What sort of range do we want to give the Jade Wagons? other ranged units too actually (fodder and tertiary archers)
Also I propose that we limit them to the froward arc like hull-mounted weapons in 40k (unless we want to give them turrets?)

So far, this is what we have for secondary stats.

Spirit Kin: 10M 1W 6I 4L S2
Siddhi: 8M 1W 7I 7L S1
Taken Weapons: 7M 2W 4I 4L S2
Man Machines: 7M 2W 5I 6L S2
Jade Wagons: 6M 2W 3I 5L S3
Ascendants: 9M 1W 6I 8L S3

We should definitely get into special abilities now for the ones which need them. What we have so far (to my memory):

-Spirit-kin get an optional one to possess enemy units who are routing (made optional for the reason of not controlling enemy units based on player preference, require everyone involved in the fight to be cool with it)
-Ascendants get something with regards to W-raising. I couldn't find anything while skimming through the past two threads, though...maybe someone else remembers?
-Man Machines have access to formations (do we want them to keep the LF formation bonuses?)
-Siddhi have options to raise speed; others were mentioned (clairvoyance, for example, though I'm not sure how that would impact gameplay)
-Jade Wagons are Secondary artillery. 'Nuff said.
-I don't recall anything for Taken Weapons.

Thoughts?

I propose a few additions to the stat line. Right now it's:

Movement(M) Wounds(W) Initiative(I) Leadership(L) and Size(S)

I suggest adding Offense(O) and Defense(D)

The Offense and Defense stats will include the standard, baseline modifiers the unit gets for its equipment. So, to throw some numbers out, a Lorica Faulta would have, in addition to the normal statline, O +0 and D +3

So it would look like:
M4 W1 I4 L6 S1 O+0 D+3

>>6467668
>Man Machines have access to formations (do we want them to keep the LF formation bonuses?)

I say yes, but since the unit size is smaller they won't be able to get as many rank bonuses. probably +2 at most.

>>6467668
>-Spirit-kin get an optional one to possess enemy units who are routing (made optional for the reason of not controlling enemy units based on player preference, require everyone involved in the fight to be cool with it)

Terrible, terrible idea. Just have them cause terror (a higher tier fear) that makes staying and engaging in combat them harder on units morale.

>>6467648
Bows: WHFB has shortbows at 16", which seems reasonable given that our movement isn't too off from theirs. Longbows are more, obviously.

Jade Wagon: It should be a very significant distance, like 36-48". Having them limited to a forward arc as balance seems pretty reasonable, what are the 40K rules for that?

>>6467681
Sounds good.

>>6467688
Yeah, I wasn't really keen on the possession either, it mostly sprung to mind after that one writefaggotry about the Roman soldier (Marcus, I think, I'd check 1d4chan but it's down). The better version of fear is pretty solid and gets across the fuck-you-we're-eldritch deal.

>>6467673
The idea is that the things that will be changing those values are external to the unit (like equipment or formation bonuses). Therefore, they're not included in the unit stat lines.

JADE WAGON!

>>6467693
in 40k the fire arc of a fixed weapon is 22.5 degrees either side of a line down the weapons straight line of sight (45 degrees total)

>>6467771
That's pretty straightforward. The only real complication would be an easy way to measure that without trotting out the protractor, but if people find a way in 40K they can do it here.

>>6467780
I don't have much experience myself but generally if the tank is pointed pretty much straight at the target it will be in the arc

Hmm...what ability can we give the Taken Machines?

>>6467791
Well, right, the gray area is the outlying corners/edges of the range.

>-Ascendants get something with regards to W-raising. I couldn't find anything while skimming through the past two threads, though...maybe someone else remembers?
You're thinking of the manner in which Heralds are summoned, perhaps. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean. We haven't discussed anything of that nature.

>-Siddhi have options to raise speed; others were mentioned (clairvoyance, for example, though I'm not sure how that would impact gameplay)
There's also size alteration Siddhis that we could use. The bigger one lets them increase to S2, the smaller one... I dunno.

>>6467794
similar bonuses to the ones the woaden get for been close to a druid?
I'm inclined to not give them much though, they are looted roman ones and their thing is just formations which the celts wouldn't use

>>6467799
thats true, but you'll always have that problem with a fire arc of any size.

suggestions for fear and morale mechanics:

The following tests are all morale tests. When called upon to make a morale test, the player rolls a d10 for each unit making a test. If the roll is higher than that of the units Morale value, the test is failed. if the roll is lower, the unit passes the test. A roll of 1 is always a success.

Panic:
A unit must take a panic test if:
1) it suffers 25% or more casualties
2) a friendly unit within 6" is destroyed
3) a friendly unit within 6" breaks from combat
4) a fleeing friendly unit moves through the unit

A unit only needs to take one Panic test per phase, even if there are multiple reasons to take Panic tests. If a unit fails a Panic test is must flee in the direction specified below. After this first flee move, the unit will then try and leave the battlefield as soon as possible. It will continue to flee towards the closet table edge until it leaves the battlefield or it rallies.

1) 25% casualties
A unit must take a Panic test at the end of any phase (except the close combat phase) if it lost 25% or more of the models it started the phase with. If the test is failed the unit will flee directly away from the unit that caused the most casualties (roll a dice in case of equal number of casualties).

>>6467827
Not if it's 360

>>6467935
2) Friendly unit destroyed within 6"
If a unit is completely destroyed, any friendly units within 6" of the destroyed unit must take a Panic test. Units that only had a quarter or less of their models remaining at the beginning of the phase, or single model units do not cause Panic. If the test is failed, the unit will flee directly away from the point where the friendly unit has been destroyed.

3) Friends break from close combat within 6"
Test if a friendly unit with more than a quarter of its models remaining at the start of the phase within 6" has broken as a result of being defeated in close combat. If the test is failed, the unit will flee directly away from the point where the friendly unit had broken.

4) Fleeing friendly models move through a unit
If a friendly unit with less than a quarter of its models remaining at the start of the phase moves through the unit as part of their flee move, the unit must take a Panic test. If the test is failed, the unit will flee in the same direction as their fleeing friends.

>>6467945
Fear:
A unit must take a Fear test if it is faced by one of the following situations:
1) if charged by a Fear causing enemy.
2) if a unit wishes to charge a Fear-causing enemy.


1) Charged by Fear causing enemies
If a Fear causing enemy unit declares a charge against it, a unit must take a Fear test to see if it can overcome that fear and take the charge. If the test is passed the unit can react to the charge as normal.

if the unit fails its test, the unit immediately flees directly away from the fear causing unit.

If more than one fear causing enemy declares a charge against a unit, the unit must take each test separately.

2) Wishing to declare a charge against a Fear causing enemy.
If a unit wishes to declare a charge an enemy that causes Fear, it must make a test to overcome its fear first. If the test is failed the unit may not charge and must remain stationary in that movement phase. If the test is passed, the unit may declare the charge as normal.

