea that, as you stated, the rules are customizable to suit you... dont like a rule? dont complain about it, just change it!

anyway i loved playing your game set and my group had heaps of fun with it.. we did a HUGE campaign with it, with a big ole apocalypse battle at the end.
the end result wad NIDS FOR THE WIN WOOO *ahem* yea and eldar came second, damn they hit hard with their scorpions but the stealers are just monsters...
well nevermind my rambling the point it the rules are great! and if you dont like them, change them to suit you or dont play at all!:dance::dance::dance:

[kr0w17]

WOOT! SouloftheBlood!


hey johnrepeblic man tou have done a great job but.... I really dont think people grasp the idea that, as you stated, the rules are customizable to suit you... dont like a rule? dont complain about it, just change it!

Exactly! It's YOUR game.


anyway i loved playing your game set and my group had heaps of fun with it.. we did a HUGE campaign with it, with a big ole apocalypse battle at the end.

I'm dying to hear your lists and how you went about your campaign. Set up, how many armies played and any thoughts/comments you have about the flow of play or how strategic games ended up being. (How did you incorporated checkmate into your campaign... was it an escalation? First game was a several teams in a single game of checkmate, second was a few standard games of 40k and finally an all out melee Apoc game?)

If you have the time, could you write us up a small recap?

P.S. Good to hear 'nids ate the competition!

[Rabbit]

WOOT! SouloftheBlood!
P.S. Good to hear 'nids ate the competition!

Amen to that! Plat and i were concerned over Nid's viability in this system, since so much of their army is prohibited.

On a side, here's the current chaos list I'll be using against Plat. He's put together a heinous Space Pup list, taking advantage of cheap Blood Claw power weapons and the likes.

I tried keeping it fluffy and in line with the spirit of the rules.

*5x chaos space marines- 120
**1x marine with plasma gun
**1x aspiring champion with power weapon

[T] Thousand Sons Marine- 23
[T] Thousand Sons Marine- 23
[F] Chaos Raptor with melta gun- 30
[F] Chaos Raptor with plasma gun- 35
[F] Chaos Raptor with plasma gun- 35
[E] Chaos Chosen with plasma gun- 33

TOTAL POINTS: 299
TOTAL MODEL COUNT: 11

[JohnPublic]

soul of the brood, I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the system and as Kr0w said, I'd like to know more about the games and how they went.

Rabbit, that looks good, but where are the possessed? I don't see how you can call your team respectable if it doesn't include a dude with a giant lobster claw for a hand.

-

I am in the process of producing the pdf version of the rules and should have them ready soon. If everyone would go back over everything to proofread it would be appreciated. Please be on the lookout for any spelling, grammatical, or semantic errors. Also, if you have any last minute concerns, now is the time to voice them. Lastly, I could use a few more pictures of teams to include. If anyone has action shots they would like to contribute it would be appreciated. The more varied the models the better. While a team of 50 slugga boyz is legal, I'd prefer to highlight teams with a high number of different models.

After I clean up the rules as they currently stand and this pdf is finished I would like to move the project into a second phase. That will include creating more missions and some sort of campaign system. If you have thoughts on either of those things I'd love to hear them.

The most important aspect of creating new missions is to ensure that they take full advantage of loose formation. The campaign system will likely be a conversion of the tables found in the Necromunda book.

[BossGorestompa]

Sounds good to me ^-^ I can't wait to spread the word!

Before I read through for proof-reading.. are the rules presented on the first page updated as they will be in the PDF release?

[JohnPublic]

Yes, I have been updating that first page as we've made changes. I am working to make the document rich in flavor and pictures as the GW team does in theirs. I am shooting for BGB quality, while carefully avoiding any copyrighted symbols or imagery. In other words, it will not simply be written out text.

Here is the tentative cover:



... and before you think "uh, oh, he's filling the thing with chess references," rest assured that this (and the lighter watermark version) will be the only mention.

[Rabbit]

I've got this one image so far- 5 marine plague squad. I'll take some more later on, which will include whole lists.

[darkspawn327]

I went home for a little bit and decided to give Checkmate a shot. I'll tell you, it's a blast. Both my brother and I were playing Space Marines, though mine sported a few Sternguard and Vanguard and he was based off Standard Marines. Here are some observations I made:

1) Heavy Weapons lose (almost) all effect. 75% cover means cover saves galore. However, it's a powerful psychological tool since the points scale is so small!

2)Again, 75% cover (a lot of it difficult and impassible, since I have lots of building ruins) means that Jump Infantry are amazing. Since the unit sizes were so small, a single Vanguard could fly from cover to hit something hard, only to disappear again.

3) Because of the power of jump infantry, I found flamers less useful than I expected. However, since it was a Marines vs Marines battle (didn't feel like breaking out the bugs tonight), most of the fighting was CC or at rapid fire range.

4) As mentioned above, multishot weapons (rapid fire, assault x) are devastating. Low model count per unit means focused fire that is not wasted and dead enemies. My Sternguards were pretty much melting my brother's marines.

5) Grenades are required. Not a problem for some of the new codexes, but still. With so much cover, grenades are necessary to assault in cover.

6) More than ever, reactionary army placement is important (set up 2nd)

Again, lots of fun, very fast (under 40 minutes) and perfect for a killteam-style campaign upgrade system.

-Dark

[kr0w17]

Thanks for the great feedback Dark!

It sounds to me like we've got another convert!

[JohnPublic]

Fantastic feedback, thanks for that!

How about maneuvers? Did you guys manage to set them up to good effect?

[JohnPublic]

I am still hoping to hear more from darkspawn327, but I can't help responding to his comments.


1) Heavy Weapons lose (almost) all effect. 75% cover means cover saves galore. However, it's a powerful psychological tool since the points scale is so small!
Until you mentioned this I had completely forgotten that we slightly modified cover saves for our games. Unfortunately I forgot to include it in the rules, thanks for the reminder and I'm curious to see how people feel about it.

We ruled that models and units only have a 5+ cover save if they were less than 50% obscured, regardless of the cover type. If it was at all questionable we allowed them the normal 4+. This only applied to units that were eligible to receive a save by the normal rules. Units with more than 50% of their members wholly not in cover did not receive the 5+ save.

Also, this is not entirely related to darkspawn327's comments, but I will change the wording in the rules to encourage players to include a fair amount of terrain that line of sight can not be drawn through. With the cover rules of fifth edition it is plausible to have 75% terrain coverage and still draw line of sight easily from short edge to short edge through area terrain. Many of the maneuvers rely on the cat and mouse game of hiding behind terrain for them to function as intended.

Finally, should fast attack be limited to three models?

[darkspawn327]

oOo I feel special today :)

Yes we did use manuevers (quite a bit actually!) We were constantly trying to pick off certain models because very few models were running solo- they were all just really small units (off like 3-4). The aimed shot was really popular. I used the Blindside attack for the initiative boost with the Vanguard and it was pretty much annihilation since they didn't get to attack back.

Careful advance was surprisingly useful since we were playing in an urban battleground and I simply used it to go up a floor, then run up to the second level.

The cover save modification is a good idea. Kind of a throwback to old editions, but also makes up for the tons of cover lying around.

Fast attack being limited to three is probably a good idea. I believe most armies have a similar jump infantry fast attack choice which has a very large advantage in a dense battleground.

I just realized that tanks are inherently hampered in this setting. Moving through cover means dangerous terrain check which could mean a large portion of points gone. I may toy around with a Dreadnought or a Talos next time.

Killteam had a whole segment dedicated to upgrading gear and whatnot, have you thought about this at all? Little things that can make a difference in the long run, plus add some real personalization.

-Dark

[Pierced53]

Here is the tentative cover:



Ooooo, I love that! ;]
The rules seem good too. I might check them out with a friend soon, permitting I get the time. ^_^

[JohnPublic]

Yes we did use manuevers (quite a bit actually!) We were constantly trying to pick off certain models because very few models were running solo- they were all just really small units (off like 3-4). The aimed shot was really popular. I used the Blindside attack for the initiative boost with the Vanguard and it was pretty much annihilation since they didn't get to attack back.
Very good, I'm glad to hear that they worked out for you.


