Making a balanced 40k esque tabletop wargame

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Tannhäuser
1st Level
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:27 am

Post by Tannhäuser »

Chamomile wrote:So, how does stealth work in a miniatures wargame? Can it work at all?
Sure. There's a few ways that stealth usually works: increasing a units ability to evade attacks is very common, as is simply denying the enemy the ability to target the unit at all until they get close enough. Allowing positioning shenanigans is also pretty commonplace, either in deployment (representing the ability to safely deploy closer to the enemy) or suddenly in-play ("You thought I was there? No, I snuck over here!").

One mechanic I thought of, but haven't seen, is simply allowing a unit to be placed as a token, along with several other tokens, all face down. The player could move all of the tokens a certain distance, and the opposing player would have to use specific tactics to turn the tokens face up, eliminating the dummy tokens as false positives on their sensors or what have you until they find the real unit.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Chamomile wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:On the other hand, if accuracy was folded into armor penetration or damage rolls, the best weapons against an opponent could be more situational, which in turn leads to more interesting tactics.
This was such a weird reply that I thought you had maybe accidentally swallowed your post. But since you didn't go back and edit it, I'm thinking that you're just really really confused.

The statement about accuracy is in relation to 40k and its BS stat. In 40k, a unit with a BS of 4 hits on four numbers and a unit with a BS of 2 hits on 2 numbers and so on. But while a unit with a BS of 4 hits twice as often as a unit with a BS of 2, it doesn't really matter which weapon or situation. There's no tactical decision, a BS 4 unit with whatever weapon is simply laying down the same amount of beatdown as two units with a BS 2 and the same weapon.

My suggestion was to have accuracy be something that actually affected how the weapons interacted with enemies. Thereby creating a question of what you wanted to use on what enemy rather than accuracy simply being a math problem for whether it was worth buying weapons for elite troops or cultists.

-Username17
User avatar
DrPraetor
Duke
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:17 pm

Post by DrPraetor »

Tannhäuser wrote: One mechanic I thought of, but haven't seen, is simply allowing a unit to be placed as a token, along with several other tokens, all face down. The player could move all of the tokens a certain distance, and the opposing player would have to use specific tactics to turn the tokens face up, eliminating the dummy tokens as false positives on their sensors or what have you until they find the real unit.
I'm pretty sure that showed up, of all places, as a scenario special rule in a WH40K expansion. But it wasn't to represent stealth - I think there was a diplomat or something that one player was trying to kill?

Also, I think Catachans did something similar with traps? Only some of the facedown tokens were real traps, I think.
Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

That token mechanic was used with 3rd edition dark eldar mandrakes, you place three tokens on the field and move them, then decide which ones are actually mandrakes when you want them to attack. The space hulk board game also uses tokens to represent unseen genes stealers to replicate the Alien feeling of watching blips quickly move on your radar
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

Wandered back to this project and wrote some rules for stealth. I wrote a few different versions of the rule, and the one I ended up liking used stealth to ignore overwatch fire.
When taking a stealth action, the squad acts as though it is taking a move action, however the primates in the squad may move only half their total move speed and must end their movement within a terrain feature or nearby cover. So long as your squad remains hidden, they are immune to overwatch fire. Anytime an enemy squad would get overwatch fire on your hidden squad, the primate with the highest Accuracy who has line of sight to at least one member of your hidden squad must roll a d6 and add their Accuracy bonus, ignoring any bonuses or penalties for range, and adding the largest size bonus in the hidden squad they are attempting to detect (so, +2 if there is a large primate in the squad they’re attempting to detect, +1 if medium, +0 if small, and -1 if all primates in the target squad are tiny). If the result is at least a 5, the squad may take their overwatch fire as normal and you are no longer hidden. Otherwise, you pass through undetected.