Defeated by Fear causing enemy
Units in close combat automatically fail their break test if they are defeated by an enemy unit that they fear. Note that a unit may pass its break test if it rolls a 1 on its fear test. This rule applies whether the defeated units have previously passed any Fear tests or not.

>>6467953
Terror:
Units who are confronted by monsters or situations that cause Terror must test to see if they overcome their terror. If they fail, they are reduced to gibbering wrecks. Units only ever test for Terror once in a battle and then they are not affected again, even if the test is failed.

If a creature cases Terror, it automatically causes Fear as well, and all the rules deescribed for Fear apply. A unit will never need to take both a Terror and a Fear test from the same source - just take a Terror test. If you pass the Terror test you automatically pass the fear test too.As any unit only ever takes one Terror test in a battle, any subsequent encounters with Terrifying monsters or situations will simply count as Fear.

A unit must take a Terror test if it is faced by one of the following situations:

1) if charged by a Terror causing enemy.
2) if a unit wishes to charge a Terror-causing enemy.
3) if there is an enemy that causes Terror within 6" at the start of the unit's turn.

>>6467956
1) Charged by Terror causing enemies
This situation is handled exactly as if the unit was charged by a Fear causing unit.

2) Wishing to declare a charge against a Terror causing enemy.
This test is handed the same as if the unit wishes to charge a Fear causing enemy, with one exception: if the unit fails the test, it may not charge and must immediately flee in its movement phase.

3) Terror causing enemies within 6" at the start of the turn.
A unit must test at the start of its turn if there are one or more Terror causing units within 6". If the test is failed, the unit will immediately flee directly away from the nearest Terror causing enemy.

>>6467969
Fear & Terror Immunity
A unit that causes Fear is not affected by enemies that cause Fear. Faced with an enemy that causes Terror, a Fear causing unit only suffers Fear, not Terror. A unit that causes Terror is not affected by Fear or Terror at all.

If a fear or Terror causing unit is fleeing the battlefield, all Fear or Terror tests are passed automatically.

Immune to Psychology:
Units that are Immune to Pyschology automatically pass all their Panic, Fear, and Terror tests and are not automatically broken if defeated in combat by Fear causing enemies, but takes the Break test as normal.

Unbreakable:
Unbreakable units are Immune to Psychology, In addition, if defeated in close combat, Unbreakable units automatically pass all Break test, can never flee, and will literally die fighting under any circumstances.

Those fear mechanics are complicated and confusing.

>>6467712
>The idea is that the things that will be changing those values are external to the unit (like equipment or formation bonuses). Therefore, they're not included in the unit stat lines.
>equipment

That's what I mean. Lorica Faulta will ALWAYS have their armour and a shield. It isn't an option, it's what they come with standard. So, their base defense modifier will always be +3(+2 from their armour and +1 for having a shield). Woden come with a two handed weapon standard, but are otherwise naked in terms of physical armour, so if you bring in a vanilla unit, it always has +1 Offense and +0 defense for having no armour (but the woad would probably count as warding or some such).

It just makes it easier to throw in some vanilla units without having to spend time adding all the equipment that comes standard.

>>6468008
The basic assumptions in this post are wrong. The Lorica Faulta will ALWAYS have their power armor. Thus they count as tertiary instead of fodder. The Woaden will ALWAYS have their paint (point of fact, they won't always come with any particular armament) thus they count as tertiary instead of fodder.

It's a simple system, and that's intentional.

SO if we're going with the whole "a tertiary unit has to do 10 wounds on a secondary to count as 1 wound" that means they'll all need to either have huge unit sizes, extremely lucky rolls, or just have no chance in hell of actually doing any damage with the way things are now.
I suggest adding a few things to how wounds are inflicted:

1) if a unit rolls a 1 on its opposed test when attacking or defending, or the defender/attacker rolls more than double the units roll, that unit takes an additional wound from that source.

2) add a a # of attacks stat to the stat line. Most units will just have 1, but just bigger ones, or faster units would have 2 or 3, or as many as 4 or 5.

This will give the little guys a fighting chance, and prevent some one just marching a secondary through an entire armies worth of tertiaries at absolutely zero risk.

>>6468072
I should add that it's not a bad idea for a player to write down the various bonuses his units get, but they aren't part of the statline, because those bonuses aren't consistently applied in similar places or ways on all units.

>>6468082
we changed it to just 5 lower tier wounds equals 1 higher tier wound

>>6468082
>"a tertiary unit has to do 10 wounds on a secondary to count as 1 wound"
We downgraded it to 5, after doing some math about two threads ago.

>They'll need to have[...]
Or lots of offensive options.

>1) if a unit rolls a 1 on its opposed test when attacking or defending, or the defender/attacker rolls more than double the units roll, that unit takes an additional wound from that source.
There is no such test, and this rule is an annoying complication.

>2) add a a # of attacks stat to the stat line. Most units will just have 1, but just bigger ones, or faster units would have 2 or 3, or as many as 4 or 5.
Bigger units already do more damage. Equipment and options can add attacks. I don't see how this option is necessary.

>>6468148
>There is no such test, and this rule is an annoying complication.

So how do you determine how a wound is inflicted or not? Don't both sides roll a d10, and however was higher with modifiers wins?

>>6468178
seriously how the fuck does the mechanic that handles the actual fighting work?

Goddamn, I wish the wiki was up...

Okay what happens is: the attacking unit rolls a d10 for each attack they have. That's by default equal to the number of models in the unit, but any models with weapons that add attacks increase that number. For each d10 which rolls higher than the target number (which is dependent on tier differences, but likely to be modified by gear, options, or special rules) damage is dealt. The amount of damage is equal to (attacker size - defender size)minimum one. If weapons or options add damage, they do so now.
Then the amount of damage is converted to wounds, using that tier difference multiplier. Then remove dead models, and roll for rout as necessary.

>>6468148
>Bigger units already do more damage. Equipment and options can add attacks. I don't see how this option is necessary.

there are plenty of things warhammer (40k and fantasy) that modify the number of attacks a model gets, yet they both still include the base number of attacks the model starts with. Veteran units usually always have at least 1 base attack than the rank and file, which is then further modified by their equipment. Most of the innate abilities they have are factored into their base stat, so you don't have to do the calculations.

As an example, an Ork has 2 attacks base. On the charge it gets +1 attack, and it gets +1 attack for having a pistol and a close combat weapon. The Orks profile still lists the 2 base attacks though. Just because something gets modified doesn't mean it can't have a base standard value listed.

>>6468378
also so you can, you know, have something to fucking reference.

>>6468495
yeah I see your point, I'll support adding an attacks stat for the sake of simplicity, currently 1 on everything we've stated so far.

>>6468756
siddhe monks and Woaden should have 2 at least, part of their innate abilities.