Careful advance was surprisingly useful since we were playing in an urban battleground and I simply used it to go up a floor, then run up to the second level.
Note that you may not run after using careful advance.


I just realized that tanks are inherently hampered in this setting. Moving through cover means dangerous terrain check which could mean a large portion of points gone. I may toy around with a Dreadnought or a Talos next time.
With the new vehicle rules it is safer to travel through terrain than it was in fourth, but you are right in saying that they are hampered in the movement category. Depending on your opponent's team though, they could be a monster for him to deal with.


Killteam had a whole segment dedicated to upgrading gear and whatnot, have you thought about this at all? Little things that can make a difference in the long run, plus add some real personalization.

We originally wanted to add in specialized gear, but I think we'll leave that for the campaign section if it takes shape.

As far as progress goes there isn't much to speak of. I have been busy with this and that, but I did manage to crank out the introduction page and I've started modeling and painting my Sons of Medusa team:

-

Finally, are there any Eldar players out there that are willing to put together a list from existing models and take some pictures of them? The more varied the team the better. Unpainted models will do, as long as they are uniform.

[Hive Fleet Scorpii]

I'm curious, wouldn't practically any kind of Assassin be ridiculously powerful in this?

[CaptainSarathai]

Oooh Oooh! Tested the game, and added a rule!

Game-Test:
The game DOES play fast. I love cityfight, and it's the only way my friends and I will play 40K, so we have tons of terrain, and thought that we were all pretty well aware of how to fight in an urban area. Haha- that was laughable. I picked up guard (will probably start a 40K army of them) and let me tell you that they can DEVASTATE in this environment.
Guard can spam, which is ugly. With the ability to purchase individuals rather than platoons, you start to realize that the platoon style was actually meant to hamper them, and therefore makes them cheaper. MSU (multiple small unit) armies of guard in Checkmate are borderline unfair, because sure: you can target a unit of 3 and kill them all, but there are 10 units like that.
Two of my most memorable moments in the first test, were very cinematic. The first was using a heavy weapons rocket team fighting from cover to destroy a marine Rhino, and then thanks to 'Overwatch', shooting the hell out of the poor guys who disembarked with a handful of Stormtroopers. The other moment was getting a lone Autocannon crew into a steeple-like area with only 1 window. In normal games, the enemy would simply shoot the unit around the gun and force it to retreat from this area. In Checkmate, the only way to take out the gun was to get infront of it, and a rapid fire weapon like that can mow down dozens of enemy soldiers. He locked down a full block by himself.

New Rule:

HIDE! Like Overwatch, HIDE! can be used to spring an ambush, but it's most useful as a last ditch effort at not getting killed.
HIDE! is declared at the start of the turn, by a model in cover (you can't hide in plain sight). The model may not do anything else for the duration of it's turn, or the opponent's next turn, and it's Initiative is reduced to 1. While under the effects of HIDE!, the model may only be targeted as per the night-fight rules (like Tau stealthsuits, or Grey Knights). Units who already benefit from nightfight (because of special rules, or because it's just dark! ) do not benefit from HIDE!

We implemented this rule in the second game. It was great fun, because suddenly a defensive army can lay in wait. It's actually very suspenseful, because one a unit is spotted, it can be fired at by the whole enemy unit. The attacker is waiting for them to pop up, and the defender is praying that he stays hidden just one more turn. Our Tau player used it on some firewarriors to ambush my Guardsmen, it was cool. On the marine table, one player used it to keep his leader's head down (coward, i know) until help could show up and bail him out.

[kithre]

You know what - the whole way this plays and the fact that Guard can spam makes me thin of the old guard of the 2nd ed rules, when Overwatch guard with a battery of autocannon and lascannon would scythe through my Space Wolves assault units....

Anyway, whilst I didn't read the entire thread, I did get the gist that this might actually play a little better if we equated it to say Space Marine rather than 40K in terms of ruleset?

[JohnPublic]

I'm curious, wouldn't practically any kind of Assassin be ridiculously powerful in this?
Assassins are balanced by their points cost. Kr0w's Daemonhunter list contained an assassin and we did not find him to be over powerful.

