agreed, FoW is for Flames, so FORW makes sense.
Where did the name come from - I did a google and found some links to
Warhammer but am not really up on all the GW stuff.


--- In forgeofwar@..., "johnleahy55" <jleahy@...> wrote:
>
>   I have seen it posted as FOW. That usually brings to mind the game
> Flames of War which is a pretty well known name in the hobby right
now.
> I would suggest using ForW instead. This will come in handy when we
are
> talking about the rules on other sites like TMP or elsewhere.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>

I had read it as you can remove markers and take one other action
(shoot or move). Although it doesn't mention it, should the CV used
in teh test be reduce by the number of markers, making a heavily
marked unit harder to recover?

--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> I just played an interesting variant solo game. I played with
moderns
> using appropriate IG stats and weapons for both sides, trying to
> model a Soviet assault on a British-controlled hillside, advancing
> from a treeline. Instead of using full squads for each side's
> manuever units, I used four-man fire teams, about 8 to the Brit's
> side and 18 for the Soviets.
> The only other thing I adjusted was allowing -1 cover for the
trees,
> as it was the only cover available for the Soviets. It played with
a
> very authentic feel. The Soviets couldn't advance from their
treeline
> until they put enough d-markers on the Brits, which they did. They
> were just starting their advance when I got interrutped and had to
> call it quits.
>
> It was a very cool quick game-I wish I could have finished it!
> There is nothing this ruleset CAN'T DO!!!
>
> Here are my questions for you, Craig. In the rules you mention
having
> an officer in proximity imbuing a bonus for removing d-markers.
> First, what do you consider proximity?
>
> And is that referring to units other than the one to which the
> officer is attached? That issue became a little muddy for me.
>
> Also, are there any other bonuses for having an officer in
proximity
> (other than to the attached unit)that I am missing?
>
> Last, the discussion of actions states that units can perform two
> actions in an activation, including shooting and attempting to
remove
> d-markers. But the discussion of removing D-markers makes it sound
> (to me) like no other actions other than removing d-markers can be
> performed in an activation. That makes a bit more sense to me. How
do
> you handle this?
>
> That's all I have. Thanks!!
>
> Jason
>

I like the WV not being more than the AV. It is similar to the
fantasy game I play where there is a strength for each attack which
reduces the units armour save. If the str is higher than the armour
then the extra is 'wasted'.

Ill have a think about the less than 1 to hit rule. It seems ok. I
would suggest though that rolling a second dice is not a bigger issue
i.e. 0 is a one followed by a 5 or less, etc as you will only be
rolling a 2nd dice 10% of the time (per dice). I'll try it out though.


--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
>
> First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
with
> lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be picking
apart
> units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit of 30
> Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in hard
> cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
without
> introducing more dice rolls.
>
> Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
shouldn't
> have their chances of hitting a target improved just because they
have
> a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks only
shoot
> & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a rokkit
> launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
modifier
> can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV is
> greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
>
> Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you think.
>
> Kyle
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-Kyle
> > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
changes
> > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
>

If you have a favorite 40K character that you want stats for or a
squad not included in the unit lists (Sister of Battle & others),
here's how I calculated the units stats.

Everything is based on the actual Games Workshop unit info.

CV = Ld (Leadership)

SV
= 10 if BS (Ballistic Skill) greater than or equal to 6
= 9 if BS equals 5
= 8 if BS equals 4
= 6 if BS equals 3
= 4 if BS equals 2
= 2 if BS equals 1
= 0 if BS equals 0

FV = 1.5 x WS (Weapons Skill) plus the following modifiers

Strength modifier
+ 4 if S (Strength) greater than or equal to 7
+ 3 if S equals 6
+ 2 if S equals 5
+ 1 if S equals 4
+ 0 if S equals 3
- 1 if S equals 2

Attacks modifier
+ 3 if A (Attacks) equals 4
+ 2 if A equals 3
+ 1 if A equals 2
+ 0 if A equals 1

Initiative modifier
+2 if I (Initiative) greater than or equal to 6
+1 if I equals to 4 or 5

Add the above modifiers and round up.  Any value greater than 10
change back to 10.  I included the Initiative Modifier to give a
slight advantage to troops that strike quicker than their opponents.

AV
Add up the following modifiers.

Toughness modifier
+2 if T (Toughness) greater than or equal to 5
+1 if T equals 4
+0 if T equals 3
-1 if T equals 2 of 1

Save modifier
+4 if Sv (armour save) equals 2+
+3 if Sv equals 3+
+2 if Sv equals 4+
+1 if Sv equals 5+
+0 if Sv equals 6+ or no armour save

Invulnerable Save modifier
+4 if Invulnerable Sv equals 3+
+3 if Invulnerable Sv equals 4+
+2 if Invulnerable Sv equals 5+
+1 if Invulnerable Sv equals 6+

All the weapons stats are based on the Games Workshop weapons
information as found in the rulebook.

Add up the following to determine the Weapons Value.

Weapon Strength (S)
S8 = +5
S7 = +4
S6 = +3
S5 = +2
S4 = +1
S3 = +0

Armour Piercing (AP)
AP1 = +3
AP2 = +2
AP3 = +1
AP4 = +0
AP5 = +0
AP6 = +0

Special features
Rending = +1
Sniper = +1

Weight of Fire is directly taken from the Games Workshop stats.  For
example a Heavy-3 weapon would have a Weight of Fire of 3.

Large Blast weapons I "decided" would hit 4 infantry figures (with 2"
max spacing between figures) and 6 horde figures (with 1" max spacing
between figures).  The decision is based on actually putting figures
on the table with spacing at their maximum distance.  Then, seeing
how many I could resonable hit with the 5" large blast template.  I
could always hit 4 infantry and 6 horde figures.  Occasionally, I
could cover 5 infantry or 7 horde figures but not consistently so I
went with the lower numbers.

Kyle

Guys,

Since there are only 5 of us in this group, I wouldn't mind using our
first names when addressing each other.  So I'll start.  I'm Kyle, 45
years old, live in the state of Michigan, United States.

Lance has a very good point with his posting.

Where should these rules go and how do we keep it from going out of
control?

Craig, since you're the originator, do you want to keep overall
control of the rule/edits or do you want to let one of us manage them
on your behalf for awhile?