>>6468812
true
though I was under the impression that woaden would have the option to gain more with equipment, leaveing the base at 1

>>6468812
in addition, how many attacks should the fodder swarms get, seeing as we're going with 10 fodder per base

>>6468858
Every one can do that. That's why the original idea was just to say that everyone gets base 1.

>>6468876
oh i see, then yeah we don't really need an attack stat, just state in the rules that everything has a base of 1 attack, we can then word equipment to say +x attack dice/rolls to avoid confusion.

>>6469045
Essentially, this. It's the same deal with the A/D stats mentioned earlier, if it's the same for everyone without items it doesn't really deserve to go in a statline. We should be sure to mention it somewhere.

>>6467809
Maybe that plus the same forest-buff thing that the Woaden get (initiative buff for starting turn next to a forest, if I recall correctly). At the very least it lets them back up the Woaden in their initial pushes.

lol @ Christian territory

I'm going to be severely disappointed if you guys let them take over the Empire and win somehow.

>>6469552
Nah, those borders are going to stay pretty much where they are, I suspect. The Christians aren't much more than small-time rebels compared to, say, the Huns or the Chinese.

>>6469583
>>6469552
the only reason they've managed to survive is because rome has had to divert the majority of its forces to fight the chinese and the huns, leaving little to go and stamp out christian sects.

>>6469639
and celts

The only thing I'm hating right now is the bow range. 20< inches are fine, but for the love of god let me fire arcing volleys at least, like make it range 40, but only hits on a 10. The fucking point of archers is to say far away from their targets. All because warhammer does it, doesn't mean you should. What is the point of this project if we're just going to make it "Warhammer -2,000"?

>>6470716
Chill out, man. Seriously. We can reconsider the bow ranges, that was just the base assumption based on existing information. That's a lot of what we've been doing, taking what exists and throwing out what we dislike. No need to get worked up over it.

I can't find the actual inch scaling for distance, does anyone know the one we're using offhand? That would make things easier to assess range.

I figure you can take a shot past your normal range at +2 up to double, and +4 up to triple. Both of those are bad enough that you'd probably only do it against units of the same or lower tier. Artillery-type units (like the Jade Wagon) don't get to do that, but instead just have kickass starting ranges anyway.

>>6471135
>up to double/triple

Double and triple range, figured I'd make that clear.

>>6467977
>Immune to Psychology:

I'd make it only apply for Panic and Fear.

Maybe have unbreakable add in the immunity to Terror.

>>6467935 (and all subsequent)

If your opinion is that you want to use the WHFB rules, just fucking come out and say it rather than copying it almost straight.

>>6467712
>Yeah, I wasn't really keen on the possession either, it mostly sprung to mind after that one writefaggotry about the Roman soldier (Marcus, I think, I'd check 1d4chan but it's down).

Yay someone used my writefaggotry for inspiration.

But, yeah, the thing about the Huns forcefully merging with people is something done after they've won the battlefield. Survivors (generally from the civilian populace) are rounded up and eaten, merged, or enslaved depending on the whim of their captors.

Christians were here.

Heretics will burn in Hell.

A game which confuses huns and mongols is a shitty game.

>>6471349
Makes sense.

>>6471344
What would be changed? I believe we mentioned before that we wanted the morale test for number of units lost to kick in under 50%, but past that I'm not sure. Maybe change the distance/threshold for formation-based units (encouraged to hold the line no matter what, etc.)?

>>6471396
A poster who doesn't understand why we did it and didn't read the previous material is a shitty poster.

>>6471344

Not the guy who posted it, but it may not be fair to assume that everyone here is going to recognize it as being from Warhammer Fantasy.

>>6471409
I understand and it's shitty.

>>6471396

Long story short: Originally we had Mongols, but decided to rename them Huns due to being more in line with the time period.

>>6471432
Well, you're shitty.

>>6471428
That's not exactly a good thing. If I'm going to read a block like that, I'd rather him say up-front where he got the idea from rather than present it as his own (which is the impression I got at first).

>>6467804
>You're thinking of the manner in which Heralds are summoned, perhaps. Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean. We haven't discussed anything of that nature.

I agree, I don't remember it. The main reason I bring it up is because someone said:

>Giving the Ascendant low health was the main thing we talked about yesterday to balance it. It deals with the specific issue - due to his special rules he's likely to have plenty of health later in the game - and it makes fluff sense because they've just transformed, and their new forms are not yet steady.

in the last thread. Could someone explain that?

Well, to get an Ascendant you have to spend a turn to sacrifice one of your Christians (who can't be in combat), and the Ascendant will pop up where the Christian was.

Fluffwise they're supposed to be something big that kicks ass and takes names, but only used when necessary (since it results in the physical death of the Christian, and, if the Ascendant is slain in battle, spiritual death as well).

>>6473769
Ok. Fluffwise, that's awesome. Crunchwise, though, how can we balance that? It strikes me that anyone playing Christian would pretty much always blow all their tertiaries to do that.

>>6473985
Bonuses based on number of Terts.
You don't want to lose too many...

>>6473985
>>6473769
>>6473400
Simple, Heralds can not be deployed at the start of the battle and must enter from reserve. On turn 1 they can not enter, on turn 2 you need a 8+, turn 3 is a 7+, turn 4is 6+, and turn 5 is 5+. after turn 6 they enter the battle automatically.

>>6473400
They come into play later, and thus have full health later.

>>6473985
They still have to pay for any secondaries in points.

>>6474052
We're talking about Ascendants...

>>6474052
How do you mean? I assume you mean like the player has to roll a d10 to succeed at calling one, but just making sure.

>>6474077

To clarify, to my knowledge:

Secondary = Ascendant
Primary = Herald

With regards to paying for Ascendants, that makes sense.

What do you mean by have full health later because they come into play later? Just in the sense that they won't have gotten attacked?

What we talked about before (and what's on the wiki, were it up) was rolling a die every time a Christian died, and adding up the numbers until the amount necessary to summon a Herald was reached.

>>6474083
er yeah, roll a d10.

>>6474077
Ascendants should act like a HQ unit, starts in the battle. Fluffwise they could have just summoned it before.

>>6474113
that encourages throwing models away and forces the player to play with a, comparatively, lower number of points than their opponent.

1d4chan is up. I've added teritary stats, feel free to change them if they are wrong.

>>6474124
One idea is to make a compromise between normal and the variant. Have them available either pre-summoned for a higher cost (as per normal units), or in reserve for sacrifices at lower cost.

>>6474124
>throwing models away

Isn't that essentially how Christians here roll? Die for the sake of gaining an advantage for the army because you'll just be resurrected if you win, but if you lose you're boned?

I added a special rule for Taken Weapons. The 'plant armour' covering them, along with their armour, means that they take 12 hits per wound. If the attacks are fire based, however, they only need seven.

>>6474251
We changed the scale to 5 per tier. So 6 per wound.

That's a pretty good ability.

>>6474274

Yeah, I noticed that they didn't have a special rule, and said 'fuck that shit'.

>>6474331
We had thought of just giving them the Woaden forest-buff thing earlier, but that's far better. Keeps in the theme of the Celts so far, too.

>>6474146
>someone besides me editing the wiki

>>6474341

We need to focus on the Primaries now. Should we dedicate the next thread to it, or should we start here?

>>6474364

You're the other guy? Awesome! I was wondering who was doing it.

>>6474371
I think we still need to get the secondaries a little more down, but after that we can start in this thread. The only reason we've jumped threads so far is if we run out of posts.

>>6474411

What still needs to be done?

How about this for the Ascendants:

1) You have to buy the Ascendant with your points before starting
2) To summon an Ascendant you need one Christian Warrior and one Christian Priest (just make Priests the squad leader unit for Tertiaries). The two pieces aren't allowed to do anything else during the turn they're using for summoning (no moving, no attacking, no special abilities). If the units are attacked during their summoning turn, the ritual is broken, and no Ascendant is summoned.
3) An Ascendant can't enter play until the third turn.

So, Christian player fields his units and moves everyone forward in turn one. Turn two he has the units not involved with the summoning keep moving towards the enemy line / attacking. Turn three he gets his Ascendant.

A few posts made mention of this before but we never got a consensus on it.

Combat resolution: how does it work?

I suggest just pretty much keeping the system Warhammer uses. At the end of the combat phase you compare how many wounds were dealt. For each wound you add +1 to the combat score of the unit. Which ever unit has the higher score wins the battle and the other side must take a morale test to see if they break or continue fighting. Other factors can add to the units combat score, such as the presence of druids, formation bonuses, standard bearers, etc.

if a unit fails a break test they d10 (or 2d10 inches, or maybe half their movement rate) inches away from the unit that caused them to be broken in the next movement phase. At the end of the movement phase they reform.

Since the wiki is back up, make sure to add in the writefaggotry from the last thread.

I'd do it myself, but I gotta head out for now.

>>6474419
As far as I know, mostly just nailing down Ascendants' mechanics for now. I figure we're going to come back later to add on optional packages for tertiaries and secondaries, we can do that after getting basic units.

>>6474449
replace Rout on the wiki with combat resolution and break tests I say.

>>6474449

Wiki read. We're not making a complete Warhams clone.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Machina_Dei#Individual_Units

>>6474481
just because another system already used it doesn't mean it's not a good fucking idea. It's simple, and it work.

>>6474466

I like the Rout rules. They are quite simple, so it would make the game more efficient if we kept them.

>>6474510

Whatever. Allow the people to decide.

>>6474515
Yeah. As it stands, this is probably going to be a significantly slower game than WHFB, and that'll help.

Besides, it's not like this isn't simple.

>>6474515
yeah but really, making a test every time you attack higher tier unit and if you fail the unit, even if it only lost 1 guy, it REMOVED FROM PLAY ENTIRELY without any chance to regroup?

Secondaries and Primaries are hard as fuck to beat as it is, they don't need even more help. It makes the entire game revolve around 6 or 7 models and says fuck you to the rest. If we want that why even include tertiary unit formations or fodder? Just make is a warmachine '20 models max on the table' clone.

>>6474579
No, make the test every time it attacks you. Very, very key difference.

>>6474596
not really. It still means secondaries can roll right the fuck over fodder without any risk whats so ever.

>>6474579

So it's totally unreasonable that a God Machine wouln't scare Celtic tribesmen?

>>6474449
I honestly don't see why we need combat resolution. What purpose is it intended to serve?

And the "break" that you refer to seems like an unnecessary lesser form of rout.

>>6474616

I've changed it. If a primary attacks a fodder, the fodder takes a test. Done. Teritaries don't faulter unless they lose 50% of their number.

>>6474679
break tests allow a unit that ran from combat to get its shit together and reform. rout, as it is now, REMOVES THE ENTIRE UNIT FROM THE GAME, even if it suffered a single loss going against higher tier units. It's completely and totally unbalanced in favour of the high tier units.

With a break test there's always the chance of the previously defeated coming back and saying FUCK YOU to the enemy. It makes for a more dynamic battle than "oh I lost that unit forever from a single test"

>>6474679
>If the defender loses more than half of their models,

Which means a 2 model unit will always test route if they lose 1 model, and it means single model units NEVER make a rout test.

>>6474766

That's probably because they're dead.

>>6474679
combat resolution gives formations a purpose.

this was posted earlier:

Formations: a row is a rank and a column is a file. A rank must have at minimum 5 models (so 5 files) to count as full. For every full rank after the first, the formation gets +1 to combat resolution (comparing wounds to see who wont the combat), up to the third rank.

For example, a formation 5 ranks deep and 5 files wide would get a bonus of +3 to combat resolution. The 5th rank does not contribute any bonus.

>>6474766

Name one two man unit. One.

>>6474849
Man machines, taken machines, elepha-

we haven't even fucking decided on unit sizes yet

>>6474849
Abbot and Costello?

>>6474828
That's a lame purpose though. We should just give them bonuses on to-hit, offensively and defensively, when fighting with the front edge, and a penalty if they get outmaneuvered and get attacked from the back.

>>6474888
the addition of combat resolution and formatuions giving bonuses is pretty much giving them defense and offensieve bonuses.

As for the flanks, if they get attacked from the rear or flanks the formation bonuses to not contribute to the combat resolution score.

It's just a way more dynamic system than "you fucking lose everything".

>>6474882

Simon and Garfunkel.

Formations = discipline = better morale = less chance to break.

What other reason would they have to be included?

>>6474911
>the addition of combat resolution and formatuions giving bonuses is pretty much giving them defense and offensieve bonuses.

Adding another system to achieve essentially the same thing is just silly. The rout rules do need a bit of retooling, but the basic idea is there, and for the most part we already agreed on it awhile ago.

>>6475217
the argument is leaving it out and having formations just add to defense/offense is simpler, yet how simple is it to keep track of, what? at least 5 different modifiers by now? for every unique unit. Just piling modifiers on to one stat or roll is not the way to go.

>at least 5 different modifiers by now? for every unique unit.

So far it's pretty much just equipment and formation giving modifiers. We briefly touched on druid buffs, but I don't remember much from that. How is that harder than adding a whole mechanic?

>>6475246
Pretty sure most players will just write down constant modifiers on units, and go with that.

>>6475285
Yeah. It would be a bit complicated before battle, but afterwards it wouldn't be any slower, really.

>>6474869
This is a very valid concern. We should figure out what a good average/max group size should be.

>>6475285
then why not include a stat of their basic +/- to hit modifiers that are independent of tier size.

You know, so players don't have to write down the other entire half of the models stat. saves time setting shit up, which takes long enough just placing the fucking models.

>>6475397
Assuming you took the time to equip the unit, you should already have the weapon properties down. Given that we established near the beginning of the thread that every single unit starts at the same exact parameters, this is your base.

Given that you're organizing the unit and (hopefully) know what formation you're going to use, you're aware of those bonuses too. Note those down.

Finally, note any other effects on the battlefield, like special abilities.

That's it. The only ones you couldn't do beforehand are enemy-based battlefield effects.

ITT: shit does not get done

you people want to have very basic main rules, and very complex exceptions

>>6475591

It WAS getting done, but it fucked up and died. Next thread will be better.

>>6475558
so a woaden with I7 has the same base number of attacks as a terracotta warrior with I3

If woaden get an ability that is always on that gives them +1 attack, why not just list their base attacks as 2.

>>6475591
Yeah. We should get back to doing shit. Like determining a good unit size.

I'm thinking it should be based upon the tier of the unit. Something like 5x for tertiary, 3x for secondary, 1x for primary (where X is some multiplier).

>>6475602

So, we're trying to create the english language of tabletop games?

>>6475626
>an ability that is always on

Except they don't, by default. Which is the fucking point.

>>6475660
English kicks ass, I'm cool with this

>>6475645
first we need to determine how many units will make up a decent sized army. Is it going to be 3+ fodder required, 0-4 tertiary, 0-2 secondary and 0-1 primary for an 'average' sized battle?

>>6475660
>implying english has basic rules

>>6475626
If we were to create some example gear loadouts like that, then yeah, we would note stuff like that. But by default, Woaden have no such ability, nor does anyone else.

>>6475604
>>6475591
None of that, now. We've still got 100ish posts left in this baby, let's push past this and finish strong.

>>6475602
The exceptions we have aren't complex at all, unless addition is a problem for you. As said before, there are like 3 types of things possible that will alter the behavior of the unit, 2 of which you'd want to set up when determining your list. All I'd like is an explanation of how that's complicated.

Sure, there are a few things not really nailed down, but that's what we're here for. And even when we're bitching at each other, it helps the game be better in the long run, because it brings up issues we didn't even know we had.

>>6475726
3+ fodder, 0-4 tertiary, 0-2 secondary, and 0-1 primary sounds decent for an average-sized battle.

>>6475726

1 required Secondary unit, 3 required Tertiary units, Max of 1 Primary unit.

>>6475752
>>6475667
>>6475626
the problem is we don't have a single piece of equipment statted. the argument is moot until we actually know what a unit starts with and what that equipment does.

>>6475768
That's pretty simple and non-restrictive.

>>6475778

Isn't that a good thing?

Not every army for each nation should look the same.

>>6475774
>what a unit starts with

As I recall, the point is that whatever they start with starts them at neutral. Weapons changed from the default are modifiers to that.

>>6475793
That was praise. I like non-restrictive, it's good for letting players pick what they want.

I just added the fodder stats and rules from the last thread

>>6475852
Appreciated.

Perhaps we should base the unit limits on the points been played, like in warhammer fantasy. That way in larger games you can expand your force more freely.
EG. for every 1000x points you can take
1x+ required Secondary unit, 3x+ required Tertiary units, Max of 1x Primary unit.

>>6475903

So, along these lines, a fairly typical 1000 point Roman army would consist of something like:

1 God Machine
2 Man Machines
3 Lorica Faulta
1 Mercenary unit

>>6475903

But it essentially limits fodder usage, which would be the core of most normal armies of this time due to cheapness to train and arm these units

>>6475968
we can always add a minimum for fodder units as well, though I thought the point of this was that mechs, and other secondaries as well had become most factions mainstay unit, the core of an army in tactics if not numbers.

>>6475968

I can't say I'm that big on the use of fodder. The main focus of the game is around the different supernatural units we have. Fodder should primarily be used mostly to tie up enemy units so you have time to get in position, act as meat shields for more sensitive units, and holding objectives.

>>6475998

>the core of an army in tactics if not numbers.
>if not numbers

Exactly.

>3+ fodder, 0+ tertiary, 0+ secondary, and 0-1 primary
per 1k points, with 2 Ts for every S, maybe?

>>6476002

Ah, but you need something that is fun to rampage through, and puny humans are always good to run amok through.

>>6476025
that sounds good, so if you had 5 tertiary units you could only take 2 secondaries?

>>6476037
They serve as a very decent barrier for tertiaries using the rules on the wiki. It's just that they're not much past that. But certain factions need a little fixing beyond what their units normally do (cavalry for slower troops, meat shields for squishy troops, archers for groups with no ranged capability), and that's what they provide.

>>6476076
Yeah, 5 to 2 is a good ratio for that.

>>6476083

I'm not sure we should be using fodder to round out armies, on the grounds that it could detract from the uniqueness of each nation.

And, if we do need to add something, I think we'd be better served adding additional tertiaries or secondaries to get that variety. A battle between supernatural badasses is going to be more entertaining than having a few badasses lead an army of mundane individuals (especially given that the entire setting is geared around these badasses)

>>6476127
The thing is, whatever their job is, the fodder aren't going to do it as well as the tertiaries and up at doing it. Therefore, there will definitely be a difference in factions, because they'll still just be better at what they do best.

>>6476127
We've still got all the mercenaries to stat, they're mostly tertiary units, and that way all the factions have access to variety.

Well, I just want the option to field all fodder only armies rather than I MUST take tertiary and higher tiers, at least for shits and giggles if for no other reason.

>>6476193
I am vaguely curious at what an all-fodder army would do to the system. Probably very odd things, guessing by how the rules work.

This sure is sounding like WARMACHINE

>>6476153

They're going to have to be at least somewhat good at their job. If not, then what would be the point in fielding them?

I can understand adding them as a meatshield, but, if we're doing that, then we don't really need to require that many (if any at all) to be fielded. Especially since meatshield fodder would easily just get in the way of heavily melee oriented armies.

>>6476193
I understand. This is the value of flexibility.

Maybe no real hard minimums, but the requirements for secondaries and up depend on how many of the lower units are fielded (like at the 5 tertiary to 2 secondary ratio mentioned before).

>>6476193
I think we could just leave that to agreement with the people your playing, they should be fine with it, its not like your trying to field the uber stuff.

>>6476216
Of course not, it's half-WHFB. We've established this quite a few times, especially in this thread. Get your trolling straight.

>>6476274

Maybe he means the name.

>>6476250
that sounds good
perhaps just a 1 to 1 ratio for fodder and tertiary, and you only have to have 1 secondary at all to get access to a primary as you'll probably only have 1 maybe 2 primaries anyway.

>>6476283
Or, you know, the idea of a miniatures game with big metal things hitting each other.

>>6476216
agreed.

Secondaries and primaries are supposed to be rare they are MACHINES GIFTED FROM THE GODS or forged from the very essence of those machines. you people make it sound like entire wars are won with just a handful of these fuckers so who cares about having a standing army which is totally in contradiction with the fluff.

Especially Chinese
Numberless terracotta warriors? lolno

>>6476291
I was thinking just leave the fodder out of the prereqs ratio. That way if you just want the units who are the focus of the game you can do that.

>>6476311
>Numberless terracotta warriors? lolno

Actually, in a page taken from Jade Empire, that was the original idea.

>>6476311
>you people make it sound like entire wars are won with just a handful of these fuckers so who cares about having a standing army which is totally in contradiction with the fluff.

Yeah, they were when just the Romans had them. Then every other culture stepped up their game, which is where we are today.

Daaaaaamn. 8 rounds?

>>6476311
to expand, in warmachine you see 3 or 4 big models, some hero unit, and maybe at most 20 smaller models.

There are no hordes, no armies, just little squads.

>>6476359
I see what you mean. Thing is, what with fodder being added, they took the "hordes" place from tertiaries.

>>6476311
>Secondaries and primaries are supposed to be rare they are MACHINES GIFTED FROM THE GODS or forged from the very essence of those machines.

You're correct about the primaries (that's why we're talking about Max 1 per 1k points).

Just look at the wiki under Man Machines
>These are the bulk of the roman forces.

>>6476381
I would think the LF would be more so, personally.

we could do faction specific requirements
so rome for example only need 2 tertiaries for 1 secondary, but china with its huge hordes of terracotta soldiers needs 3 or even 4 tertiaries to get 1 secondary.

>>6476471

Well, me too, but it goes to show that while highly supernatural, the special units are the real face of war.

Fluffwise, nations might still utilize more traditional militaries; however, I don't think they're gonna waste their time sending normal people to try and take out a group of Man Machines, because they're just going to get butchered. As such, I'm not sure how much we really need to incorporate mundane people into the game.

>>6476538
I figure that can be the reason that they don't use fodder in as large numbers as we're talking about. If fodder are in a battle it's mostly incidental, because they most likely don't want to be.

>>6476616
*in as large numbers within skirmishes, anyway. They are most likely in as large numbers as they care to field in other circumstances.

Shall there also be Hero units too? Brave individuals who attempt the impossible and/or give morale bonuses to those around them.

I'm thinking such things as some Saints/Disciples, a few Generals, Legendary Figures, and etc.

Pic related, it's King Arthur.
>King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defense of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century.

And, of course, this game is around 800 AD/CE justifying the existence of at least this hero in the game.

>>6476632
I'd prefer not, at least not yet. Maybe after we get everything rolling as we've outlined it.

>>6476632

I wouldn't discount the possibility of hero units; however, I'd wait until we got all the normal units worked out first, before adding them.

>>6476642

Alright. I can see them as individual units or maybe as upgrades to be added to a unit.

That of course can be added later once the core mechanics are fleshed out.

As for fodder, I think at least the Christians would love them, crazy zealots emulating the actions of those who have died repeatedly on the battlefield.

They didn't all start out badass.

>>6470716
I STILL STAND BY MY CIRCLES IDEA, SO DON'T LOOK AT ME.

>>6476687
I still have no fucking idea what you meant by the circles thing.

Also, you make me miss MR. RAGE.

>>6476705

Another thread, anon, in one of those archived ones.

>>6476715
I remember him talking about it, but I don't remember the content.

Please, explain, we might well adopt it.

>>6476729

Nah, we decided not to already.

>>6476738
Ah, ok.

>>6476683
They'd most likely consider them idiots who throw themselves at death when they are not yet sure to rise again.

>>6476776

>They'd most likely consider them idiots who throw themselves at death
>Idiots
>Throw themselves at death

So...just like all Christians?

>>6476683

Yeah, of the different nations, the groups I see most likely to use fodder would be the Christians and Indians.

>>6476803
we could jsut consider christian fodder as new converts and the sons who have gotten old enough to fight, and they haven't died enough to get all the divine enhancements the tertiary units get.

>>6476803
Just couldn't resist the jab, huh?

In fact, the Christians are the ones I'd expect least to have fodder. They don't really have organized armies like the Romans, Huns, or Chinese, after all; they're just rebels.

>>6476897

I was trying not to troll, but it was too easy.

Rebels implies that they often lack the resources of a major military power, and fodder can just be those rebels emerging to perform a key raid or something before going back into hiding amongst the population.

>>6476879

Christians don't have that big of an influx of converts, though. They're already being whittled away by attrition (albeit rather slowly) with their resurrection, they don't have enough people to really field much in the way of fodder at all.

>>6476925
I suppose. I personally saw fodder as being "normal" troops, but that interpretation makes sense too.

>>6476948

Well, bows can be hunting weapons too (meaning easy to gain ahold of), and spears relatively easy to make and good for going en masse against others. Just remember the peasant revolutions, of course.

I split writefaggotry off onto its own page, by the way.

>>6476980
Oh, it makes perfect sense now that I'm looking at it in the light you mention.

>>6477006

Indeed. Just think JIHAD, Christian Style.

The only nation that would be big on fodder would be India, because they large rebel population looking to rise up against foreign invaders.

China certainly has the population for fodder, but not the need. The terracotta warriors and Jade Wagons are more than capable on their own. If they're fielding more artillery oriented wagons, they might use the fodder to provide a certain degree of protection, but that'd be it.

The Huns might force captured civilians to go into battle, but, their fodder wouldn't be much in the way of an organized force. And their primary motivation would be to avoid getting eaten by a shoggoth, so I don't think they'd be the most eager of soldiers.

Celts have too much of a supernatural and guerrilla warfare feel to be using a lot of fodder. They quickly ambush from the trees and fade back into the forest just as fast.

Rome might use fodder, but I think they'd be lacking in the discipline that makes the Roman military the Roman military. Also, I think they'd get in the way of other units more than anything else.

>>6477053
Right.

Anyway, we're getting a bit unfocused. We were on the subject of what an average battle will look like as far as number of units of each, so as to decide things like unit size.

>>6476705
CIRCLES CONNECTED BY LINES, YOU CAN MOVE TO THE LINES. THE CIRCLES HAVE DIFFERENT TERRAIN AND BUFFS AND CRAP, AND EVERYTHING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CRAZY SIMPLE AND NOT A GRID OR HEX PATTERN. EXCEPT I'M NOT GOOD AT EXPLAINING THINGS VERY WELL AND I PUT MY THOUGHTS OUT WAY TOO LATE FOR THEM TO MATTER.

AND THANK YOU, CAPITOL LETTERS ARE MY SPECIALTY.

>>6477119
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that'd be a good bit more restrictive than what we ended up with.

>>6477098
>We were on the subject of what an average battle will look like as far as number of units of each, so as to decide things like unit size.

Just as a potential example...

Rome (77 individual models):
1 Jupiter God Machine (1 model)
2 Man Machine Units (10 models per unit)
3 Lorica Faulta (15 models per unit)
1 Norsemen Mercenary unit (6 models)
1 Rus Mercenary unit (5 models)

Celts (98 models):
1 Treemen unit (2 models)
3 Taken Machines (12 models per unit)
6 Woaden (8 models per unit)
2 Gaul Mercenary units (6 models per unit)

>>6477185
Why are the Treemen in one unit?

>>6477185
way too small.

>>6477185
About 80-90 dudes to a side, including big shit. Sounds reasonable for the scale we're aiming at.

So then, how many models are the cap for the number assigned to a unit? Is it tier-based? Size-based? Something else?

>>6477201

Because the general feeling so far as been Max 1 Primary per 1k points.

>>6477208
What would you prefer?

>>6477216
>About 80-90 dudes to a side, including big shit. Sounds reasonable for the scale we're aiming at.

I was thinking a little bit of a wider range from 70 - 100 models.

>So then, how many models are the cap for the number assigned to a unit?

I'd say it varies with the type of unit in question. Romans will want to have at least 10, though, because of formations. Other units might have more or less depending on how swarmy we want them to feel.

>>6477216
I'd say it should be dependent on individual units, though generally I'd say around 10 for tertiaries, 5 for secondaries, rome though I'd go with the larger number suggested in >>6477185, after all large formations of dudes are their thing. perhaps even up to 20 for terracotta warriors.
as

Chinese (90 models total):
1 Dragon (1 model)
3 Jade Wagons (3 models per unit)
4 Terracotta Warriors - wielding pikes (15 models per unit)
2 Terracotta Warriors - wielding crossbows (10 models per unit)

Huns (83 models):
1 Old One (1 model)
4 Spirit Kin (8 models per unit)
5 Warriors (10 models per unit)

>>6477262
Yeah, I meant as the average of ~85ish, not the range. Different tactics with regards to total number of models will of course vary that.

Christians (73 models):
1 Herald (one model)
1 Ascendant (one model)
2 Peri Mercenaries (4 models per unit)
4 Warriors with melee weapons (9 models per unit)
3 Warriors with ranged weapons (9 models per unit)

>>6477313
>10 for tertiaries, 5 for secondaries,

So, as a general rule, 10 + or - 2 for tertiaries and 5 + or - 3 for primaries.

>>647738

Err.. secondaries not primaries.

these numbers leave shit all for formations.

Army structure and numbers. Take the average number of soldiers in a Roman Legion, and divide it by 10. I think it was about 3,600 in Caesar's time, so that would be
360 tertiary units...no, too many. make it 30.
-each legion is lead by a Dux, 1 primary unit.
-then divided up into 10 cohorts, in this case 3 tertiary, led by 1 secondary.

I'm oversimplifying this a hell of a lot, because that's all I can remember at the moment. Someone else can try and work with this if they want.

>>6477428

I think that might be too many models considering the number of units we're looking at using.

That, and, Rome is supposed to be more of a "the few, the proud" feel compared to some of the other nations.

>>6477428
So 30 tertiaries, 10 secondaries, 1 primary.

41 units total; doubled, that leaves us 82.

That's about right.

>>6477422
I hate to break it to you, but this isn't going to be fucking huge armies fighting each other. Allowances are made due to this.

>>6477552

The number of models is right on, but it'd be 82 models divided between only 6 units.

>>6477428

But, under the current rules, formations only get a bonus up to 4 ranks, which would be 20 models.

30 models per unit would give 2 extra ranks that aren't doing anything.

Guys... we kind of need bigger units of tertiaries than people are talking about. From the math we did before, it takes about 25 unmodified tertiaries to kill a single secondary in one turn. If we want to kill things quicker, it takes more.

>>6477600
It's true. I guess we could either generally down the number of models per squad or generally up the number of models by like 1.5x.

>>6477661
Either that or drop the number of secondaries per squad.

Gentlemen, this is what WHFB recommends.

>>6477846
core infantry is 10+ models, with no upper limit. If you wanted you could have a unit with 100 models in it, and it will only cost 500 points.

>>6477661
Considering that there will be options for units to get more attacks/damage through equipment, if they get 1 more of each, that gets cut to 6 on average to take out a secondary. Consider that tertiaries also always have priority; because of that, the tertiaries would do a very, very significant amount of damage.

>>6477907
except they have less than a 50% chance to hit.

>>6477907
I'm just dividing the average number it would take by 4 (2 damage, 2x per round). That's calculated in.

>>6478002
Err, meant to quote >>6477985

I added in the options we liked for Huns and Christians in the wiki.

In related news, the table of contents has exceeded twice the height of my screen.

>>6478159
Holy shit, that is a huge table of contents.

Hey. Someone took out rout, but left in combat resolution.

That's just a jackass move.

>>6478159
>>6478200

Or a small screen.

>>6478227
Took out rout and added in combat resolution, in fact. I agree with your assessment of the moral value of this behavior.

Anyone have the wiki writeup for rout on hand?

>>6478278
Combat resolution should definitely be removed and the damage mechanic we actually decided on added.

Rout can stay out for now, at least until we have a better way to resolve it.

>>6478371
you mean like combat resolution? That strikes me as a far superior system.

>>6478314
I don't remember it exactly, but it was something like making a morale check after a unit loses 50% of its models in a round (if it fails, the rest of the unit leaves the table).

>>6478393
Most people so far haven't agreed with you. You haven't made a good case for it. Stop trying to push it.

>>6478462
or if attacked by a unit 2 tiers higher than it.

It's the wargame equivalent of save or die, which fucking sucks in any form.

I agree with >>6478393 in that combat resolution seems far better.

Good thing wikis save revisions!

===Rout===
If the defender loses more than half of their models, or if the defender is two or more tiers below the attacker, check for rout. Roll a d10. If the number rolled is higher than the defender's Morale score plus any modifiers, nothing happens. However, if it is lower, the defender is considered to have routed, and is removed from play.

>>6478462
also if they're delt damage by something 2 tiers higher, for the sake of this fodder is considered a quaternary tier I believe (so secondaries will often enough cause fodder to rout)

>>6478488
>>6478393
Agreed. If the rout supporters want to preserve the effect of higher tier units sundering low tier units then they don't have to worry: higher tier units will almost always land their hits on the lower tier units and cause more wounds by virtue of how the damage system works. They can also be given Fear, which makes any unit charged by it or charging it make a morale test to see if they hold their ground or go through with the charge.

>>6478494
inverse the success though
I think we've gone with under moral stat = pass, so you don;t have the confusion of one stat been lower is better rather than higher like the others. also is equal to the moral stat a pass or fail?

>>6478488
Here's an idea. Make the 2 tiers deal 3. I agree that 2 tiers just lets primaries stomp all over anyone who wants to make a lot of tertiaries, even more so than they already should. That being said, primaries should stomp all over fodder. Hell, they're fodder.

With regards to the "destroyed after 50%" thing, we could tone that back to like 75% or so. That way it can easily be explained away.

>>6478494
Given that high morale is considered good, that should be revised to roll-under.

As the guy who wrote the Rout rules, I feel like the Combat Resolution has a more robust basic idea, however it what happens when a unit gets fails the roll needs work. Moves 1d10 away? Doesn't even make sense.

>>6478585
make them move their full or double their movement rate. Normally units roll 2d6 to see how far they run away in Warhammer, I guess the guy was just trying to translate it over to the d10 system we have.

>>6478585
That's the thing. I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it's a robust and working idea. Personally, it's just that I don't really like the idea of it used here.

What kind of options do the various tertiary units get?

I noticed how some of them were listed, but some of the factions have almost limitless potential with what types of upgrades/gear they can have.

Cruxador you fagget you removed the entire psychology section from the wiki

>>6478836
We haven't really gotten into it yet. The ones there were just the ones people threw out along the way.

So far the Christians, Huns, and Woaden have abilities listed (with the Woaden still as general ideas). At the very least, Terracotta Warriors get that one unique weapon. Elephants berserk instead of routing (assuming we keep that in).

Shit, man, help us out, think of some.

>>6478869
Ok. Can both sides please stop editing the wiki until we make a decision? This is just childish. Let's see if we can find a good middle ground.

>>6478869
It shouldn't have been in in the first place, as it was not agreed upon. Should we agree upon it, the revision is saved, and we can add it back in.

>>6478941
I saw no objections to it.

>>6478922
>both sides
>sides
Is this some form of organised conflict now? I thought it was just a bunch of ornery neckbeards debating in the usual confrontational manner.

>>6478891

Well, here's an idea.

Why isn't there a Machina_Dei chatroom on the IRC?

>>6478967
I see one. It's the only comment on it, and it's an objection. Regardless, it may have been somewhat excessive to just go and delete it.

It could possibly work with a thorough retooling.

>>6478922
I'll try to construct something that's got a bit of what everyone wants. Bear with me a little, and let's not let our innate NERD RAGE get in the way of getting a good mechanic.

-Combat Resolution-

General combat resolution checks occur as before. The difference from normal loser only makes morale checks for breaking the melee after their side loses combat resolution twice in a row. When the unit breaks from melee (due to lost morale check after losing combat resolution twice or more in a row), it moves its speed in the direction away from the other unit.

Additionally, if a unit takes more than or equal to 25% casualties during a single attack/counterattack sequence, the unit makes a morale check to break. This also occurs if the unit takes more than or equal to 50% casualties cumulatively in a round.

-Routing-

If a unit takes more than or equal to 50% casualties in a single attack, it makes two morale checks. If both fail, the entire unit is removed from the field. The same check also occurs if the unit takes more than or equal to 75% casualties throughout a round.

Other fear effects, etc. as normal.

>>6479005
Because nobody had made one? There's one on Rizon now, if people want to, but I would prefer that most of the work happens on /tg/.

>>6479182
keeping it all in one place is good idea, mean everyone is on the same page as far as progress goes.

>>6479143
having to keep track of how many times they failed a test just means more to worry about, and when you spend a half hour or more on a single phase, you tend to forget the exact details of every thing inflicted during the course of the game.

>>6479219
a unit will only ever loose combat resolution once per turn, and I think the only case of taking 2 checks is for routing, which is 2 at the same time so its not that big a deal to worry about.

===Combat Resolution===
At the end of the combat phase compare how many wounds were dealt by each unit. For each wound you add +1 to the Combat Resolution score of the unit. Which ever unit has the higher score wins the battle and the other unit must take a morale test to see if they break or continue fighting. This is accomplished by rolling a 1d10 and comparing the result to the units Morale value (In units that contain multiple morale values, use the highest value). If the result is lower, the unit passes the test and continues fighting. If the result is higher the unit fails the test and Breaks.

If a unit fails a break test they must, in the next movement phase, moving its full move value away from the unit that caused them to break. At the end of the next movement phase they may reform as normal.

==Rout==
If a unit takes wounds equal to half of the units wound total (The sum of all models wounds) in a single attack, or if it faces a unit more than two tiers above it, the unit checks for Rout. The unit rolls a d10 against its morale score plus any modifiers. If the roll is lower, then proceed normally, however if it fails, remove it from play.

>>6479384
Looks pretty solid.

>>6479384
Has my support, though I'd change is have the movement for retreating occur at the end of that melee phase, though some sort of movement penalty in there next move phase sounds appropriate, maybe half speed and loose formation bonuses for that turn.

>>6479219
Put a coin or something next to the unit that's lost one. It's pretty easy.

Any other objections from either end?

>>6479443
route still seems like a "save or die" sort of thing. Put a stipulation that, unless otherwise specified, a unit can not reform if it's below half strength.

the nearby presence of Primaries or something else along those lines will allow a unit under half strength to reform.

The thing I don't like about combat resolution is that it happens every melee round. That means we'll have squads fleeing all over the place. And that's lame.

>>6479443
>>6479143
sounds good, though I think the rout from >>6479384 is better

>>6479476
it's the same as route but less severe, and they reform in the very next turn.

>>6479425
Sounds like a plan.

>>6479476
as per suggested you only test for flee if the unit looses twice in a row, so you won't have as many units fleeing everywhere each round.

>>6479496

>>6479143 here.

I propose:

-Combat Resolution as my plan (the 2 losses in a row deal)
-Rout as the second plan (1 roll, at 50% done in a single attack)

Now that I think about it, the two rolls for Rout is counter to a normal morale check, and thus makes for an annoying exception. Keeping that at one makes sense, considering it's only going to come up in extreme circumstances anyway.

mmkay, this is in the wiki now and I think it's pretty good.

Things to do:
* Primary statlines
* Options
* Basic Gear

>>6479632
Roman primary:

Primary:
Deus Machina:
These are the steel warriors made by Vulcan himself, and oiled with the blood of Christians. Each is the size of the Colossus, has the form of a man,and wields a sword and shield of similar proportion. The hero given the honour of wearing such armour stands in place of its heart, direction the motions of the machine with his own body.

Volcanus Machina: M6 W3 I4 L9 S
Martius Machina: M4 W4 I3 L9 S3
(Martius would have options for more offense, while Vulcanus would get more defense)

Special Rules:
Standard of Divinity: Friendly units within 6” of the Deus Machina may reroll any failed Morale tests. Additionally, any friendly unit within 12” adds +1 to their Combat Resolution score.

Fear: This unit causes Fear.

>>6479632
>A morale test requires rolling 1d10 twice and comparing the result to the units Morale value (In units that contain multiple morale values, use the highest value). If the result is lower one or both times, the unit passes the test and continues fighting. If the result is higher both times, the unit fails the test and Breaks.

Neither of the plans had that...that's closer to the rout idea from the first if anything.

Also, we're autosaging.

>>6479716
It's worded pretty shittily too. roll 2d10 for ever test, or roll 1d10 for every test, and haev the requred failures spread out over 2 turns?

Pick it up in the next thread.

>>6479801