@CaptainSarathai
I'm glad you guys enjoyed the system and it sounds like you were able to capture some great moments which is what it's all about. Am I correct in thinking that you had four armies present, Guard, Tau, and two Marine and that everyone played two games? How close were the games and do you feel the Guard's performance was enhanced by a poor opponent list and/or playstyle? If possible, please tell us what you remember from everyone's lists.

I like your Hide, but feel it might be a little too close to Go To Ground. I wouldn't want to negate the effectiveness of an existing ability with a maneuver without some sort of restriction. Perhaps you can only hide if no enemy models can draw line of sight to your model? It is funny that you mention it though as I had been toying with a similar maneuver that would allow models to hide, be picked up off the table, and re-enter play up to d6" away in the following turn. Perhaps a happy medium can be worked out. Off the top of my head:

Hide - The unit may hide provided that it is in area terrain and no enemy may draw line of sight to it's members. Remove the unit from the table until the beginning of your next turn (note their general location for replacement.) Any enemy models entering the terrain may search for the hidden models by rolling a d6. On a 3+ the models are found, placed back into position, and suffer -2 to their initiative for the duration of the turn. Models with infiltrate are only found on a 5+.

Thoughts? I would remove Surprise Attack if Hide was implemented. It provides the infiltrator bonus that I wanted a maneuver to include, achieves almost the same function, and is less convaluted.

EDIT - After rereading my version I realize that it is too good for holding a position against enemy shooting attacks. It needs tweaking. Hrm...

[kr0w17]

I'm curious, wouldn't practically any kind of Assassin be ridiculously powerful in this?

Actually no, assassins are balanced by their points cost. They are powerful single models that cost 1/3 of your entire allotment of points. An astute player would kill your assassin first, knowing that your assassin MUST kill 1/3 of your army in order to justify his cost. He would be fun to play but maneuvers and free-form unit coherency make his abilities that much less unique.


New Rule:
Quote:
HIDE! Like Overwatch, HIDE! can be used to spring an ambush, but it's most useful as a last ditch effort at not getting killed.
HIDE! is declared at the start of the turn, by a model in cover (you can't hide in plain sight). The model may not do anything else for the duration of it's turn, or the opponent's next turn, and it's Initiative is reduced to 1. While under the effects of HIDE!, the model may only be targeted as per the night-fight rules (like Tau stealthsuits, or Grey Knights). Units who already benefit from nightfight (because of special rules, or because it's just dark! ) do not benefit from HIDE!

I like it, I would add that any ability that affects Night Fighting (i.e. negates it) also affects units using HIDE!


You know what - the whole way this plays and the fact that Guard can spam makes me thin of the old guard of the 2nd ed rules, when Overwatch guard with a battery of autocannon and lascannon would scythe through my Space Wolves assault units....

Thats why it's so important to have 75% LOS breaking terrain. Also, if you hold 4 objectives, he can't win. If he smells the win, he'll likely come to you.

EDIT
LOL we commented 12 minutes apart, I must have been typing while you were hitting the post button. I would argue that going to ground's effectiveness would be diminished only to the point that when behind non-area terrain you would use go to ground, and INSIDE area terrain you would use the HIDE maneuver.

[CaptainSarathai]

JohnPublic- That's right, we had a 2 Marines, Guard, and Tau playing that night. I gave the highlights of my game against the "vanilla" marines.

I think that with my guard, it was hampered by both weak enemy list, and by the opponent's strategy. We had all played city fight, but I have a military background that covers less "WH40K" and more 'USMC Combat Doctrines'. The result is that I fought a very tactical war combining guerilla warfare, with higher theories of combat, like 'overlapping fields of fire' and the proper way to move across a street. His list didn't help him either. He was overjoyed to find that he only needed one squad of tactical marines and then take whatever else he wanted. He's a powergamer at heart, and he tried to min-max his army. That's perfectly reasonable, the problem is just that IG do it better under your selection system. We no longer have to field a whole platoon, but rather just one squad. We don't have to buy a "heavy weapons batter" of 3 lascannons, but now we can mix Rockets, Heavy Bolters, and Lascannons, and move them all independently. Guard are just cheap, expendable guys, but the fact that I can swarm the battlefield and cover almost every approach with large squads of guys (larger squads gain the most benefit from the rules), means that the only way to fight them is to pick a point and nail it with your force, divided into several large squads. Marines could have done it, but he just didn't. It was our first game.

Guard vs. the Tau was alot more fun. Both armies are ranged, and both fight with the same style, but in reverse. The Tau player took a small elite force, Fluffily defined as being an advanced recon team. They were very 'Ranger-esque'. Fighting with him made us laugh, because it devolved into something akin to the mission/film 'Blackhawk Down'. He had better equipment, but fewer men, and a statline that was equal to mine. I had a screaming mob of guardsmen with shitty guns. I tried fighting a guerilla war like I had against the superior marines, but when I saw that it simply wasn't working (we played with skimmers-as-tanks, and he had those little Pirhanna things, and tons of drones as a 'reactionary force') I decided to just "bum-rush" him. He was overcome with numbers, as his rifles killed as many IG as I my Lasguns killed FireWarriors, but I had SO MANY more guardsmen than he did. We actually got into hand to hand fighting in some areas, which is awesome.

The Marine-vs-Marine table was pretty heated too, but alot of the problem that they found there, was that they COULDN'T kill one another. They spent much of the game moving towards one another, and once they got there, they couldn't do very much. They were benefitting from the 3-up armor, plus the cover, and so the shooting mostly just bounced. The other player though was a Black Templars guy, and I will tell you that this game really breathes new life into that list. This type of close assault fighting is what the BT were based around (ship-to-ship actually, but it's all the same) and so they made for horrifying opponents. Especially when he squaded them up, so that they'd benefit from the running move when they took casualties. He was sometimes moving 18" in a single round. He got into hand to hand without any kind of problem, and his BP&CC combo was just too much for the enemy marines. It really became a case of "kill 1 one the way in, but lose 3 in CC". It was fair though, because the BT player hadn't bargained on ANY armor in the Marine force, and that little Rhino became a real pain in his posterior. It would swoop in and yank a squad at the last minute, and even if the BT guy started swinging at it, he stood almost no chance of hurting it, and it would just roll away faster than he could follow it, deploy it's guys, and then they'd start shooting again. Of course, it couldn't save everyone, and there were objectives to be held- so that's what won the BT the game.

[kr0w17]

Thanks for the report Sarathai!

I haven't gotten a chance lately to try out Hide but maybe tomorrow I'll be able to play a short game against IG. Battle Report to follow (fingers crossed.)

Also, I need to see more pages from the .pdf (John) and I think its time to start kicking around the experience system.

I know we've been considering a framework based on Necromunda. What are everyone's thoughts on this, how could we implement it?

Have we looked at Mordheim? I'm thinking they had an experience system also...

This summer I want to play a campaign, lets get it ready in time and really have some memorable games!

[DAMION]

I know it's been slight over a month since the last post, but I was curious if you ever intended to follow up on the rules to specialize your force for points? I remember it was suggested to have a booby trap setup, or a few sniper shots, and preliminary position and other small and helpful team bonuses. I just read through all ten pages and definitely do not remember where it was or who suggested it, but I was hoping a list came out that I could choose from of pre-approved (at least by some audiences) abilities. I suppose I could look in my cityfight book or make some up with my friends. Regardless, ya'll developed a great game that i'm going to hopefully try out later this week. I make it a hobby to invent new styles of games off of well established systems, and I thought ya'll did very well executing this one.

Here is the list I was considering using:

6 fire warriors 60pts
2 stealth suits 60pts
1 crises suit with cyclic ion blaster missle pod and targetting array stim injector 72pts
4 gun drones 48pts
3 sniper drones minus spotter 60pts

300pts

Thanks again and great job with the game!

[Skeam224]

I think this game has a excellent idea going as i can play with a small force. I have a couple of questions though. So since it has cityfight scenery amd what not, does that mean when i move into a building or walking across common rubble, i most do a difficult terrain test? And as for the HQ for space marines, which one can i field since most space marine HQs have like 3 or more wounds. Should i just drop it to 2 wounds?

[JohnPublic]

I know it's been slight over a month since the last post, but I was curious if you ever intended to follow up on the rules to specialize your force for points?

While it is something that we had originally intended to do, it has been lost under the myriad of projects I've undertaken (gaming and non-gaming related.) The Necromunda, Cityfight, and Kill-Team rules are all a good place to find flourishes that you might include to your force. I'm sorry to say that as of now we do not have any list of such abilities for wide spread use.


...when i move into a building or walking across common rubble, i most do a difficult terrain test?
Yes, both the city fight and standard rules call for you to make a difficult terrain test when moving across ruins, therefore that is the way we have played it. You could, though, speed up the game by agreeing with your opponent to ignore the test or provide units with movement bonuses.


as for the HQ for space marines, which one can i field since most space marine HQs have like 3 or more wounds. Should i just drop it to 2 wounds?
The wound restriction certainly makes it tough for some armies to field an HQ. We have taken a hard line on this in our own games, but certainly you are free to discuss the rules with your opponent and modify them to fit your needs. I think that taking a three wound HQ and only giving him two wounds is fair and could be used as a storyline device. (The HQ model is injured and the Checkmate team is there to recover him and fight their way to safety.)

I'm pleasantly surprised to find that there is still some interest in Checkmate and I'll see what I can do about providing the long awaited PDF version of the rules.

[Skeam224]

Yes I'm really interested on seeing the PDF, I wanna download it so I can always have refrence to these rules. Pictures in the PDF would be awesome also! One more question, my younger cousin wants to get into 40k and I see that checkmate might be a fun starting point for him to learn. My question is though, will these rules help him learn how to play 40k and eventually play regular 40k games or are the rules for checkmate just to diffrent for him to learn to eventually play bigger games? I wouldn't want him to learn these fun rules, only to not like regular 40k because it's not as fun and as exciting as checkmate.

[kr0w17]

My question is though, will these rules help him learn how to play 40k and eventually play regular 40k games or are the rules for checkmate just to diffrent

That's a good question. Checkmate was designed to be played by players with at least a novice grip on the rules. It's not comprehensive enough, I don't think, to be picked up by two new players and ran with. It is essentially an addendum to the current rules set and the 40k rulebook is necessary to play it.

That said, however, with the help of a veteran 40k player there is no reason to believe that introducing the game of 40k through Checkmate would be a bad idea. 40k is a game of basic concepts, and if a player can get those down pat it wouldn't be difficult transition to the bigger stuff. I mean, seriously, show him a land raider or a chaos demon. He'll want to play bigger games, I promise! =) And when he does, he'll already know 90% of the rules and already be familiar with the BGB.

[BossGorestompa]

Just be sure that if you do use Checkmate to introduce new players to 40k, that they do not become too dependent upon the special rules found only within this supplement. Becoming too familiar with maneuvers, special unit coherency rules, etc. may cause a slight big (or even a great deal) of confusion when those rules are suddenly removed / altered.

That said, it might also be more beneficial to begin with a few, lighter games, such as Checkmate, as learning how to play with numerous units to manage can become quite overbearing for some players. So long as you continually remind the players that certain rules are different within standard 40k, I don't think you should have a problem :)

Well. I've been away for a few weeks, and haven't been keeping up with the status of Checkmate.. how's everything coming along? I can't wait for the PDF release, so I can distribute it amongst my friends ^-^

Cheers! :beer:

[Skeam224]

Well I myself am somewhat still learning the rules so i dont wanna accidently forget any rules or get them mixed up. Ive only read played like 2 real games. But ill try my best to not get them mixed up.

[JohnPublic]

The most important thing is to remember that the maneuvers are not part of the standard game. Other than those, everything should be applicable. If I were using Checkmate to teach the game to a new player I would omit the use of manuevers.

Honestly though, I think that Combat Patrol is probably a better starting point to learn the basics.

[darquewing]

Just wanted to say that this looks like a really awesome set of rules to play, and hope to use them in the near future.

As an Eldar player I do have some thoughts them.

First off, I think Eldar would rock in this type of setting. Specialty troops are our bread and butter, and would allow us the opportunity to play a great many different lists.

As for the "no psykers" idea. We can use Warlocks without purchasing a psychic power even in regular 40K. I would think this okay to do in 40K:Checkmate?