I gave this some thought tonight and my personal goals for these
rules would be:
1. No FIGURE should ever roll more than 1 die to determine an outcome
(shooting results, close combat results, etc.)
2. No UNIT should ever roll more than 1 die to determine an outcome
(activation, D-marker removal, etc.)
3. Battle results with these rules should be comparable to battles
using Warhammer 40K rules but take less time and with less dice
rolling.
4. Limit the markers & counters on the battlefield to D-markers.
Turning figures around to face your own table edge or laying them on
their side should be used to show other conditions.
5. New rules should integrate into the overall system smoothly
without slowing the game down significantly.

What are the rest of your goals for these rules?

Kyle

--- In forgeofwar@..., "lanceelvenblade"
<lance.bennett@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, I guess this a question for Craig really. I like what I've seen
of
> Forge so far. Its straight forward but with some mechanics that
really
> make you think about tactics. I have ideas about how it could be
> expanded and think most of the ideas put up by all so far are
worthy of
> consideration.
>
> Gamers though are (mostly) human beings and as such will have very
> different ideas about what they want from a game. Some will want a
> simple pick up and play, others will want realism and detail, and
some
> will get very agitated about it all. So, this has started as Craigs
> idea but where do you see it going and what controls/processes are
we
> to have to evolve it. I don't want to see a random chaotic
development
> but also don't want to step on toes here.
>
> I guess I'm asking if there it a remit for what the game is to be
and
> an objective for where it is to go. We can then use that as a
continual
> reference point/mission statement to ensure we are progressing
rather
> that looking up one day and finding 10 different versions and a
myriad
> of house rules.
>

Hi

name is Lance, 40 (pretends to be 25), Essex in the UK.
to reference Kyles points
1. I am not too bothered about multiple dice rolls so long as they
all have a purpose. The fantasy game I play has a roll to hit and
then the defender rolls to save. It helps build the tension and makes
the defender feel involved and that they are using their skill (luck
of course) to save their troops. I think the Forge method keeps both
players involved though through the activations and the decision
whether to take kills or markers (and does involve tactical skill).
I am ok with a second roll for 'to hits' of 0 or less as they will
not be the norm. The aim of a single roll though is good.

2. sounds good

3. not really experienced in 40k so can't comment on comparible
results. So long as games are balanced and all forces have an
opportunity to win I am happy.

4. limiting markers is good to maintain the appearance of the table
top. Taht said - see my message about covering fire.

5. Definately

ta
Lance

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Since there are only 5 of us in this group, I wouldn't mind using
our
> first names when addressing each other.  So I'll start.  I'm Kyle,
45
> years old, live in the state of Michigan, United States.
>
> Lance has a very good point with his posting.
>
> Where should these rules go and how do we keep it from going out of
> control?
>
> Craig, since you're the originator, do you want to keep overall
> control of the rule/edits or do you want to let one of us manage
them
> on your behalf for awhile?
>
> I gave this some thought tonight and my personal goals for these
> rules would be:
> 1. No FIGURE should ever roll more than 1 die to determine an
outcome
> (shooting results, close combat results, etc.)
> 2. No UNIT should ever roll more than 1 die to determine an outcome
> (activation, D-marker removal, etc.)
> 3. Battle results with these rules should be comparable to battles
> using Warhammer 40K rules but take less time and with less dice
> rolling.
> 4. Limit the markers & counters on the battlefield to D-markers.
> Turning figures around to face your own table edge or laying them
on
> their side should be used to show other conditions.
> 5. New rules should integrate into the overall system smoothly
> without slowing the game down significantly.
>
> What are the rest of your goals for these rules?
>
> Kyle
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "lanceelvenblade"
> <lance.bennett@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I guess this a question for Craig really. I like what I've
seen
> of
> > Forge so far. Its straight forward but with some mechanics that
> really
> > make you think about tactics. I have ideas about how it could be
> > expanded and think most of the ideas put up by all so far are
> worthy of
> > consideration.
> >
> > Gamers though are (mostly) human beings and as such will have
very
> > different ideas about what they want from a game. Some will want
a
> > simple pick up and play, others will want realism and detail, and
> some
> > will get very agitated about it all. So, this has started as
Craigs
> > idea but where do you see it going and what controls/processes
are
> we
> > to have to evolve it. I don't want to see a random chaotic
> development
> > but also don't want to step on toes here.
> >
> > I guess I'm asking if there it a remit for what the game is to be
> and
> > an objective for where it is to go. We can then use that as a
> continual
> > reference point/mission statement to ensure we are progressing
> rather
> > that looking up one day and finding 10 different versions and a
> myriad
> > of house rules.
> >
>

Haven't gone through thoroughly but one comment I would make is the
mods for number of attacks. It seems a bit low. A model with 2
attacks in WH essentially doubles their chances of a hit but here it
only equates to +1 to the FV.

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> If you have a favorite 40K character that you want stats for or a
> squad not included in the unit lists (Sister of Battle & others),
> here's how I calculated the units stats.
>
> Everything is based on the actual Games Workshop unit info.
>
> CV = Ld (Leadership)
>
> SV
> = 10 if BS (Ballistic Skill) greater than or equal to 6
> = 9 if BS equals 5
> = 8 if BS equals 4
> = 6 if BS equals 3
> = 4 if BS equals 2
> = 2 if BS equals 1
> = 0 if BS equals 0
>
> FV = 1.5 x WS (Weapons Skill) plus the following modifiers
>
> Strength modifier
> + 4 if S (Strength) greater than or equal to 7
> + 3 if S equals 6
> + 2 if S equals 5
> + 1 if S equals 4
> + 0 if S equals 3
> - 1 if S equals 2
>
> Attacks modifier
> + 3 if A (Attacks) equals 4
> + 2 if A equals 3
> + 1 if A equals 2
> + 0 if A equals 1
>
> Initiative modifier
> +2 if I (Initiative) greater than or equal to 6
> +1 if I equals to 4 or 5
>
> Add the above modifiers and round up.  Any value greater than 10
> change back to 10.  I included the Initiative Modifier to give a
> slight advantage to troops that strike quicker than their opponents.
>
> AV
> Add up the following modifiers.
>
> Toughness modifier
> +2 if T (Toughness) greater than or equal to 5
> +1 if T equals 4
> +0 if T equals 3
> -1 if T equals 2 of 1
>
> Save modifier
> +4 if Sv (armour save) equals 2+
> +3 if Sv equals 3+
> +2 if Sv equals 4+
> +1 if Sv equals 5+
> +0 if Sv equals 6+ or no armour save
>
> Invulnerable Save modifier
> +4 if Invulnerable Sv equals 3+
> +3 if Invulnerable Sv equals 4+
> +2 if Invulnerable Sv equals 5+
> +1 if Invulnerable Sv equals 6+
>

Lance,

When I devised the formulas, I tried to get something that would give
values similar to those shown in Craig's rules.  Space Marines have a
FV=8, Imperial Guard FV=4, etc.  The formulas get quite close.

