|
Post by Quendil on Jan 29, 2016 8:15:54 GMT
Thread for agreed rules for the turn sequence
Currently the rules are
1 Initiative Phase - Initiative phase to establish which side goes first Roll D10 Highest score goes first Roll Modifiers
+1 For each enemy unit destroyed
+1 For each unit destroyed with armour of 11+
-1 For each friendly command unit destroyed
2 Side A - Move Phase Combat Phase Move Phase
3 Side B - Move Phase Combat Phase Move Phase
4 End Phase
|
|
|
Post by dartfrog on Aug 16, 2016 13:15:35 GMT
Never been a fan of the IgoUgo system. Been looking at trying a different system for a while now.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 16, 2016 14:08:50 GMT
Q could you lift the alternate system that allows unit by unit phasing (as used by someone in their battles for example)?? I've looked about and still can't find it. I know I commented on us having 3 systems to chose from. Maddening!! Wait, I am mad/crazy... Never mind (hehe). Seriously, I'll find the dang thing somewhere soon !
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on Aug 16, 2016 15:13:33 GMT
Q could you lift the alternate system that allows unit by unit phasing (as used by someone in their battles for example)?? I've looked about and still can't find it. I know I commented on us having 3 systems to chose from. Maddening!! Wait, I am mad/crazy... Never mind (hehe). Seriously, I'll find the dang thing somewhere soon ! Do you mean this thread turn-sequence-house-rules
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 16, 2016 15:51:43 GMT
from easye, I do like this.
Roll initiative
1. Winner moves all units 2. Initiative loser moves all units 3. Winner shoots with all units 4. Loser shoots all units 5. Winner moves 6. Loser moves
It avoids the issue in the review, keeps the basic game flow, and still lets your units coordinate as an army.
I would note the following modifiers to the initiative roll: +1 for each enemy unit destroyed, +2 for each enemy unit destroyed with Armor 11+, -1 for each friendly command unit destroyed. Note that the later seems to be for human player(s) only, as the Martian player(s) never suffers morale checks for loss of machines. I suppose you could use it for the Martian FC, but that is iffy.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 16, 2016 16:15:01 GMT
To the above, add the original initiative modifiers. A point was made with those that destroying an 11+ armor unit (tripod) should probably be worth +2, +1 for destroyed unit & +1 for armor 11+. I agree. A unit of drone (+1) certainly isn't the equal of a tripod with 11+ armor (+1).
There was a third method, that involved much more rolling for each unit in the battle. I disregarded that as too cumbersome and away from the initial rule set so much as to be confusing. Well worked idea, just too "clunky" for my tastes.
Another thought was using the Sword & Flame system. Basically the same as the original rule set with opponents sometimes going time and again with good rolls. Roll green and red die, higher goes first. Originally a card system with the Joker causing a reshuffle of the deck. In this case, we could use the original rule book system and if both die are equal (5 & 5 or 2 & 2 etc.) then use the above easye system of alternate phasing. This would allow some variation into the standard game and could generate a huge change at critical moments. Again, use the modifies (+1 for unit destroyed, +2 for unit with Armor 11+ destroyed, -1 for each friendly command unit destroyed (note that the latter seems to be human only, I guess if the FC of the Martians is destroyed you could use it on the basis there is momentary confusion till a new commander is selected - but the Martians apparently don't have morale in the common sense.)
When all is said and done, I think I prefer the easye system/alternating phases system the best. It retains the 'feel' of the original game without being a straight up IgoUgo system.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 16, 2016 16:21:31 GMT
One further observation to the above phased initiative idea - it eliminates the 'shuffle', as both side get to fire before the second movement phase. No more phase one move up, fire, move back phase two. This actually can hurt the humans as much as the Martians and thus is really fair. It pays to win initiative in all cases
|
|
|
Post by Conjack on Aug 16, 2016 16:34:31 GMT
One further observation to the above phased initiative idea - it eliminates the 'shuffle', as both side get to fire before the second movement phase. No more phase one move up, fire, move back phase two. This actually can hurt the humans as much as the Martians and thus is really fair. It pays to win initiative in all cases Hmmm. Yes, this element I like a lot. Always seemed a bit silly that tanks could drive out from behind a building, shoot and then retreat behind it before the enemy could even react. It kind of negated any penalty that you could have for using cover because you still got open shots whenever you wanted. But this way, you have to be a lot more tactical with how you place your units.
|
|
|
Post by dartfrog on Aug 16, 2016 18:30:25 GMT
I think I will try this, with a twist. I will give units a quality factor which will need to be rolled if they wish to perform a second move. With a few modifiers. EG, Infantry platoon may have a 5. needing to roll 5+ with a +1 if within 6" of command, plus a few other modifiers. Might spice up the terror of not being sure if you can move or not. Means you can modify more reliable vehicles with better move number.
I will take a sniff at the rules and start seeing what I'll need to try it out.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Aug 16, 2016 20:05:37 GMT
One of the primary attractions of AQMF is the simplicity of the system. Separated "quality factors" for all units gets you headed for buckets of dice or bunches of rolls (=time lost).
I like madmorgan's approach. One roll for initiative for the side and then get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 17, 2016 13:05:54 GMT
Thanks boxholder. I look forward to reports from dartfrog on how well her revisions work for the 'phase' system.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on Aug 17, 2016 18:50:44 GMT
Madmorgan's scheme has the advantage of remaining uncomplicated and thus in the spirit of the original game. It will alter tactics as the loser would have a chance to move into cover or out of range before getting shot at.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Aug 18, 2016 16:17:36 GMT
One idea is to alternate units. Initiative winner moves, shoots, moves one unit. Initiative looser moves, shoots, moves one unit.
If a player has twice as many units as another, the player moves etc. two units. If a player has three times as many units as another, the player moves three units, etc.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Aug 19, 2016 10:53:30 GMT
Nice addition to the whole discussion. I suppose you should round up for the twice/thrice idea above? This way if the player has 15 units and the other 10, the 15 unit player moves two units till he/she hits the level of the other. In this example, the 15 unit player would move two units each phase until he/she hits 10, then move one per like his opponent, alternating.
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Aug 19, 2016 11:29:07 GMT
The alternative is to use alternate movement until one player or the other runs out of units. Then, the player with remaining units moves them.
This provides an advantage to the side with more units, even if the initiative roll went against him.
"Quantity has a quality all its own." Joseph Stalin "Get there first with the most." Nathan Bedford Forrest (Sometimes render as "Get there firstest with the mostest.")
|
|