Also, you might allow just Warlock powers for Eldar as they are not really over powering. Yes, some are unit based, but the very idea of having 10 objectives spread around make using uber squads a bad idea. Also, Warlock powers are not over powering by any measure. Mayhaps, you should look at the various codexes and psychic powers and specifically deal with powers that would unbalance these rules. I don't know if the idea of major and minor psychic powers is still in the rules, but it seems minor powers could still be used. Anyhow, I really just want my Destructor power =D

As for Eldar Heavy Weapon platforms, I would advise some specific rules for them. For one thing, you only get it in the codex if you purchase a 10 man guardian squad. Then you pay for the weapon that sits on it. You never actually pay for the platform itself. So unless at least 10 Guardian defenders are purchased, you shouldn't be allowed to get one. If 10 are purchased, then you may purchase a HWP. In game require that both gunners and the platform cannot seperate.

That or just keep them banned. War walkers would prove more deadly anyhow.

Also, the way a single model takes up a slot for each choice type it could be under can hurt sometimes. Warlocks for instance can be in HQ, Troop, Elite, or HS. Might it be better to say that model that can be chosen from multiple areas is only required to take up one choice if that choice is HQ. (Still avoids the min/max issues, while avoiding one choice taking up a slot in almost EVERY area (e.g. Warlocks, Shas'vre XV8s, Veteran Sgts, etc )


Again, just trying to give some ideas to make the game more fun.

[Sister Bluebird]

I like these rules because it's kind of taking 40k which is sort of like 19th and early 20th Century massive armies warfare, and it turns it into more WWII-esque squad-on-squad or platoon-on-platoon action.

It makes the action more personal. Instead of 30 faceless soldiers along with a few tanks, you might have 10 guys where you can more-easily and quickly write up some really detailed background...and they become more precious to you.

[JohnPublic]

Also, you might allow just Warlock powers for Eldar as they are not really over powering. Yes, some are unit based, but the very idea of having 10 objectives spread around make using uber squads a bad idea. Also, Warlock powers are not over powering by any measure. Mayhaps, you should look at the various codexes and psychic powers and specifically deal with powers that would unbalance these rules. I don't know if the idea of major and minor psychic powers is still in the rules, but it seems minor powers could still be used. Anyhow, I really just want my Destructor power =D

As a fair number of powers affect whole squads it was easier to simply ban them all than for us to weed through the codices and make rules for each individual power. I'm sure that if your opponent is open enough to play Checkmate that he will be able to decipher which powers should be hardlined and which should not. Also, it is a good point about a single large squad not being viable in the standard mission, but we wanted to ensure that the game could handle more specialized missions without too much rulechanging.


Also, the way a single model takes up a slot for each choice type it could be under can hurt sometimes. Warlocks for instance can be in HQ, Troop, Elite, or HS. Might it be better to say that model that can be chosen from multiple areas is only required to take up one choice if that choice is HQ. (Still avoids the min/max issues, while avoiding one choice taking up a slot in almost EVERY area (e.g. Warlocks, Shas'vre XV8s, Veteran Sgts, etc )
You are right that this is not the right way to accomplish the task at hand and I think that a better way is to simply allow a maximum of 3-4 heavy weapons.

Thank you for the interest and I still vow to eventually create a polished pdf. As always I have more projects going than I can shake a stick at and Checkmate has taken a backseat at the moment. I could still use some Checkmate team pictures if any of you that have created teams want to contribute. The lack of pictures and the time required to mock up several teams from several armies for staged pics is the hurdle that initially delayed the pdf's production. In particular I would like pictures that highlight entire teams or ones that obviously show mixed squads and/or loose formation.

[Sir Spamalot]

This is a grrreat thread full of nice ideas. Well done guys.

[Talljester]

i play necromunda myself,
amd i can see how this ruleset would vary in gameplay,
i would very much like to try it,
but i have no spare time at the moment, but wheb i get around to testing it, i will let you know the results.

[BossGorestompa]

How is the project coming along? I've been on hiatus as college has pretty much become my life.. but I've been lurking again, lately, and thought I should check in and see what's been going on with Checkmate.

Is there a .pdf by chance? :D

Cheers! :beer: