Should it stay or should it go?

[CudaHP]

I have to say to one and all, Please for gods sake avoid any change to the current system that involves the use of cursed Mofifiers

Modifiers were the absolute ultimnate garbage of 40K Second Edition.

My reasoning is simple the current stat system is simple and elegant.

If you insert modifiers for one situation the temtation is there to add others until you end up with constant hassles verifying what modified many times rolls needed to do anything become.

The game slows to a crawl and becomes boring. The precise reason I abandoned Second Ed.

Absolutely nothing should be done to add any unnecessary complications to the rule system.

As for a card system, only if they are included in the starter box, that way I can throw them away.

 

[Gauntlet-]

Mac has 3 posts and each has been here just ignore him

 

[Hiromoon]

Gauntlet......

 

[Captain_Nemo]

Hiromoon wrote:

Gauntlet......

I second that.

On Topic:

Stay: I like darklord4's list

Target/Kill
Save/Flinch morale system
Action/Reaction System
In/Out of Command Range
Command structure in army list (e.g. 0-2 squads per officer, 0-5 per platoon, 1 platoon per 1000 points)
Measuring from center points
Pre-measuring
Fire Zones/Lethal Zones

Must Go:

Not go really better definition of the LOS / terrain height differential stuff

 

[BuShips]

Must Go:

Not go really better definition of the LOS / terrain height differential stuff

I'll bet Hiromoon could tell you that's being worked over :wink: .

 

[Quark]

I'd like to ammend my previous answer (as I was clearly not thinking straight at the time). The reaction system MUST STAY. Lose that and you pretty much lose the game. :wink:

 

[Iain McGhee]

The only thing that I think needs fixing are the indirect scatter rules. It's not that they are overcomplicated or anything, just that they can give some odd results such as shots landing behind (or on top of !) the firing squad.

 

[Hiromoon]

Must Go:

Not go really better definition of the LOS / terrain height differential stuff

I'll bet Hiromoon could tell you that's being worked over :wink: .

Actually, I could.

 

[Sgt Xin]

Must Change

Range increments could continue until either a weapon is totally ineffective or to a set limit of increments. This would not be used for LZ (Stream) weapons. A weapon trait could be developed that ignores one (or more) of the Range Increment penalties for weapons such as the Morita Sniper Rifle, a M82 Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle or the M256 120mm main gun on an M1A1.

One thing most people never think of when talking about Weapon range is Real battlefields vs Firing ranges. One thing the typical gaming table can't do is reproduce is things that mess with line of site, but arn't "terrain" pieces. Dips and rises in the ground that arn't major hills, low vegitation( IE not human eating 8ft tall plants), smoke, mist, bad weather, lighting, bad targeting, fouled equipment. Real life terrain is full of LOS interruptions that are never represented on the battlefield.

A good way to abstract this is reduced effective range. Also special scenarios or terrain pieces could be designated as "commanding views" that would add range/ damage bonus.

 

[BuShips]

Must Go:

Not go really better definition of the LOS / terrain height differential stuff

I'll bet Hiromoon could tell you that's being worked over :wink: .

Actually, I could.

I thought as much :wink: .

 

[Hiromoon]

Yes indeedie

 

[alpha_construct]

I agree with most of what has been said. The action/reaction system in a fundamental of the game that must not be removed. Cover/LOS could use some work, as well as better defining Ready special actions.

On the topic of the IGOUGO system I would suggest one change. Instead of IGOUGO for each turn how about IGOUGO for each unit in one full game turn? Similar to how the B5 minis system works, each player would get to activate one unit, take however many actions are allowed, and then mark the unit as being done (maybe a bead or penny). Then the other player would pick one of his own units and take their actions, continuing on until all units have been activated and the next turn begins. This way first turn is not very powerful as the most you can do is fire off one unit, and would also add a different kind of reacting to the game, like in chess. Just a thought. Sorry for the long post.

 

[Sgt. Brassones]

Isn't that what the action/reaction mechanic is for?

 

[SickBunny]

Hmm... Interesting topic... Though I have to admit that the SST system is by far the smoothest and best thought out miniature gaming system out there... And I think I've tried about 90 percent of the stuff available... some rarer historics still missing from my personal collection...

But still...its good to always reflect as to what works and what doesnt...

Absolutely Must Stay:

Action/Reaction (one of the coolest innovations in its simplicity)

Lethalzone/Killzone (Another brilliant thing, pretty much guaranteeing the occational friendly fire incident which is indecently prolific even in the ultramodern warfare)

Target/Kill values as they stand with armour/dodge (Fast, smooth, brutal, efficient)

Flinch (Another delightfully brutal aspect)

Traits (Both weapon and model traits are simple and yet have almost endless options of coolness)

Tunneling/Airphase (Airphase could be dealt with in a similar manner perhaps but works as its own phase as well)

Remove:

Ehh.... Cant really come up with anything since apparently the coverrules are being rethought...

PS: Ohhh, and I know we werent supposed to do the "Well I think this should be done.." thing, but to defend the so called lack of morale rules, the seeming average "realtime" of a game of SST is horribly short and brutal, perhaps mere minutes instead of the usual games simulated hours or perhaps even the full days combat... Just see how longthe battles took in the movie and you'll get a very distinctive idea that you simply dont have the time to run away that far before something gets you if you start running... Thus the flinching rule is much better... I am curious though about the Suppression-rule that has popped up occationally by a certain MSprange... So to sum up the rather lenghty addition to my original post (should of made it a separate thing) There is no real need for additional package of moral rules for SST.

Perhaps Battlefield Evo might do with some... not sure on the timescale of a single game though--.

 

[Col. Hammer]

The game is good as is. The turns move smooth and fast. The action/reaction system assures that you have to pay attention to the game even on your opponents turn, which keeps the interest in the ongoing game up.

NO MODIFIERS! They might be easier to add/substract than tying your shoelaces, but they are a pain in the posterior to remember and they slow down the game. The game runs so smooth right now that adding any modifiers would just add unneccessary complicateness to it.

The OOC rules and flinching represent morale rules well. OOC guy is rooted to the spot, sitting on his thumbs while his buddies are dying all around. Why add the unneccessary extra die roll if he runs away or not?
Running away troopers do not add anything to the game, but an unneccessary extra die rolling.

SST is the best game system I've played.

 

[CudaHP]

Basically I think the Core areas of SST are pretty solid.
Other than a couple of minor quirks in Cover rules they seem to work well. They avoid the necessity for Laser pointers, stretching strings etc.

Indirect fire works well as is, simple to calculate and use.

I have played several different game system that have used Alternate Unit Activation, they worked well. If AUA were combined with the Action Reaction System I think it would approach versimilitude with reality as closely as any game is likely to.

That would be a fairly large change to the useable tactics in the game without a huge rules change. Just a personal preference I am currently incorporating in a game I am working on for local play.

That could literally be changed with very little writing in the rulebook and could be used to include Air Units as well. Have to say haven't used air units hardly at all.

 

[Gauntlet-]

yeah sorry- but im overly suspicious of people starting up arguments for no good reason recently.

 

[Voracioustigger]

yeah sorry- but im overly suspicious of people starting up arguments for no good reason recently.

What argument?

 

[GreyDL]

The action/reaction system is the core of the game and works rather well. Why not try to expand it in the future? Also with BF:EVO and the new SST factions ground vehicles are going to play a much bigger role.

Thas was the major issue -part. How to implement it? Some examples/thoughts:

*Add more effects that cause loss of alert status. This would be an easy way to add suppression effects and to facilitate using units together for a goal. Maybe make it a choice: Lose alert but get a dodge save/bonus/whatever as your troops get really intimate with the local soil. IMHO SST currently presents combat where troops stand straight and fire at their enemies (not much use being prone against the bugs..), but with BF:EVO and the new SST factions the ground hugging part could be extended.

*More different reaction ranges. Especially against vehicles, maybe base it on size, traits, being readied or something? So your EVO RPG might come with the REACT:20"/VEHICLE trait.

*Special movement mode that causes no reactions. A bit like the infiltrate action of Warzone 1st ed.


*Some simple rule )) that makes it possible to fire small arms at vehicles at longer ranges than against troops.


Just one tweak request:
When an unit shoots with it's first action but some members don't, count the ones that didn't shoot as readied for the second action. The whole 'no one move or the heavy weapon guy doesn't get to shoot'-thing is just a bad 40Kism.