Now consider a Space Marine veteran sergeant that has the same stats
as a normal Space Marine except he has 2 attacks and Leadership 9
instead of 8.  How much should we add to the normal Space Marine FV
of 8 to account for the 2nd attack?  What about a Space Marine
Captain that has 3 attacks? Since 10 is the upper limit, I gave 2
attacks a +1 to FV and 3 attacks a +2 to FV.  That puts the sergeant
at FV=9 and the captain at FV=10.

I'm thinking this should somehow be changed so that powerful
characters can inflict more than 1 hit per close combat.

The 1st idea is to let the FV be more than 10.  Say our sergeant from
the above example was given a FV of 14.  In close combat, this would
mean 1 automatic hit and a 2nd hit was possible on a roll of 4 or
less.  We'd still only roll 1 die and it's now possible to inflict 2
hits.  The captain might be given an FV of 18.

The 2nd idea would be to have the FV of the sergeant be FV=2x8.
Then, we'd simply roll 2 dice for the sergeant at his regular FV of
8.  Sort of like the WEIGHT OF FIRE multiple die rolls for shooting
with some heavy weapons.  I think this option is a better fit.  I
don't mind rolling more dice initially, I just want to avoid rolling
dice a 2nd time to get the final results.

Kyle
--- In forgeofwar@..., "lanceelvenblade"
<lance.bennett@...> wrote:
>
> Haven't gone through thoroughly but one comment I would make is the
> mods for number of attacks. It seems a bit low. A model with 2
> attacks in WH essentially doubles their chances of a hit but here
it
> only equates to +1 to the FV.
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you have a favorite 40K character that you want stats for or a
> > squad not included in the unit lists (Sister of Battle & others),
> > here's how I calculated the units stats.
> >
> > Everything is based on the actual Games Workshop unit info.
> >
> > CV = Ld (Leadership)
> >
> > SV
> > = 10 if BS (Ballistic Skill) greater than or equal to 6
> > = 9 if BS equals 5
> > = 8 if BS equals 4
> > = 6 if BS equals 3
> > = 4 if BS equals 2
> > = 2 if BS equals 1
> > = 0 if BS equals 0
> >
> > FV = 1.5 x WS (Weapons Skill) plus the following modifiers
> >
> > Strength modifier
> > + 4 if S (Strength) greater than or equal to 7
> > + 3 if S equals 6
> > + 2 if S equals 5
> > + 1 if S equals 4
> > + 0 if S equals 3
> > - 1 if S equals 2
> >
> > Attacks modifier
> > + 3 if A (Attacks) equals 4
> > + 2 if A equals 3
> > + 1 if A equals 2
> > + 0 if A equals 1
> >
> > Initiative modifier
> > +2 if I (Initiative) greater than or equal to 6
> > +1 if I equals to 4 or 5
> >
> > Add the above modifiers and round up.  Any value greater than 10
> > change back to 10.  I included the Initiative Modifier to give a
> > slight advantage to troops that strike quicker than their
opponents.
> >
> > AV
> > Add up the following modifiers.
> >
> > Toughness modifier
> > +2 if T (Toughness) greater than or equal to 5
> > +1 if T equals 4
> > +0 if T equals 3
> > -1 if T equals 2 of 1
> >
> > Save modifier
> > +4 if Sv (armour save) equals 2+
> > +3 if Sv equals 3+
> > +2 if Sv equals 4+
> > +1 if Sv equals 5+
> > +0 if Sv equals 6+ or no armour save
> >
> > Invulnerable Save modifier
> > +4 if Invulnerable Sv equals 3+
> > +3 if Invulnerable Sv equals 4+
> > +2 if Invulnerable Sv equals 5+
> > +1 if Invulnerable Sv equals 6+
> >
>

Hi Guys,

My aplogies for not keeping up with this but I am prone to what are
called 'cluster migraines' and have essentially just lost the last
four days to repeated migraine attacks.

What I suggest is that we have one or more working copies in the
files section that you can modify as you come up with ideas. If we
keep the main copy clear of changes as a reference copy, then when
we arw all agreed on a change we can update that as the master and
publish it on the blog for all to see.

So feel free to download, amend and then upload working copies of
any of the rules and lists we have here. Just mark them as working
copies and the last date they were updated.

When I get the time I'll create a list of edits and who is
responsible for them. This will then be published in the public
master so everyone gets credit for their contributions. I get the
feeling I'll be moving from 'author' status to 'editor' pretty
soon :)

My overall objective is to have a standard set of core rules. To
this will be added milieu-specific expansion documents including
recommended force lists, weapons' stat's and any specialist rules
for that setting.

I agree with Kyle on the name thing. I'm actually Craig Cartmell (as
you may have guessed by the email address). I'm 50 later this year
and hail from Mid-Wales. I was one of the founders of the Wrexham
Wargames Club back in the early 90's and am a friend of Pete Jones
(also a member of WWG) who runs FreeWargamesRules, and Will of Wills
Wargames Blog. I have been wargaming and roleplaying since the mid-
seventies and spend a lot of my free time writing rules, painting
figures and otherwise loafing about.

Cheers,
Craig.

Lance,

You don't happen to live in a trailer on Dale Farm do you? (insert grin
here)

I saw on the news today that 1000 traveller trailers are being evicted
from Dale Farm in Essex.  I chuckled when I read it because I know 1
person from Essex, yourself.

Kyle

Lol
no, thats near Basildon. Not a million miles away though. I live in
Leigh on Sea, not far from Southend Pier (famous for being the longest
pier in the world and for having lots of fires and/or boats driving
into it!)

Bricks and mortar my house :)
--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...> wrote:
>
> Lance,
>
> You don't happen to live in a trailer on Dale Farm do you? (insert
grin
> here)
>
> I saw on the news today that 1000 traveller trailers are being
evicted
> from Dale Farm in Essex.  I chuckled when I read it because I know 1
> person from Essex, yourself.
>
> Kyle
>

I am Jason Mastros, 36, from Fort Pierce, Florida, USA. Token Yank,
at your service. :-) I work in education, have a fiancee, two cats,
and own a few thousand miniatures begging to be paintined in the
storage bin. That's the scoop on me.

The gaming community is pretty slim here (I spend far more time
painting and building terrain than gaming),  so for my likes it is
important to have rulesets that are as flexible or diverse as
possible. That way when we do have time we can use them to play
different flavors of games without having to learn whole new rulesets
at every turn (something I don't mind but that is a hard sell for the
group). I also like rules that allow solo playing without too much
trouble. Because sometimes when insomnia strikes at 3AM and there is
nothing on the tube, a good bang-up game can be just the ticket!

As far as the direction of things, I am glad we have so much creative
energy to build on.

I agree about keeping things simple and streamlined. I really like
the idea of one die-roll resolution, but I don't mind additional
rolls if they are simple and don't require any detailed calculations
or consulting tables.

I also don't mind additional mechanics if they fit in with the
streamlined flow of FofW.

As for markers, I agree that too many would be unsightly, but in my
book they are much preferable to bookkeeping, so if I have two or
three types of TASTEFUL markers on the table, it doesn't overly
bother me. Besides, as Lance mentioned, lots can be done by orienting
your figures and such. Where I include things like profile (I have
posted about before) I keep track of it with colored BBs placed on
the squad leader's base. Not noticeable unless you are looking for
it.

Cheers,

Jason

Kyle, I like your proposed changes, and I think reducing the number
of die rolls where the modified SV is too low is a *great* idea. My
one concern is the "dead zone" where the SV is 0 or -1. Would they
still hit on 1? In my playtesting, this range is where many of these
unlikely hits result from.

My suggestion-modify the SV and count how many points below 1 it is
reduced, and 1. Then divide the number of shooting die to be rolled
by that number and round up.

Example: My 12 Imperial Guardsmen have a modified SV of 0 and are
ready to shoot. Since that is just one point below 1, if I just use
it to divide my twelve shots I still wind up with 12 which isn't
enough of a penalty to my mind. So I add 1, divide and round up. My
unit can make six shots.

Example #2: The same unit of 12 IG is firing with a modified SV of -2
and since that is three points below one, I add one (giving me four)
and so divide by my number of shots. I can roll three shots.

Just my two bits of zinc.

Jason

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
>
> First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
with
> lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be picking
apart
> units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit of 30
> Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in hard
> cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
without
> introducing more dice rolls.
>
> Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
shouldn't
> have their chances of hitting a target improved just because they
have
> a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks only
shoot
> & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a rokkit
> launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
modifier
> can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV is
> greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
>
> Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you think.
>
> Kyle
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-Kyle
> > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
changes
> > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
>

Jason,

I thought about doing it your way when I was typing up the proposal.
I just tried to keep the math simple, i.e. -2 means divide by 2.
However, if the couple extra seconds of figuring out what to divide
by doesn't bother anyone else, I'm in favor of Jason's method.

The same method should also be applied to close combat calculations.

Kyle
--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> Kyle, I like your proposed changes, and I think reducing the number
> of die rolls where the modified SV is too low is a *great* idea. My
> one concern is the "dead zone" where the SV is 0 or -1. Would they
> still hit on 1? In my playtesting, this range is where many of
these
> unlikely hits result from.
>
> My suggestion-modify the SV and count how many points below 1 it is
> reduced, and 1. Then divide the number of shooting die to be rolled
> by that number and round up.
>
> Example: My 12 Imperial Guardsmen have a modified SV of 0 and are
> ready to shoot. Since that is just one point below 1, if I just use
> it to divide my twelve shots I still wind up with 12 which isn't
> enough of a penalty to my mind. So I add 1, divide and round up. My
> unit can make six shots.
>
> Example #2: The same unit of 12 IG is firing with a modified SV of -
2
> and since that is three points below one, I add one (giving me
four)
> and so divide by my number of shots. I can roll three shots.
>
> Just my two bits of zinc.
>
> Jason
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
> >
> > First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
> with
> > lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be picking
> apart
> > units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit of
30
> > Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in
hard
> > cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
> without
> > introducing more dice rolls.
> >
> > Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
> shouldn't
> > have their chances of hitting a target improved just because they
> have
> > a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks only
> shoot
> > & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a rokkit
> > launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> > powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
> modifier
> > can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV is
> > greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
> >
> > Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you
think.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-
Kyle
> > > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
> changes
> > > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> >
>

I also like Kyle's proposal for WV cancelling out armor and otherwise
being discarded. It bothered me a bit the other way, as it made
certain weapons much too effective, in my opinion.

My vote for this.

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
>
> First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
with
> lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be picking
apart
> units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit of 30
> Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in hard
> cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
without
> introducing more dice rolls.
>
> Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
shouldn't
> have their chances of hitting a target improved just because they
have
> a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks only
shoot
> & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a rokkit
> launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
modifier
> can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV is
> greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
>
> Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you think.
>
> Kyle
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-Kyle
> > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
changes
> > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
>

I've created a folder in the files section called Proposed Rules that
we can keep all of our temporary trial rules.

Also, I've re-written proposed rules for the number of dice to roll
when a unit as a negative modifier based on Jason's suggestion.
Changes are still shown in RED.  The changes from the previous
proposed rules are also in BOLD.

--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> Kyle, I like your proposed changes, and I think reducing the number
> of die rolls where the modified SV is too low is a *great* idea. My
> one concern is the "dead zone" where the SV is 0 or -1. Would they
> still hit on 1? In my playtesting, this range is where many of
these
> unlikely hits result from.
>
> My suggestion-modify the SV and count how many points below 1 it is
> reduced, and 1. Then divide the number of shooting die to be rolled
> by that number and round up.
>
> Example: My 12 Imperial Guardsmen have a modified SV of 0 and are
> ready to shoot. Since that is just one point below 1, if I just use
> it to divide my twelve shots I still wind up with 12 which isn't
> enough of a penalty to my mind. So I add 1, divide and round up. My
> unit can make six shots.
>
> Example #2: The same unit of 12 IG is firing with a modified SV of -
2
> and since that is three points below one, I add one (giving me
four)
> and so divide by my number of shots. I can roll three shots.
>
> Just my two bits of zinc.
>
> Jason
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
> >
> > First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
> with
> > lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be picking
> apart
> > units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit of
30
> > Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in
hard
> > cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
> without
> > introducing more dice rolls.
> >
> > Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
> shouldn't
> > have their chances of hitting a target improved just because they
> have
> > a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks only
> shoot
> > & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a rokkit
> > launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> > powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
> modifier
> > can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV is
> > greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
> >
> > Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you
think.
> >
> > Kyle
> >
> > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-
Kyle
> > > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
> changes
> > > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> >
>

I prefer jasons approach as it is linear and at the end of the day we
are talking about exceptions to the norm here so the maths won't be
too heavy. One question though is for single figures/characters. If
they have one attack with a resulting hit value of 0 or less how
would this work. Do we still want them to have a small chance of
hitting?

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> I thought about doing it your way when I was typing up the
proposal.
> I just tried to keep the math simple, i.e. -2 means divide by 2.
> However, if the couple extra seconds of figuring out what to divide
> by doesn't bother anyone else, I'm in favor of Jason's method.
>
> The same method should also be applied to close combat calculations.
>
> Kyle
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
> <cheshirekat72@> wrote:
> >
> > Kyle, I like your proposed changes, and I think reducing the
number
> > of die rolls where the modified SV is too low is a *great* idea.
My
> > one concern is the "dead zone" where the SV is 0 or -1. Would
they
> > still hit on 1? In my playtesting, this range is where many of
> these
> > unlikely hits result from.
> >
> > My suggestion-modify the SV and count how many points below 1 it
is
> > reduced, and 1. Then divide the number of shooting die to be
rolled
> > by that number and round up.
> >
> > Example: My 12 Imperial Guardsmen have a modified SV of 0 and are
> > ready to shoot. Since that is just one point below 1, if I just
use
> > it to divide my twelve shots I still wind up with 12 which isn't
> > enough of a penalty to my mind. So I add 1, divide and round up.
My
> > unit can make six shots.
> >
> > Example #2: The same unit of 12 IG is firing with a modified SV
of -
> 2
> > and since that is three points below one, I add one (giving me
> four)
> > and so divide by my number of shots. I can roll three shots.
> >
> > Just my two bits of zinc.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
> > >
> > > First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.  Units
> > with
> > > lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be
picking
> > apart
> > > units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit
of
> 30
> > > Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators in
> hard
> > > cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
> > without
> > > introducing more dice rolls.
> > >
> > > Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
> > shouldn't
> > > have their chances of hitting a target improved just because
they
> > have
> > > a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks
only
> > shoot
> > > & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a
rokkit
> > > launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a more
> > > powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon value
> > modifier
> > > can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the WV
is
> > > greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
> > >
> > > Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you
> think.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-
> Kyle
> > > > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed rule
> > changes
> > > > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> > > >
> > > > Kyle
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I reckon the 2x8 approach would work. Its not so much rolling a
second dice as rolling more dice just as if the unit has one more
figure in it. To keep the basic attribute list we could record is as 8
(2) or similar.

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> Lance,
>
> When I devised the formulas, I tried to get something that would
give
> values similar to those shown in Craig's rules.  Space Marines have
a
> FV=8, Imperial Guard FV=4, etc.  The formulas get quite close.
>
> Now consider a Space Marine veteran sergeant that has the same
stats
> as a normal Space Marine except he has 2 attacks and Leadership 9
> instead of 8.  How much should we add to the normal Space Marine FV
> of 8 to account for the 2nd attack?  What about a Space Marine
> Captain that has 3 attacks? Since 10 is the upper limit, I gave 2
> attacks a +1 to FV and 3 attacks a +2 to FV.  That puts the
sergeant
> at FV=9 and the captain at FV=10.
>
> I'm thinking this should somehow be changed so that powerful
> characters can inflict more than 1 hit per close combat.
>
> The 1st idea is to let the FV be more than 10.  Say our sergeant
from
> the above example was given a FV of 14.  In close combat, this
would
> mean 1 automatic hit and a 2nd hit was possible on a roll of 4 or
> less.  We'd still only roll 1 die and it's now possible to inflict
2
> hits.  The captain might be given an FV of 18.
>
> The 2nd idea would be to have the FV of the sergeant be FV=2x8.
> Then, we'd simply roll 2 dice for the sergeant at his regular FV of
> 8.  Sort of like the WEIGHT OF FIRE multiple die rolls for shooting
> with some heavy weapons.  I think this option is a better fit.  I
> don't mind rolling more dice initially, I just want to avoid
rolling
> dice a 2nd time to get the final results.
>
> Kyle
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "lanceelvenblade"
> <lance.bennett@> wrote:
> >
> > Haven't gone through thoroughly but one comment I would make is
the
> > mods for number of attacks. It seems a bit low. A model with 2
> > attacks in WH essentially doubles their chances of a hit but here
> it
> > only equates to +1 to the FV.
> >
> > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If you have a favorite 40K character that you want stats for or
a
> > > squad not included in the unit lists (Sister of Battle &
others),
> > > here's how I calculated the units stats.
> > >
> > > Everything is based on the actual Games Workshop unit info.
> > >
> > > CV = Ld (Leadership)
> > >
> > > SV
> > > = 10 if BS (Ballistic Skill) greater than or equal to 6
> > > = 9 if BS equals 5
> > > = 8 if BS equals 4
> > > = 6 if BS equals 3
> > > = 4 if BS equals 2
> > > = 2 if BS equals 1
> > > = 0 if BS equals 0
> > >
> > > FV = 1.5 x WS (Weapons Skill) plus the following modifiers
> > >
> > > Strength modifier
> > > + 4 if S (Strength) greater than or equal to 7
> > > + 3 if S equals 6
> > > + 2 if S equals 5
> > > + 1 if S equals 4
> > > + 0 if S equals 3
> > > - 1 if S equals 2
> > >
> > > Attacks modifier
> > > + 3 if A (Attacks) equals 4
> > > + 2 if A equals 3
> > > + 1 if A equals 2
> > > + 0 if A equals 1
> > >
> > > Initiative modifier
> > > +2 if I (Initiative) greater than or equal to 6
> > > +1 if I equals to 4 or 5
> > >
> > > Add the above modifiers and round up.  Any value greater than
10
> > > change back to 10.  I included the Initiative Modifier to give
a
> > > slight advantage to troops that strike quicker than their
> opponents.
> > >
> > > AV
> > > Add up the following modifiers.
> > >
> > > Toughness modifier
> > > +2 if T (Toughness) greater than or equal to 5
> > > +1 if T equals 4
> > > +0 if T equals 3
> > > -1 if T equals 2 of 1
> > >
> > > Save modifier
> > > +4 if Sv (armour save) equals 2+
> > > +3 if Sv equals 3+
> > > +2 if Sv equals 4+
> > > +1 if Sv equals 5+
> > > +0 if Sv equals 6+ or no armour save
> > >
> > > Invulnerable Save modifier
> > > +4 if Invulnerable Sv equals 3+
> > > +3 if Invulnerable Sv equals 4+
> > > +2 if Invulnerable Sv equals 5+
> > > +1 if Invulnerable Sv equals 6+
> > >
> >
>

If the single figure is from a unit then it still gets 1 die to
roll.  The hit chance is still 1 in 10 so chances of hitting remain
quite small.

If it's a character, most likely it will have more than 1 attack and
if we adopt the FV=8(2) concept, then we'd just divide the number of
attacks by the negative modifier +1, the same was as if the attacks
were that many individual figures.


--- In forgeofwar@..., "lanceelvenblade"
<lance.bennett@...> wrote:
>
> I prefer jasons approach as it is linear and at the end of the day
we
> are talking about exceptions to the norm here so the maths won't be
> too heavy. One question though is for single figures/characters. If
> they have one attack with a resulting hit value of 0 or less how
> would this work. Do we still want them to have a small chance of
> hitting?
>
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jason,
> >
> > I thought about doing it your way when I was typing up the
> proposal.
> > I just tried to keep the math simple, i.e. -2 means divide by 2.
> > However, if the couple extra seconds of figuring out what to
divide
> > by doesn't bother anyone else, I'm in favor of Jason's method.
> >
> > The same method should also be applied to close combat
calculations.
> >
> > Kyle
> > --- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
> > <cheshirekat72@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Kyle, I like your proposed changes, and I think reducing the
> number
> > > of die rolls where the modified SV is too low is a *great*
idea.
> My
> > > one concern is the "dead zone" where the SV is 0 or -1. Would
> they
> > > still hit on 1? In my playtesting, this range is where many of
> > these
> > > unlikely hits result from.
> > >
> > > My suggestion-modify the SV and count how many points below 1
it
> is
> > > reduced, and 1. Then divide the number of shooting die to be
> rolled
> > > by that number and round up.
> > >
> > > Example: My 12 Imperial Guardsmen have a modified SV of 0 and
are
> > > ready to shoot. Since that is just one point below 1, if I just
> use
> > > it to divide my twelve shots I still wind up with 12 which
isn't
> > > enough of a penalty to my mind. So I add 1, divide and round
up.
> My
> > > unit can make six shots.
> > >
> > > Example #2: The same unit of 12 IG is firing with a modified SV
> of -
> > 2
> > > and since that is three points below one, I add one (giving me
> > four)
> > > and so divide by my number of shots. I can roll three shots.
> > >
> > > Just my two bits of zinc.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I forget to tell you why I wanted to change the rules.
> > > >
> > > > First, I didn't quite like the "always hit on a 1" rule.
Units
> > > with
> > > > lots of figures such as Imperial Guard and Orks would be
> picking
> > > apart
> > > > units due to sheer numbers.  If didn't make sense that a unit
> of
> > 30
> > > > Orks with basic shootas could move and shoot at Terminators
in
> > hard
> > > > cover and get 3 hits per turn.  I wanted to add some penalty
> > > without
> > > > introducing more dice rolls.
> > > >
> > > > Second, a figure with a poor shooting value, such as Orks,
> > > shouldn't
> > > > have their chances of hitting a target improved just because
> they
> > > have
> > > > a more powerful weapon.  In the Games Workshop system, Orks
> only
> > > shoot
> > > > & hit something 1/3 of the time.  Why should an Ork with a
> rokkit
> > > > launcha hit on a 6, 7, or even 8 just because it's using a
more
> > > > powerful weapon?  So, my 2nd change is to say the weapon
value
> > > modifier
> > > > can only be used to cancel a target's armour value.  It the
WV
> is
> > > > greater than the AV, the excess is lost.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's about it.  Read it over an let me know what you
> > think.
> > > >
> > > > Kyle
> > > >
> > > > --- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > In the files section you'll find a file called forge-of-war-
> > Kyle
> > > > > Rev1.pdf.  It's 3 pages from Craig's rules.  My proposed
rule
> > > changes
> > > > > are in RED.  Read them over and tell me what you think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kyle
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I am submitting three possible rules for the Advanced Rules section.
They are in the file Forge of War Advanced.pdf I would say they are
appropriate for advanced but not the core section, as some people
might not wish to be bothered. Still, for others they might add some
new, realistic dynamics to the game.

I tried to keep them as streamlined as possible and attempted to
incorporate everyone's input thus far where these topics came up.

Stance - I have brought this up before and several of you suggested
simplifying it. I have attempted to do so. See what you think.

Shaken Test - It doesn't seem quite believeable to me that a unit can
max out on its level of disorder, disorganization, and dispair (d-
markers)without some additional battlefield consequences. Hence the
Shaken Test I am proposing. It gives players an additional factor to
consider when deciding whether to take casulties or d-markers.

Reaction test. The way some games play out, it seems that some units
never activate in situations where they would do something, even with
the enemy bearing down on them. So I am proposing a simple reaction
test to give them some chance of responding.

Please take a look and let me know what you think.

Jason

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the forgeofwar
group.

   File        : /Proposed Rules/Forge of WarAdvanced.pdf
   Uploaded by : cheshirekat72 <cheshirekat72@...>
   Description : Proposed Advanced Rules from Jason.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/forgeofwar/files/Proposed%20Rules/Forge%20of%20\
WarAdvanced.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/groups/files

Regards,

cheshirekat72 <cheshirekat72@...>

Jason,

I don't know if the file is corrupt or there is some setting
preventing me from accessing the file, but everytime I try and
download the file I get "The requested document is not accessible."

Could you email it directly to "kyle_k201@..."?

Kyle
--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> I am submitting three possible rules for the Advanced Rules
section.
> They are in the file Forge of War Advanced.pdf I would say they are
> appropriate for advanced but not the core section, as some people
> might not wish to be bothered. Still, for others they might add
some
> new, realistic dynamics to the game.
>
> I tried to keep them as streamlined as possible and attempted to
> incorporate everyone's input thus far where these topics came up.
>
> Stance - I have brought this up before and several of you suggested
> simplifying it. I have attempted to do so. See what you think.
>
> Shaken Test - It doesn't seem quite believeable to me that a unit
can
> max out on its level of disorder, disorganization, and dispair (d-
> markers)without some additional battlefield consequences. Hence the
> Shaken Test I am proposing. It gives players an additional factor
to
> consider when deciding whether to take casulties or d-markers.
>
> Reaction test. The way some games play out, it seems that some
units
> never activate in situations where they would do something, even
with
> the enemy bearing down on them. So I am proposing a simple reaction
> test to give them some chance of responding.
>
> Please take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Jason
>

Haven't played these yet but initial thoughts on reading:

STANCE - I would allow prone/on the deck units to crawl 1" per move
to allow them to crawl into cover etc

If a unit is on the deck and is assualted the attacker hits at +2.
Does the unit on the deck hit back at -2 or does it get no attack. I
assume on their own activation they can stand up.

SHAKEN - I agree there needs to be some from of break/flee test. If
the unit becomes pinned, from reading I take it they only activate if
rolling at or less than, CV - dmarkers -1. This is quite a penalty as
it will normally mean a mod of about -5. Should the unit be able to
crawl for cover (if there is any)?

REACTION TEST - not sure yet about this, haven't really thought long
enough or hard enough about it. Will start to now though :)


--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> I am submitting three possible rules for the Advanced Rules
section.
> They are in the file Forge of War Advanced.pdf I would say they are
> appropriate for advanced but not the core section, as some people
> might not wish to be bothered. Still, for others they might add
some
> new, realistic dynamics to the game.
>
> I tried to keep them as streamlined as possible and attempted to
> incorporate everyone's input thus far where these topics came up.
>
> Stance - I have brought this up before and several of you suggested
> simplifying it. I have attempted to do so. See what you think.
>
> Shaken Test - It doesn't seem quite believeable to me that a unit
can
> max out on its level of disorder, disorganization, and dispair (d-
> markers)without some additional battlefield consequences. Hence the
> Shaken Test I am proposing. It gives players an additional factor
to
> consider when deciding whether to take casulties or d-markers.
>
> Reaction test. The way some games play out, it seems that some
units
> never activate in situations where they would do something, even
with
> the enemy bearing down on them. So I am proposing a simple reaction
> test to give them some chance of responding.
>
> Please take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Jason
>

Guys,

After the discussion we've had about 40K figures with multiple close
combat attacks, I've placed in the Proposed Rules folder a new unit
statistics file.  This file removes the fighting value (FV) increase
for multiple attacks and instead gives more than one close combat die
roll.  So, the old stat might have been FV=9 and the new stat could be
FV=8(2).  The (2) means that figure gets to roll 2 dice in close combat.

Kyle

My turn to comment on the proposed Advanced Rules.

STANCES
Cautious: Looks good.  At first I thought it would be best if stances
only applied to a unit in the open.  However, there's no reason a
unit couldn't be in a building and be cautious so I guess it works
everywhere.

On The Deck: The 1" crawl is a good addition but who says it has to
be into cover?  Couldn't a unit crawl toward the enemy?  Also, if you
were on the ground crawling and someone charged at you to fight hand-
to-hand, how long would it take you to stand up to fight back?  2
seconds?  How much closer would that enemy unit be 2 seconds later,
20 feet?  I think it's sufficient to prevent the On-The-Deck unit
from shooting and limit it's movement to 1".

Shaken Test: As the proposed rule is written, the unit only takes a
shaken test when it has the maximum number of D-Markers and it has
been activated.  First, if I was playing with this rule in a game,
I'd simply stop 1 D-Marker short of the maximum on all my units.
Then, I'd never have to test.  Second, if I do have the maximum
number of D-Markers, I'm probably failing most of my activation rolls
anyway.  Since I only test when I activate, it's probably in my best
interests to fail the activation roll.  I like the concept here but
I'm thinking we should tinker with this rule a little more.  Maybe if
there was some way to force a unit to take a D-marker instead of a
killed figure?

Reaction Test:  The last statement of the propsed rule states, "If
the unit fails its reaction test on a roll of "10" and it's modified
CV is less than 5, the unit must immediately flee or become pinned."
Now consider an example.  A unit of 30 orks with a CV of 7 has 3 D-
markers.  The ork player obviously wanted to preserve his orks as
they advanced across the table and planned on recovering the lost D-
markers later.  Now, a unit of 10 Imperial Guardsmen 5" away move
toward them to engage in close combat.  The ork player rolls a 5 for
his Reaction Test and fails since his modified CV=4.  Now, they
either have to flee or become pinned, again because the modified CV
is less than 5.  The lesson learned for the ork player is to have big
units and take hits as kills and completely avoid D-markers.  How
will this affect the overall game play if his units never have D-
markers on them?  Will this mean armies with large units (Imperial
Guard, Ork, Tyranid, etc.) start having the upper hand when playing
with these rules?  I guess I better actually get some figures out and
playtest this concept over the weekend before I offer up too many
opinions.  The rule may be perfectly acceptable and I'm just
imagining how it would turn out wrong.

Kyle
--- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
<cheshirekat72@...> wrote:
>
> I am submitting three possible rules for the Advanced Rules
section.
> They are in the file Forge of War Advanced.pdf I would say they are
> appropriate for advanced but not the core section, as some people
> might not wish to be bothered. Still, for others they might add
some
> new, realistic dynamics to the game.
>
> I tried to keep them as streamlined as possible and attempted to
> incorporate everyone's input thus far where these topics came up.
>
> Stance - I have brought this up before and several of you suggested
> simplifying it. I have attempted to do so. See what you think.
>
> Shaken Test - It doesn't seem quite believeable to me that a unit
can
> max out on its level of disorder, disorganization, and dispair (d-
> markers)without some additional battlefield consequences. Hence the
> Shaken Test I am proposing. It gives players an additional factor
to
> consider when deciding whether to take casulties or d-markers.
>
> Reaction test. The way some games play out, it seems that some
units
> never activate in situations where they would do something, even
with
> the enemy bearing down on them. So I am proposing a simple reaction
> test to give them some chance of responding.
>
> Please take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Jason
>

Stance should be applicable everywhere. This will resolve the earlier
comments about the cover mods I suspect.

The on the deck bit and how long it takes to get up is very true and
in practice soldiers often go to ground to shoot so 'prone/on the
deck' may be a default stance. The game play aspect though of not
letting charged units just stand up is it makes you think about when
to go down (as it were!) as you could get caught short.
If the unit is not allowed to stand to receive the charge they would
fight at -2 first round and then be as normal on their next
activation. We also need to consider movement penalty for getting up
and down.
e.g. a unit could in theory move part of their movement, hit the deck
and then fire. Next activation they are on the deck and either move
at 1" or use some of their movement (1/2? all?) to stand up again.
This would again make you think about how to use it.

SHAKEN
Thinking about this further and always wanting to keep things simple,
how about this: When a unit fails to activate they are effectively
pinned in that they're not moving. How about if the unit fails to
activates and is carrying at least one marker they make a second CV
roll (same mods as a normal CV roll). If this is also failed then the
unit must immediatley retreat their full movement away from the
enemy. This would mean any units carrying markers run the risk of
retreating. The more markers the greater the odds.
I suspect there would need to be a mode for unit size to prevent
units of 30 retreating after one marker. However I think that may be
the topic of a separate discussion as I think units should have a
mximum size.........

--- In forgeofwar@..., "kyle_k201" <kyle_k201@...>
wrote:
>
> My turn to comment on the proposed Advanced Rules.
>
> STANCES
> Cautious: Looks good.  At first I thought it would be best if
stances
> only applied to a unit in the open.  However, there's no reason a
> unit couldn't be in a building and be cautious so I guess it works
> everywhere.
>
> On The Deck: The 1" crawl is a good addition but who says it has to
> be into cover?  Couldn't a unit crawl toward the enemy?  Also, if
you
> were on the ground crawling and someone charged at you to fight
hand-
> to-hand, how long would it take you to stand up to fight back?  2
> seconds?  How much closer would that enemy unit be 2 seconds later,
> 20 feet?  I think it's sufficient to prevent the On-The-Deck unit
> from shooting and limit it's movement to 1".
>
> Shaken Test: As the proposed rule is written, the unit only takes a
> shaken test when it has the maximum number of D-Markers and it has
> been activated.  First, if I was playing with this rule in a game,
> I'd simply stop 1 D-Marker short of the maximum on all my units.
> Then, I'd never have to test.  Second, if I do have the maximum
> number of D-Markers, I'm probably failing most of my activation
rolls
> anyway.  Since I only test when I activate, it's probably in my
best
> interests to fail the activation roll.  I like the concept here but
> I'm thinking we should tinker with this rule a little more.  Maybe
if
> there was some way to force a unit to take a D-marker instead of a
> killed figure?
>
> Reaction Test:  The last statement of the propsed rule states, "If
> the unit fails its reaction test on a roll of "10" and it's
modified
> CV is less than 5, the unit must immediately flee or become
pinned."
> Now consider an example.  A unit of 30 orks with a CV of 7 has 3 D-
> markers.  The ork player obviously wanted to preserve his orks as
> they advanced across the table and planned on recovering the lost D-
> markers later.  Now, a unit of 10 Imperial Guardsmen 5" away move
> toward them to engage in close combat.  The ork player rolls a 5
for
> his Reaction Test and fails since his modified CV=4.  Now, they
> either have to flee or become pinned, again because the modified CV
> is less than 5.  The lesson learned for the ork player is to have
big
> units and take hits as kills and completely avoid D-markers.  How
> will this affect the overall game play if his units never have D-
> markers on them?  Will this mean armies with large units (Imperial
> Guard, Ork, Tyranid, etc.) start having the upper hand when playing
> with these rules?  I guess I better actually get some figures out
and
> playtest this concept over the weekend before I offer up too many
> opinions.  The rule may be perfectly acceptable and I'm just
> imagining how it would turn out wrong.
>
> Kyle
> --- In forgeofwar@..., "cheshirekat72"
> <cheshirekat72@> wrote:
> >
> > I am submitting three possible rules for the Advanced Rules
> section.
> > They are in the file Forge of War Advanced.pdf I would say they
are
> > appropriate for advanced but not the core section, as some people
> > might not wish to be bothered. Still, for others they might add
> some
> > new, realistic dynamics to the game.
> >
> > I tried to keep them as streamlined as possible and attempted to
> > incorporate everyone's input thus far where these topics came up.
> >
> > Stance - I have brought this up before and several of you
suggested
> > simplifying it. I have attempted to do so. See what you think.
> >
> > Shaken Test - It doesn't seem quite believeable to me that a unit
> can
> > max out on its level of disorder, disorganization, and dispair (d-
> > markers)without some additional battlefield consequences. Hence
the
> > Shaken Test I am proposing. It gives players an additional factor
> to
> > consider when deciding whether to take casulties or d-markers.
> >
> > Reaction test. The way some games play out, it seems that some
> units
> > never activate in situations where they would do something, even
> with
> > the enemy bearing down on them. So I am proposing a simple
reaction
> > test to give them some chance of responding.
> >
> > Please take a look and let me know what you think.
> >
> > Jason
> >
>