Building a Better Warhammer Game (NPP Stay Out)

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Quiet you I'm attempting to speak to you on what is clearly your level of game design methodology.

And shit WHAT? You've been at this for three months and there is NOTHING in this thread.

When I did this same "mental exercise" here on the den back in the day for about a single weekend before I got bored of it and left it incomplete. I got more fucking done and posted in what probably topped out at about 5 hours of fucking time investment.

And I mean if you even understood the TITLE of my original zone mechanics thread BEFORE I did like what over a decade of talking about my work on using zone based positioning mechanics here on the den you would have answered half your "difficult" questions about zones already.

You aren't game designing or even really discussing it in any meaningful way with any practical outcome. You're LARPing that you game design while name dropping the odd movie or existing gaming product.,

[deaddmwalking]

Sorry I was unclear about my goals. I was not planning on using this thread to write better rules for a miniature skirmish game. If I had planned to do that, I would be posting in the 'It's My Own Invention' forum. Here I was hoping to ask about some of the things that people like and dislike and what other games have done to address these things. This is about asking questions, not recommending solutions.

As for the 'zone movement' that you've been talking about for a decade, I honestly don't know anything about them. And it's not for a lack of reading your posts. Not that I've ever found anything worthwhile in them - latest examples are a perfect case in point - you make claims that you've said things that totally answer the question but don't provide any summaries or links. Maybe you're just really bad at communicating.

But okay, now that I understand that you want to say that you've already solved all of the problems of miniature skirmish games but are too busy to talk about it since obviously there are too many other engaging conversations going on. Thanks for stopping by and contributing nothing at all!

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

And it's not for a lack of reading your posts.

No, its for lack of fucking basic reading comprehension you thread shitting DUNCE.

And if you didn't get it in the first decade or so, why should I continue now?

Much more fun to point and laugh at your "dhur, movie, dhur things are different, dhur can thing move by two things? Dunno! Dhur!"

[Thaluikhain]

Some time ago I played around with an idea of a system that used a grid, rather than zones, but you could argue that they are just lots of small regularly spaced zones. I lost interest after a while, and I'm not claiming my ideas were great or new, but:

Using a grid like that essentially got rid of the 3rd dimension (pros and cons there) and turned the thing into a boardgame you could play with modular floor tiles. Instead of cover saves, the shooter would have to roll above a number (modified by things) that could be written on the tile. Facing would be easier, allowing for flanking and the like.

Some issues with firing at someone through cover on a funny angle, judging LOS and seeing it if clips a grid with more cover, and judging distances.

IIRC, it seemed to work adequately for a very simple game, but might not be suitable for more complicated things.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

but you could argue that they are just lots of small regularly spaced zones.

REALLY!? You don't say! Fucking ground breaking! FFS.

I wonder, maybe zones are like I don't know a lot like. BIG FAT SQUARES. Maybe someone should make a thread with that title and argue with someone who says that it's crazy talk for infinity pages ten plus years in the past then keep talking about it and iterating variants of it ever since!

Oooh Oooh I know. Next to differentiate different modes of movement like flight on a fixed positioning system with fatter squares, we could just still have things interact differently with each other, in the same way we do anyway, regardless of the granularity of the fixed positioning system!

No. That would be CRAZY! That wouldn't be obvious to someone with two braincells to position relative to each other in a system of unknown granularity. Better go back to comprehensible advanced stuff like CAN A THING MOVE 3? Or the more philosophically important SHOULD a thing move 3?

[deaddmwalking]

NPP, you have all the charm of Kaelik with none of the insight.

Under your current user name, I didn't see any threads that appeared to be related to skirmish game movement. There was the thread about your attempts to join the skirmish community, but that didn't seem to have much focus on rules. Now, maybe you think that a conversation from a decade ago about regions was extremely important to everyone in the world so it's crazy that I've apparently forgotten my role in shitting on your big, beautiful idea that I'm sure you explained clearly and didn't just go on for pages and pages about how you clearly explained it pages ago so you'll never speak of it again and just act increasingly unhinged as people point out your misanthropic actions.

Or you could, you know, have the conversation here and now and recognize that some of the people participating are different than the people who participated then, and even the people who are the same have evolved in their thinking based on another decade of experience, and of course, probably don't exactly recall every detail of your proposal.

I would like to see the Den as a space for interesting conversations about game design. I would like to invite you to participate in this thread toward that end. I'm sorry if I didn't explain my concerns around 'cross fire' as a less realistic mechanic than 'Enfilade' and you thought my link to a mostly overlooked and rarely discussed action movie of middling quality from almost 30 years ago was off topic when I hoped it would make the point that (if the movie is to be believed) that some of the arm-chair warriors don't actually know tactics and may incorporate unrealistic rules into their game, which could be forgiven if it were not intended as a nod to 'realism'. In any case, I am prepared to update the title of this thread to include 'NPP KEEP OUT' if you choose not to participate. Honestly, I think it would be a shame if you persist in some crusade to redress a perceived slight that I don't even remember, but you do you.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You sat there and asked "Want move more? But how?"

You have the brain of a very small child.

You are pretending not to know my mysterious prior user name.

You are intellectually dishonest.

You get called on your dead thread being vapid and free of real content?

You lie and claim it isn't even for that, and then still turn around later and pretend you were doing serious game design that got interrupted.

You have no legs to stand on.

I choose not to take the high road because you have spent a decade doing those things and worse and deserve no respect.

You cannot take the high road, you lack the basic pre-requisites.

If you in your fragility and intellectual inadequacy feel the need to endlessly threaten to put my name in the title of every thread you ever post again. That seems more of an appropriate punishment for you than for me.

But, considering your very intellectually dishonest standards of knowing user names. Just make sure its my FULL user name. Anything else can't be certain right?

[deaddmwalking]

Seriously, you're going to persist in that I should find your original user name, look through a decade of posts including pages and pages of political discussions because you don't want to bother to provide a link?

Last chance.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Seriously, you're going to persist in that I should find your original user name, look through a decade of posts including pages and pages of political discussions because you don't want to bother to provide a link?

You. Moron.

You look like an idiot. If you really forgot. If you really didn't notice. If you really aren't straight up lying LIKE WE KNOW YOU DO.

I TOLD you my old user name.

You just need BASIC reading comprehension. Like really go back to fucking primary school basic.

It was in my last post.

It was in my post before that.

It was, still IS, in EVERY POST I have ever posted under this user name, including this one. The new and current user name of which ITSELF is ALSO something that should have helped you out a bit here.

You claiming you cannot figure this out is more revealing of your micro brain intellect and total abject failure to read and understand anything than anything I can ever actually say about you.

[deaddmwalking]

I'm saying that diving through your posts of which I have never considered to have much merit to find one that is apparently topical and practical seems like a lot of work. If you have something to say, you should just say it. If you know you've already said it and you know where, you should just link it. And if you want to spend this time telling everyone how worthwhile it would be to read all of your old posts, well, that sounds off-topic to me.

I don't know if you know, but search doesn't really work on this website.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

You said, you insisted, you doubled down, reading my posts you don't even know my user name.

How can I communicate with you?

How can anyone?

[deaddmwalking]

I know you're Phonelobster. That's not what I meant by 'find your user name'.

Beyond that, I would still have to find a post under that name, click on the user name, click 'see all user's posts', then scroll through pages and pages of thread titles with the hope that I'd recognize the one that you think is relevant in the thin hope that I'd find it valuable.

Let me be clear - I am not willing to do that.

Just give me a link or post what you want to say. Or not. Just fuck off altogether if that's not what you're here to do.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

What's that three days give or take for you to admit you were being a lying piece of shit about not knowing my name as an excuse for your latest downswing of the "You never provide your materials" / "You provide your materials too much!" pendulum of shittery you've been on for years.

Three days. Before you either would openly admit that's my prior and somewhat continued user name or managed to notice, or be told by someone else, that my fucking signature was telling you all along.

Now you are just going to lie and say its just because actually EVEN knowing that searching is still hard, also in your universe I never posted anything relevant ever again and you refuse read anything I ever say anyway.

Well fuck you, you were too dumb to try the marginally more realistic lie about shitty search results.

Your chosen go to excuse no one asked you to die for was you couldn't find anything under my current user name.

Then you tried to die on that hill for three days, and now try pretend it never happened.

This is your fucking problem. Right there. This is the demonstration. Why bother with more.

Anyway, second I did bother with more, you will just pretend you never demanded links and references and pendulum swing back to complaining about me for linking to or reference about my own past material.

You cannot be talked to without links because you moan and complain about having no memory.

You cannot be talked to with links because you have and will again accuse me of referring to my own stuff too much.

You cannot be talked to with explanations in thread because you openly say you've been ignoring everything I've written for a decade as part of your memory of a goldfish defense.

You just cannot read, or refuse to read, you always have an excuse, it changes and you openly lie about it.

Case in point. 3 days to get you to admit you know my old username that was IN MY FUCKING SIGNATURE ALL ALONG.

[Grek]

Phonelobster, link the post from the old thread that you think would be helpful to read or fuck off.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I actually genuinely refuse to be helpful to this piece of shit, so I will genuinely fuck off.

I think I made my needless point.

Again.

For now.

[OgreBattleFight]

2017 Mouse Trap thread, links to document with the movement rules
viewtopic.php?p=482254

"Time And Space
For convenience the game uses abstract formal terms and rules to map time and space to determine where things are in relation to each other, how long it takes to do things, and to better determine potential interaction between them.

Zones
Space in the game is broken up into Zones these are large abstract areas they do not correspond to any fixed real world measurements, their only firm objective value is in their interaction with game rules like movement and range. A space represented in game, like a room or a bridge, might be a single zone in size, or broken into multiple zones depending on how large the GM feels is appropriate for the encounter.

Zones have adjacencies with other zones, So the north zone of a bridge may also be adjacent to the south zone of that bridge, the zone on the other side of the chasm next to the north end of the bridge, and even the zone in the air above the bridge. Zone size and shape is ARBITRARY and ABSTRACTED. You COULD have 2 or 3 or 15 zones down the length of a bridge if you need to, the effect is purely in game terms. And should be considered and decided as such by the GM when mapping the area, but it should be decided as much in advance as possible and the players should be provided with as much up front information as possible, no changing zone layouts at the last minute to be mean about things.

Zones are mildly flexible in that some zones can move (like elevators), and some zones which were “implied” previously but not mapped can be added to a map as it becomes appropriate (like the zone in the air above the deep chasm when someone is suddenly thrown into it from the bridge).

Sub Zones
Some zones, like the roof of a carriage, are “sub zones” and for range purposes can be considered part of the same zone the sub zone is in, but for movement purposes (and the purpose of the moving zone itself) are a separate zone. Sub zones often have other effects, such as carriage internal zone providing cover defence against attacks from outside, and moving vehicle zones applying Drive By Attack Penalties when you attack out of them, but not when you attack within them.

Zone Size And Crowding
Some zones have a limit to available space for characters and other contents. In which case they have a Space X rating where X is a value representing total Character/item volume the zone can contain.

Typically inventory items on characters only count if the inventory item is bigger than the character, in which case it causes the character to count as a character of a size matching their largest item. Loose items rarely count unless they are furniture, in which case they have fairly arbitrary space ratings, the standard character space ratings are…

Very Small = 1
Small = 2
Medium = 4
Big = 8
Very Big = 16

Once that limit is hit or (with difficulty) exceeded the zone is Crowded. And characters in the crowded zone are Crowded. Which is a status effect that applies Grabbed to the characters (and potentially applying touch/contact effects on/from all involved characters in case any have spikes or burning skin or something), limiting their actions to actions with the Wrestle keyword. Crowded character can escape the zone by making an Escape action against another character in their zone or against the walls of the zone itself, unlike some attacks a character in a crowded zone may NOT forgo defense against such an attack even if they want to. In addition a character attempting to enter a Crowded zone, or attempting to enter a zone that would become crowded if they did enter can only do so by succeeding in an Escape attack on a target in that zone in a manner similar to the zone being Guarded.

If a zone’s Space rating is exceeded before an escape action to break out, or would be exceeded because of an escape action to break in, then it applies the excess value as a direct 1 for 1 penalty to that attack.

If a zone’s Space rating is exceeded by some arbtirary amount actions jamming more stuff in may deal damage to occupants, and trapped occupants may start to suffocate. However any such boundaries for these or similar effects are entirely arbitrary.

Technically all zones have some sort of Space limitation. However in practice most of them are so big they never matter and you shouldn’t bother defining them.

Narrow Zones
There is a difference between a zone with limited space, and a zone with limited space in only some dimensions, the first is handled by Space and the second is handled by Narrow. A zone can have Space and Narrow limitations at the same time.
Some zones can be Narrow([Size] Crowded) – [Size] characters/vehicles and larger in this zone are Crowded.

Some zones can be Narrow(No [Size]) – [Size] characters/vehicles and larger cannot fit in this zone at all.

Characters who are crowded by a zone, or cannot fit into it can potentially attempt to smash their way in (or out) with attacks, including the default “attack through obstacles” option. Though it might be noted breaking out is harder due to the limitations of being crowded.

Line Of Sight (LoS)
Characters can draw Line of Sight to any zone between any point in the zone they are in, to any point in the destination zone that does not pass through a sight blocking obstacle. They can also draw LoS on any character in any zone they can draw LoS to, UNLESS part of the zone is out of their LoS AND the character has performed the Take Cover action, and remained in cover since.

Regardless of sight obstacles and Take Cover actions you always have LoS on your own zone and it's contents.

If you are Blind by default you cannot draw LoS beyond the zone you are in.

Generally you will need LoS in order to make most forms of attack on a zone or character in a zone. Various forms of Smart attacks may enable you to overcome aspects of this limitation.

Some attacks that permit indirect fire, including Social attacks, might to some limited extent be able to avoid this limitation on LoS requirements. in that you can try and make scary yelling noises through walls and around corners at people you cannot see... but there will be Muffled penalties to the action, and you could well be wasting it by trying to socially influence people who aren't there or aren't the people you expect to be there.

Line Of Fire (LoF)
In order to physically attack a character you not only need LoS you also need to map a line between your zone and their zone that is not interrupted by physical barriers.

LoF is also sometimes important for character abilities that allow a character to somehow interrupt or influence an attack if in the LoF.

Basic limitations to LoF may be overcome with various forms of Guided attack that do not have to travel in a straight line (but may be limited in the types of paths or targets they can have).

On occasion you may have LoS and NOT have LoF on a target (say, through a glass window).

You may attempt attacks through physical barriers ANYWAY, doing so requires you to attack the barriers as well. If the barrier is not destroyed or at least “holed” by your attack then it prevents the attack from ever reaching the final target. You can even attempt to do this by charging with a melee attack through a window or wall.

You can even attempt an attack through a barrier without LoS on your target. But it is worth noting that you are at risk of targeting the wrong characters or wasting actions with no character's present if you don't at least have correct or full information through LoK or something.

Social attacks can avoid this to some extent if barriers are translucent or not fully sound proof. But may suffer Muffled Penalties, and again, if also suffering from lack of LoS could result in wasted actions or the wrong targets.

Line Of Knowledge (LoK)
It is possible, through failed stealth actions through muffling sight limiting barriers, through communication from allies in your LoS (or with communication devices or abilities) who have LoS around corners/barriers relative to you, or through special abilities that grant you additional information that you may have knowledge of targets that you cannot personally draw. LoF and/or LoS on.
In theory you might then yell at such targets with muffled social attacks, manoeuvre yourself to range of standard attacks, attempt to charge or shoot an attack through barriers, possibly attempt to lob an attack over a wall, or use Guided attacks on them.

You CAN make attacks without LoK, some limited Smart attacks will even select targets for you (on some sort of specific precedence basis). But doing so definitely places you at risk of hitting the wrong targets or wasting actions and resources on no targets at all. Unlimited Smart attacks may simply target whatever you want them to within the attack range/LoF ignoring your initial LoK, but if no targets you would want to attack are present you could still waste the entire attack.

Targeting A Zone
Some attacks can just be dropped on a target Zone and still effect characters in that zone who you lack LoS or LoK to specifically (probably because of Take Cover Actions). These actions are usually Cloud or Blast effects with Multi-Target All In Zone or Multi-Target X in Zone.

Close Range
Close-Range attacks and actions are actions that you perform on targets in the same zone as yourself.

Short Range
Short-Range attacks and actions are actions that you perform on targets in the same zone as yourself OR in an adjacent zone.

Long Range
Long-Range attacks and actions are actions that you perform on targets in basically ANY zone. However Long-Range attacks suffer from Long-Range Penalty, which is -1 per Zone beyond Short Range.

Some Long-Range attacks have keywords that will modify range penalties. Such as...
No-Range-Penalty ignores long range penalty.
Half-Range-Penalty applies half range penalty.
Double-Range-Penalty applies double the normal range penalty.
Reduced-Range-Penalty X applies X points less of ranged penalty.

In addition some rare long range attacks may have a Minimum-Range X which they cannot attack closer than, or a Maximum-Range X which they cannot attack further than.

True line of sight is used, I think.

[deaddmwalking]

So I'm not understanding how GM determined abstract zones is useful in a competitive wargame without a referee. I can see how marking a map into zones might be possible by a scenario designer, or how standard zones (like deployment zones) that are measured from the table edge can be referenced - breaking up a standard table into pre-defined sections would be possible, but it doesn't sound valuable.

Like, dividing the table like a tic-tac-toe board with corners and a center would mean you could attack from corner to corner 2 zones away with a long range attack, but only having 2 zones would really limit the differences between weapon types.

I could imagine a scenario where each unit has a range for short/adjacent/long that's based in part on their speed and weapons, so an enemy unit might be 4 zones away from your artillery, but the fast-moving enemy is only two zones away when they're attacking you... Still, in that case using zones for terminology is probably more confusing than using ranges (6"/12"/24").

I think there's something interesting about shooting through barriers. I think that some weapons should potentially continue through but not all - a missile or other exploding device shouldn't explode twice - once when hitting a barrier and once again after passing through it. The munition would be expended in the attack. On the other hand, a las-cannon really could punch a hole and keep going. Giving weapons a quality that allows them to continue their attack after passing through barriers seems worthwhile.

But yeah, not really seeing how that system would directly address all the questions I have about unit speed and multiple zones.

[OgreBattleFight]

Current 10e Warhammer 40k has a lot of "this speedy/winged/teleporting/sneaky unit is taken off the battlefield and redeployed next round"

ex:
"Guerrilla Tactics: At the end of your opponent’s turn, if this unit is more than 6" away from all enemy models, you can remove this unit from the battlefield and place it into Strategic Reserves."

So even in a game where they want you to see 7" and 8" movement as different, they have big big abstractions. The recently revealed grey knights have mega teleporting skills so they ignore a ton of terrain in play.

For a zone based miniatures skirmish game this would be if a unit isn't in the same zone as an enemy, they get to deep strike next round anywhere else without enemies or move 1+ zones. I can see jet flyers appearing at a table edge, doing a strafing run, and having interceptor battles off the table like MtG block declaring.

Recently played Obsidian Protocol which is strictly on a grid map. They can do 'true line of sight' because everything is either orthogonal or diagonal.



But even grid based movement is a solved problem, getting zones of different shapes to work is something else. Doing that without true line of sight measuring is something something else.

----

The most abstract is something like... if Magic the Gathering had multiple combat zones for your attackers and blockers and area enchantments to have effects in. So a whole zone is fortified, a whole zone is lightly obscured, a whole zone is open deathly places to be caught in.

Adding complexity to that is having the specific facings where zones meet have those effects, so one facing is heavily obscured while another is wide open for space ninjas to sneak in. In this case it'd be kind of messy to determine on a naturalistic miniatures battlefield tabletop, so I think this is better for a strictly 3x3 or so map and you lay down some tokens to state what effects happen when infantry/tanks/super space horses/antigrav cross from one border of a zone to another.

-----

Savage Worlds zone movement:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3697388 ... age-Worlds

Bloodborne zone (set tiles) movement and combat:
https://www.cmon.com/wp-content/uploads ... k_v1.1.pdf

[deaddmwalking]

One of the best parts of tabletop war games is seeing the minis deployed. I think drop pods and even teleportation are pretty cool, but I think having things happening off table (or units constantly leaving/re-entering) should mostly be limited. Like, if you have a skeleton horde, I don't really mind that destroyed units might 'reconstitute' and enter the battlefield again, but I think it bothers me more if a landspeeder zooms off the table and then comes back around for another pass.

I might come around to that idea with enough time. I mean, close air support really should zoom over the trench line and disappear, right? But that seems like an event more than a unit.

[deaddmwalking]

Big picture, what's better - list building where every unit is given a points cost with lots of variations and options, and you aggregate units until you hit your list total, or a more top-down approach where each army is given a total number of units they can select and they pick whole units.

The first would be like 'take a squad of 10 space marines at 15 points per unit, upgrade to power swords at 3 points per unit (etc). The other would be like 'pick an assault unit, a heavy unit, and a HQ'. Potentially people might be able to swap whole units, but there'd be less talking about upgrades.

In the case where a unit is considered to be armed with all the available options, like Space Marines count as having a bolt gun, bolt pistol, and chain sword, they'd obviously choose whichever weapon was most appropriate at the moment.

Finally there could be a hybrid option - you pick units like the first example, and you get a small budget for unit/hero upgrades. I like the idea of easier list building and sorta feel like it's easier at the design stage to set unit sizes based on relative utility. Ie, Terminators might come in a squad of 3, while Assault Marines come in a squad of 8, and Tactical Marines come in a squad of 10. Or whatever. For the sake of variety, horde armies would be instructed to take '2 units' so they could get orks + gretchin or whatever.

[Thaluikhain]

Big picture, what's better - list building where every unit is given a points cost with lots of variations and options, and you aggregate units until you hit your list total, or a more top-down approach where each army is given a total number of units they can select and they pick whole units.

The first would be like 'take a squad of 10 space marines at 15 points per unit, upgrade to power swords at 3 points per unit (etc). The other would be like 'pick an assault unit, a heavy unit, and a HQ'. Potentially people might be able to swap whole units, but there'd be less talking about upgrades.

Er, you mean like the 2nd ed list where, it was 25%+ on squads, up to 50% on characters and stuff, vs the 3rd ed list, where mandatory was one HQ and two troops with other possibles?

I think the 3rd ed one was a step up, myself.

[deaddmwalking]

Mostly, though in my mind the first one is more explicitly point based, while the other doesn't list point values and selections are made based on other criteria, with each 'unit' being pre-considered in the codex so you're literally just choosing units.

Example: The Imperial Guard Codex says you must pick 1 HQ and you're allowed to pick 4 units - and each unit is considered equal. You might do something like 'for every two infantry units you select, you may make a bonus selection from a support list'. So you could pick 4 tanks, but if tanks are an available support unit, you could also choose 4 infantry units and get 2 tanks for free (or a tank and a heavy weapons team). In any case, you're never saying 'I have 2,500 points to spend, and I don't know if I should buy two of these tanks for 800 or one of this tank for 650. If I have the 150 points left over, I could upgrade one unit to flamers...

I think some people like list building and kinda point-whoring (like players in BP systems for character creation), but I think that makes it more difficult to get started. Choosing two units based on what looks cool and knowing that it is basically 'good to go' would really help with the introducing the game to new players.


Edit - From a design perspective, you'd basically say a squad of 5 Space Marines is equivalent to a squad of 20 guard so you'd either allow each player to pick one unit (and they'd have different numbers of models) or you'd allow the Guard player to pick 2 units (of 10 each) for every pick the Marine player makes.

[OgreBattleFight]

In Age of Sigmar they've made models of persistent spells that can be dispelled, I can see close air support feeling like that.

Set them up at the table edge they will fly in next turn.
They move in a straight line (with a turn for very agile flyers) and the opponent gets to shoot long ranged anti air stuff at them off the table.
Interceptors and fighter jets can be like playing instants and flash creatures in MtG to intercept them. Place on table then they also fly off.

So it's more like having a bombing blast template as a nice model, you place em and they disappear in a turn. But as you mentioned, the important part is they did appear on the table.

Then the flyers that survived get to do this again next round.


-----
I lean towards "This squad of war dudes is always X cost, and choose between Y options" BUT those options MUST be balanced against each other. Been talking with 40k players on "how powerful does an anti infantry shuriken cannon or scatter laser need to be to be taken over the anti tank brightlance that in previous individual points cost editions was 3x+?"

The ideal for me is
1) Faceless infantry, vehicle, monster etc. units are all a set cost with equal value options.
2) Leader type units have good customizability with individual costs for different tiers of gear.

So 10 Dark Eldar Kabalites are always the same cost, but the anti infantry shredder and splinter cannon is boosted to match the value of having an anti tank/monster blaster and darklance. Like the splinter cannon firing 6 times with sustained 2.

The Archon then gets different pts values for a plain power sword or a huskblade.

I like that Age of Sigmar has a large amount of heroes that enhance squads they join, though it's tricky to get them useful but not feel mandatory either.

----

What I've been thinking about for My Miniatures Game Without True Line of Sight But You Still Put Cool Minies with Awesome Terrain on the table, that could be played as a card game...

1) Battlefield divided into 3x3, 4x3, or 4x4 grid. Can use tokens at the points four squares meet, or bigass modular tiles.
2) Effects of firing from one zone to another is determined by facings between where square edges meet, diagonals. So almost always have cover between two tiles, and maybe totally concealed if you have to fire through two lines of obscuring terrain to go 2 zones over.
3) Within these squares, you can also have ruins, bunker, forest type tiles that act as a zone within a zone, could provide total concealment.
3A) For the sake of Cool Miniatures Terrain variety, some of these dense terrain zones-within-zones can be between multiple squares. A zone of ruin that gives you access to 2 or even 4 adjacent squares will be very valuable to send your elite melee ninjas to hold. This might be needlessly complicated though and will test it after the rest.

Having tabletops with your minis that look like promo photos because the rules are broad enough to not agonize over exact cover and true line of sight, is a goal.


This could all be one dense terrain zone for units to be engaged in firefights and close combat.
----
Looking at how current 40k tournament terrain is done, movement is done, and 'optimal' movement gameplay, it's decision points are almost grid based. The fiddly "no I see your terminator's fat butt hanging out of cover" is what I want to get rid of.

http://goonhammer.com/ruleshammer-terra ... ns-mostly/


This Trench Crusade terrain is spread out in a way where if this was a 3x3 grid with "obscured one square away, total concealment two squares away" you get what the terrain and True LoS was aiming for.

[deaddmwalking]

Are you thinking about having a lot of long range 'indirect' fire that isn't worried about cover/concealment? Or are you explicitly trying to get combat units engaged directly in melee?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Edit - Removed by Moderator