| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=159&t=27842 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Mattman [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
I have already posted a few proposed ideas around scenarios, flamers and of course the formations/army lists, but there have several other on/off conversations in various threads over the last few years of things that people would like to see/change. So I thought I would start a thread to try and gather all those ideas into one place (obviously the detailed discussions on such ideas would be best done in their own separate topics). So I shall start, these aren't just my ideas, they also include the ones that I can remember from various discussions: Extra order choices (some new, some brought back from 1st ed) Charging direction (to stop any abuse and avoiding snap firing) Building/structure rules (cleaned up) Fliers!!!!! (some simple, non broken rules) Type of dice (using d6 or others) Expanded morale (greater spread of numbers? using 2d6?) Characters (how they work or attach to units) If anyone has any more thoughts, then please say so and I will add them to the list. Matt |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Extra orders would be nice. I would especially like to see the Repair order from AT to help Titans repair themselves. Cleaned up building rules would be nice too. |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! You may have missed my original thread discussing some of these points and the general consensus on some of these was not to change the die type (leave it as d6), leave morale system as is (only some minor tweaking on the behavior of HQ units) and not much favor in overhauling the flier rules. Of course that was a couple of months ago, maybe people have changed their minds. At least I wouldn't mind if they did.  Primarch |
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
primarch wrote: Hi! You may have missed my original thread discussing some of these points and the general consensus on some of these was not to change the die type (leave it as d6), leave morale system as is (only some minor tweaking on the behavior of HQ units) and not much favor in overhauling the flier rules. Of course that was a couple of months ago, maybe people have changed their minds. At least I wouldn't mind if they did. Primarch Indeed some of the issues have been worked out, and I was involved in some of the the discussions, but they were done in amongst other threads, so I wanted to make sure people were aware of the things that have been / will be discussed and pull that information into the rules section of the forum. And of course people may change their mind.  I am one of those keen to keep the d6 system, but also open to using 2d6 were appropriate. Titan hit templates is one area that we have discussed that a 2d6 would be helpful and I think 2d6 for morale would open up that part of the system more (not to mention that more numbers and modifiers will help define the different races better among other things). If we are thinking about making some new orders, then maybe this is the time to give proper orders to fliers (Straffe, dive bomb, dogfight, land etc etc) to cover what they do and clearly show their action, rather than rely on using on old orders and making it fit to the action. Matt |
|
| Author: | Llamahead [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
I'd like to see Close Combat slightly improved possibly by the addition of a pile in rule. Units in a formation that has engaged in CC in this round and survived may move on to engage another unit within 5cm. Something like that to make CC units slightly more viable and maybe reduce the incoming fire they take |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! I for one would like formal orders for fliers. Using the original orders for them was a convenient shortcut, but has proved to be very inadequate in defining their proper function on the battlefield. The variant for aerial close combat that was proposed (I forget by whom), where the CAF value was translated to dice to roll and each "6" was a "hit" in close combat (dogfights) was very flavorful and efficient (I tested it in my games I posted last year). I have some recommendations to modify it, but perhaps could be considered. I agree with Llamahead that the situation after the "initial melee" should be refined. Some kind of reorganization or follow up/retreat move should be entertained. Right now close combat takes a little too long to be resolved decisively. A 5cm move to engage elements of a formation that just fought would be nice.  Although I am partial to the idea of truly decisive close combat where it is fought until one side is destroyed or routed in one combat turn. This would not only speed up play, but perhaps add another significant function to morale in the resolution of such combat. It would go something like this: 1. Formations on charge orders engage target formation 2. Close combat rolls for engaged elements occur as per rules 3. After the "first round" of close combat the loser of the engagement (defined by the side whom lost the most elements in the fight), roll a morale check. 4. If the loser's morale check fails, that formation makes a full "fallback move" away from the close combat. Imagine this as being repulsed and falling back to reorganize. Note the unit is ready to act in the next turn. 5. If the loser's morale holds, all unengaged elements move 5cm to another unengaged elements or engage if no unengaged elements exist. 6. Fight additional rounds of close combat until one side is eliminated or has withdrawn. Note I only really added one "new" mechanic. A morale roll to see if you withdrawal. Everything else is basically the common close combat round. You just repeat it until a clear victor emerges. Also using 2d6 for titan damage tables, at least IMO would be a great idea. Primarch |
|
| Author: | deanmon [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Primarch that close combat system is somewhat sensible I think. I think you should add an option to voluntarily withdraw also and there is also pursuit to consider Khorne Berserkers aren't going to let guardsmen run and reform they are going to chase them and kill them. |
|
| Author: | Mattman [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
From way back when I started playing 2nd ed, me and my friend always played that units engaged in combat could only be given charge orders, so that the rest of the stands would fight in the following turns, so we sort of played with a pile in move, but I do agree that there needs to be some sort of "pile in" so that outlying or unengaged stands get into the combat. That is an interesting idea Primarch. I have recently been reading the rules for Bolt Action and their close combats only ever last one turn and the loser is wiped out, no morale checks, no fall back. Attacker rolls to hit/wound, defender rolls to hit/wound, winner is the one to have caused the most casualties, loser is destroyed. They also maximise contact, all the attacking models move into contact with an enemy model (even if that would make them move further than normally allowed, as long as one model is in charge range, then the whole unit can reach) then any remaining defenders move in. Even if there isn't room to put models in contact, they are all able to fight. If combat is drawn, you fight another round there and then, not waiting till next turn, you keep going until one side wins. I can see the advantage of having combats done and dusted in one turn, it would make them a lot more brutal and risky to initiate, but the winner would be free the next turn to carry on and like you say, would make things quicker in the lone run. Maybe we need to be less fiddly with the movement distances when charging at his scale, rather than measuring from model to model and arguing over mere centimetres, being a bit more fluid and measuring from the closest point of a blob of models to the closest point on the opposing blob of models and then allowing all models to get into combat, even if they would move further than normally allowed. Obviously something like that could be abused by stringing out a long line across the board, but I would hope that most NEP players aren't that beardy. |
|
| Author: | Llamahead [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Maybe something like 5th Ed 40k's system where unengaged models from both sides must be moved into base contact if their in a certain distance? |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! The problem with systems where if most of the formation is engaged then "all" are engaged is the gamesmanship that ensues where you move/position enough elements to engage the other formation, when most are really "out of range". The only real way to resole that is by requiring that most (more than half at the minimum) are in charge range for the formation to be fully engaged. Of course if your going to measure how many are in charge range, you might as well move them as per the standard rules. Not much time or efficiency gained. Deanmon, I think introducing an ability like "bloodthirsty" would cover elements that would pursue withdrawing units. That way we keep the close combat and withdrawals simple, but acknowledge certain units whom would pursue elements in an immediate fashion. Primarch |
|
| Author: | The Bissler [ Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
This happened near Glasgow last week; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-28258577 It reminded me of Black Hawk Down where the burning of tyres seemed to cause mayhem for air support, and this got me thinking... I don't use flyers but one of the biggest complaints I've heard is that such units are overpowered. Given that burning tyres is such a low-tech tool to use against air support, could or should a rule be developed that players may pay for such tyre heaps, the effect of which would be that air support units might find their weapon range significantly impeded? Just a thought... |
|
| Author: | deanmon [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
primarch wrote: . Deanmon, I think introducing an ability like "bloodthirsty" would cover elements that would pursue withdrawing units. That way we keep the close combat and withdrawals simple, but acknowledge certain units whom would pursue elements in an immediate fashion. Primarch Yes I think blood thirsty is a fine idea!  What about being able to voluntarily fall back too I mean if you were guardsmen attacked by genestealers and you survived a round of combat I think you might want to leave sharply and all the passed leadership tests in the world wouldn't make you want to fight something so likely to hang your inards from a tree just for looking at them wrong lol.
|
|
| Author: | primarch [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! The rules on pinning would curtail most withdrawals though. The only way I can see it being viable without being prone to abuse is that after the first "round" of close combat a unit may withdraw voluntarily. Assuming it didn't lose the first round of combat and failed morale and had to withdraw anyway. Otherwise you get odd situations of pinned troops "popping free" from combat and running away with no real punishment. If guards are foolish enough to get pinned by genestealers, they will need to fight mightily and survive for the survivors to "flee". Primarch |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! Summarizing a potential close combat modifications (as per the suggestions mentioned) it may look something like this: 1. Formations need charge orders to engage in close combat 2. If MORE than half the elements that compose a formation can reach base to base contact with elements MORE than half the elements of the target formation, then (and only then) are ALL elements in both formation considered "in contact" for the purposes of close combat resolution. 3. Resolve close combat as per the standard rules. 4. Once casualties are removed, the side that suffers the most is considered the "losing side" for that round of close combat. 5. The formation that loses the round of close combat must make a morale roll to stand its ground. If the roll is failed the whole formation must withdrawal away from the location of close combat its full charge move. 6. At the end of any close combat round either side (whether it won or not) may voluntarily withdrawal from close combat. However if the element is pinned it must succeed a morale roll to break free and withdraw in order. No such roll is required if the withdrawing element is not pinned. 7. After each round of close combat surviving elements may engage other enemy elements within 5cm, starting with those that are unengaged. If all are engaged then you can "gang up" on nearby engaged enemy elements. 8. Continue to fight additional close combat rounds until the one side is either totally destroyed or withdrawn. How does this look? Primarch |
|
| Author: | primarch [ Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What changes/improvements would you like to see in NEP? |
Hi! Proposed additional orders. Since the inclusion of some additional orders (mostly from 1st edition) seems favored, lets try to hammer out the definitions. A. Repair This one would apply to any element with the ability to repair during the battle. It is limited to the following. 1. The element may not move 2. The element may not fire 3. The element receives a bonus to repair and shield regeneration rolls. Note: while the bonus was +1 in the original AT rules. My experience was that given the drawbacks, a meager +1 was usually not worth the inactivity of one whole turn. My suggestion would be to roll TWO d6's and use the best result. It simulates the extra power funneled to repair systems and generate shields. Are there any more that need be added for ground forces? Primarch |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|