If a hidden squad makes an attack action, they are no longer hidden, but their attack power for the attack is increased by half again after all other modifiers are accounted for. If a hidden squad makes an overrun action, they are no longer hidden and gain the same half again bonus to their attack provided their target does not get a reaction attack on them. If a hidden squad goes into overwatch, they are not detected unless they actually fire, and they get a half again bonus to their overwatch fire if it is triggered while they are hidden. If a hidden squad takes a move action, they are revealed and move normally.
Voss
Prince
Posts: 3912
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Voss »

Wow, that is incoherently self-contradictory, needlessly complex, prone to failure, possibly ridiculously strong in the rare cases it can work, and completely impractical for actually moving to cover to cover on an actual tabletop.
User avatar
Chamomile
Prince
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 10:45 am

Post by Chamomile »

Why is actual analysis to back up conclusions something I regularly have to specifically ask for? What the Hell is it about this thread that makes people think that just stating their conclusion and walking away is in any way helpful?
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

The inherent problem with stealth mechanics in a two-player game is that all the chrome isn't going to be able to simulate the fundamental strength of being hidden - the opponent doesn't know where your unit actually is. This is why pretty much every stealth mechanic in every minis game ever is just a "cover mechanic" that's mislabeled as stealth.

If you want to have real stealth, you either need a referee who can adjudicate spotting and discovery; or you switch to using identical-looking counters which can be kept face-down with some decoy counters mixed in.

Lots of old school (meaning 70s era) wargames experimented with these mechanics, and pretty much all of those wargames have become extinct with the exception of Squad Leader which is merely in the endangered species list. Quite simply very few people want to be the referee to a Midway game where they aren't the ones bombing the Japanese fleet, whereas the face-down+decoy counter approach is extremely clunky.

The most recent attempt to revive these mechanics came in the form of Captain Sonar, which was published this year:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/171 ... tain-sonar

But I would have to note that the vast majority of "fun" in that game is the equivalent of seeing your own dysfunctional crew grope blindly in the dark and die to their own torpedoes just seconds before the enemy kills itself from ramming the sea floor.
Last edited by Zinegata on Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

A more abstract means of stealth is the 40k 7e Genestealer Cult's "Ambush" and "return from the shadows" rule

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,0 ... Cults_(7E)

Basically any cult unit far away enough from the foe can enter reserves and then next turn you roll to see if they reappear. 40k 7e loves random tables so you roll a d6 to determine how your ambushers appear so it's not super reliable.

Some stealthy mechanics I've seen in tabletop include...

* "Hidden": Deploy tokens on the battlefield, move them as infantry. If they're shot at or assaulted the controlling player can choose to remove the token or deploy stealthed unit. Potentially super powerful so should be restricted in use.

* "Infiltrate": After all other units have deployed, unit gets to deploy X distance away from an enemy unit.

* "Scout" Unit gets a bonus move after deployment, before game starts

* "Concealed" Unit is difficult to target (use rules for cover), sometimes conditional like "when in cover", "when not moving". I figure rules for being hard to see 'cause you're behind cover and hard to see 'cause it's night time should be the same.

Something movement related and/or the opponent knows where the stealthed guys are but their units attack the stealthed unit at a penalty so it's not an efficient choice.

------

Is the general consensus that Epic 40k (keptalive by fans as Net Epic) one of the better wargame systems around and straight up better than 40k any edition?

file:///C:/Users/andy/Desktop/Game/netea-tournament-pack-2017-01-03.pdf
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13866
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

OgreBattle wrote:"Hidden": Deploy tokens on the battlefield, move them as infantry. If they're shot at or assaulted the controlling player can choose to remove the token or deploy stealthed unit. Potentially super powerful so should be restricted in use.
One option is to have, say, three tokens, all look the same when face down, but when flipped one of them is different. I recommend a picture of a log on the dummy ones. So basically, you know ahead of time which one is going to be your dummy, but your enemy doesn't - and they have to do a bit of guesswork.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

OgreBattle wrote:A more abstract means of stealth is the 40k 7e Genestealer Cult's "Ambush" and "return from the shadows" rule

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,0 ... Cults_(7E)

Basically any cult unit far away enough from the foe can enter reserves and then next turn you roll to see if they reappear. 40k 7e loves random tables so you roll a d6 to determine how your ambushers appear so it's not super reliable.
That's not really stealth however. That's basically teleportation with a hint of randomness.
* "Hidden": Deploy tokens on the battlefield, move them as infantry. If they're shot at or assaulted the controlling player can choose to remove the token or deploy stealthed unit. Potentially super powerful so should be restricted in use.
That's the old and traditional wargame method. But it's seen increasingly less use because you still know where the counters are and it becomes more of a mechanic of misdirection. The referee is really the best simulation of stealth.

And stealth is really OP IRL to begin with. This is why the best units in most armies are actually their scouting units.
* "Scout" Unit gets a bonus move after deployment, before game starts
This is pretty much what's wrong with tabletop scouts as opposed to real-world scouts.

IRL your scouts are either your best troops or your most expendable ones; because their job is to spot enemy troops trying to be stealthy. They aren't necessarily guys with superior mobility so that they can get a pre-game move.

Expendable scouts are the sort of troops you just push into a position, to see if the enemy shoots at them. If they die - then it's okay, you didn't like them very much in the first place but you now know where the enemy is.

Elite scouts meanwhile understand the battlefield to such an extent that they know where to place themselves so that they can spot the enemy without being spotted themselves. From a game mechanic PoV in a double-blind game, it means that such scout units get a bonus to their spotting rolls and a bonus to their stealth rolls.

In the modern day only computer games with spotting-based mechanics are really able to simulate stealth properly.

In World of Tanks for instance it's very common to ask a player with a crappy low-ranked tank to scout ahead; because that allows the rest of the team to find out where the enemy is and shoot at them. Even if the crappy tank dies, the damage dealt to the enemy usually outweighs this.

Elite WoT scouts by contrast pick good positions where they can spot the enemy and remain unseen, or they drive around the battlefield and take calculated "peeks" at the enemy which maximizes spotting potential while minimizing the risk of return fire.

Yet you pretty much never see this kind of thing on tabletop games, because again it's a really bad environment to simulate the real advantage of stealth.
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

Zinegata wrote:
This is pretty much what's wrong with tabletop scouts as opposed to real-world scouts.

IRL your scouts are either your best troops or your most expendable ones; because their job is to spot enemy troops trying to be stealthy. They aren't necessarily guys with superior mobility so that they can get a pre-game move.
Yeah, 40k lives in this weird space where people are usually trying to care about skirmishers and heavy infantry again instead of looking at modern recon teams. Like, we're not even talking about voltigeurs and grenadiers as if we were trying beat Napoleon here, either, we're legit talking about dinguses clanking around the battlefield with chainswords. It's a far cry from the whole business where IRL recon teams are basically well-trained dudes traveling lighter than a full platoon would.
bears fall, everyone dies
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Whipstitch wrote:Yeah, 40k lives in this weird space where people are usually trying to care about skirmishers and heavy infantry again instead of looking at modern recon teams. Like, we're not even talking about voltigeurs and grenadiers as if we were trying beat Napoleon here, either, we're legit talking about dinguses clanking around the battlefield with chainswords. It's a far cry from the whole business where IRL recon teams are basically well-trained dudes traveling lighter than a full platoon would.
Skirmishers moreover are not really unit type to begin with - their name is derived from the word "skirmish" which literally means a "small fight". If you threw a 70 ton M1A2 tank into a skirmish then it would technically be a skirmisher. Skirmisher is in fact a battlefield "role", which could be filled by a variety of unit types.

Similarly in World War 2 some of the most heavily-armed units in the German army were in fact their recon battalions - the Aufklärungs-Abteilung. In the best units these guys got their own armored vehicles and anti-tank guns to support the scout infantry; and indeed these formations tended to be so powerful that many battlegroups were formed around them.

(Sidebar: Why were the German recon units so heavily armed? Because that allowed the German recon battalion to knock out the Allied recon battalion in the pre-battle skirmish, which gave the main German force a situational awareness advantage like knowing what terrain features to seize and how to best outflank the enemy. This is a big reason why they were able to run circles around the Allies early in the war)

Moreover, that these units can still travel "light" and "fast" despite packing so much firepower owes to the fact that their fat-trimming focused on the logistical elements; meaning the boring portions of the unit like trucks which carry the ammunition reloads. This means that as a general rule good recon units can't sustain heavy combat - but not because they're light or poorly armed. Instead it's because they don't carry as much ammunition around with them to engage in long-term battle, and in any case it would be a waste to use up elite troops in that sort of grind anyway. That's what the grunts are for.

That we heavily associate certain types of units as skirmishers - such as Peltasts and Voltigeurs - when they in fact performed a wide variety of roles and were often far better trained and motivated than line or heavy infantry is a reflection of the parochial nature of the public's perception of military history. It's too focused on very narrow periods of history, and within the narrow "Ancients" or "Napoleonics" time period people are further tunnel-visioned into just looking at a handful of major battles rather than the pre-battle setup. That 40K keeps tripping over itself by trying to force-fit skirmishers in the main engagement is a satirical reflection of this myopia.
Last edited by Zinegata on Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Zinegata wrote:Skirmishers moreover are not really unit type to begin with
Uh... Rome certainly thought of them as a unit type. They had a name for them and everything. Velites.

-Username17
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

Roman Velites were the soldiers who are too poor to afford proper equipment and went into battle with javelins, wooden shields and furs instead. There got the skirmishing jobs because they were viewed as more expendable and allegedly more in need of a chance to 'prove their bravery' than the better classes of legionnaire. They're not specialist skirmishers, they're the shit tier guys that you deploy to detect ambushes by walking into them and screaming loudly when they get shot.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Zinegata wrote:Skirmishers moreover are not really unit type to begin with
Uh... Rome certainly thought of them as a unit type. They had a name for them and everything. Velites.

-Username17
Moreover the Velites were a strictly Republican era institution when troop types were determined by personal property qualifications; because back then the Roman Legion was closer to a citizen militia.

After the Marian reforms the Velites were basically abolished altogether, and every Roman legionnaire was basically expected to be able to do skirmishing duties at this point; especially considering that the Legions were now largely manned by the poorer sections of society for whom the paltry pay was better than what they would expect in civilian life.

And the culprit for this misconception is popular culture and Total War - which really likes to depict the Roman legionnaires as a purely heavy infantry force, but this was never the case in the Empire. Legionnaires were in fact multi-purpose infantry who would switch to different infantry doctrines - heavy sword-and-board infantry, pike infantry, skirmisher, engineering, or even archery - depending on the operating theater. That's a big reason why they consistently won.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Whipstitch
Prince
Posts: 3660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Post by Whipstitch »

I have a hard time getting too mad at the total war series though. I mean, it's hardly perfect, but at least it was sorta cool that bringing some light cavalry to the party in Shogun II's campaign mode made it easier to kill the shit out of routed enemies rather than watching them limp off and just come after you later. Again, the game was hardly perfect, but having any concept of indecisive victories at all was nice.
bears fall, everyone dies
Zinegata
Prince
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

Post by Zinegata »

Whipstitch wrote:I have a hard time getting too mad at the total war series though. I mean, it's hardly perfect, but at least it was sorta cool that bringing some light cavalry to the party in Shogun II's campaign mode made it easier to kill the shit out of routed enemies rather than watching them limp off and just come after you later. Again, the game was hardly perfect, but having any concept of indecisive victories at all was nice.
The issue is less with the game itself as opposed to the tropes it's forced to conform to and perpetuate.

Basically, because everyone thinks of Romans as guys with armor and tower shields, every in-game depiction of Ancient Rome will have them sporting heavy or medium infantry legionnaires. Even in Dominions 4, where the designer knows better, its Rome-expy was basically still the medium/heavy infantry faction even though everyone could run circles around them.

This was actually pretty disastrous for Rome: Total War 2, because most battles degenerated into heavy infantry slogs that just repeated over and over again. The first Total War also had this issue, but was saved because the strategic map was much better able to convey the essential narrative of the Roman Civil War and the rivalries of the various leading families.

Indeed, I think Total War 2 would have really benefited if they had broken away from the heavy infantry trope - in favor of allowing legions to develop over the decades and specialize based on their battle experience. So Legion XIII might have "desert warfare" experience and doesn't kill itself to heatstroke while chasing rebels in the North African desert, while Legion IX are the heavy infantry killers who've fought numerous civil war battles and have no qualms about stabbing fellow Romans.

Ironically, one of the best modern Total War games is the Warhammer one - precisely because they could break free of the pidgeon-holing of every faction and just throw in some cool toys or mechanics.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Been looking at Bolt Action, anyone played it before?

Rules here:
http://www.warlordgames.com/downloads/p ... erence.pdf

Modern warfare fan supplement here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygd3kk70wp61i ... 1.pdf?dl=0

It seems cleaner and more maneuver tactical than 40k's list building

----

A firefight should be treated in a manner similar to close combat in other skirmish games, you're "locked in" and "escaping" can be countered by your opponent (free shots, etc.). I think Epic 40k did it that way
Last edited by OgreBattle on Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thaluikhain
King
Posts: 6141
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:30 pm

Post by Thaluikhain »

OgreBattle wrote:A firefight should be treated in a manner similar to close combat in other skirmish games, you're "locked in" and "escaping" can be countered by your opponent (free shots, etc.). I think Epic 40k did it that way
Oh, I like this idea. To extend that, I'd like to see being flanked in a firefight with modifiers like being flanked in close combat in the old days of warhammer and movement trays.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Thaluikhain wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:A firefight should be treated in a manner similar to close combat in other skirmish games, you're "locked in" and "escaping" can be countered by your opponent (free shots, etc.). I think Epic 40k did it that way
Oh, I like this idea. To extend that, I'd like to see being flanked in a firefight with modifiers like being flanked in close combat in the old days of warhammer and movement trays.
Definitely, there's a discussion on here about elfilade/cross fire, like if your being shot from two directions over 90 degrees apart you have penalties to morale, armor, etc.

Necromunda 2017 has facing and stuff like an arm shield being worse outside of front facing, but I think it's fiddly to track miniatures facing so that would be represented by the armor being worse when coming under crossfire, or if you're in close combat and flanked.



The scale I'm aiming for is 5-10 dudes on each side moving individually. 3 for ultra elites, maybe 15 max for a WW2 style squad or pack of scifi wolfy monsters

Here's how Epic 40k did crossfire, the more the deadlier:
Formations that take fire from the flank or rear are
caught in a deadly crossfire, and will suffer additional
casualties as troops struggle to find cover from attacks
coming from an unexpected direction.
To represent this, formations are allowed to use the
following rules to claim a crossfire bonus when they
shoot. You can claim the crossfire bonus if you can draw
a straight line up to 45cm long from any of the units in
the shooting formation to any unit in another friendly
formation and this line crosses a unit from the target
formation or the gap between two units from the target
formation.
The friendly unit that the crossfire line is drawn to must
have a line of fire to a unit from the target formation, but
does not have to be in range with any of its weapons.
You may not use units that are in broken or marching
formations to claim the crossfire bonus. All units from a
formation caught in a crossfire suffer a -1 save modifier.
This may result in some units automatically failing their
saving throw. Some terrain features or special rules may
counter this modifier (see 1.8.4 and 2.1.16).
In addition, a formation caught in a crossfire attack
receives two Blast markers for the first unit destroyed by
the attack, rather than just one Blast marker for the
destroyed unit as would usually be the case (see 1.9.4).
Note that a formation attacked by several enemy
formations, each of which can claim a crossfire, will
receive the extra Blast marker from each enemy
formation that inflicts one or more casualties
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply