Hi!
Here's that initiative scheme:
The morale rules in Heresy are quite detailed and robust so I don't have
to change anything about them to add the scheme. Instead of automatic
activations you would roll to see if the battlegroup can act. The
formula is simple:
D10 + battlegroups current morale + Leadership bonus of commander (if
any) = 9 or more the group is activated.
For example a battle group of SM with a current morale of 7 and a leader
bonus of +1 would automatically activate the first battlegroup (+8 and a
minimum die roll of 1 gives 9).
On the other hand an IG battlegroup with a current morale of 5 and no
leader bonus would activate on a roll of 4+ (4+5=9).
A failed activation means that:
1. The player cannot activate further units that turn
2. The battlegroup that failed the activation may only move up to its
standard move, it cannot fire or initiate assault combat (although it
can defend normally).
Note some armies battlegroups may activate automatically under some
circumstances, for example orks activate automatically if they are
charging into assault combat.
A player may retain the initiative in the same turn by attempting to
activate additional battlegroups. Each attempt beyond the first incurs a
-2 penalty.
For example and IG player decides to activate a second battlegroup of IG
heavy weapons to clean the way for an assault. The morale is currently 5
with no leadership bonus. The player would need to roll a 6 or more to
be successful (6+5 (morale) - 2 (penalty for extra activation) = 9).
It is clear that an army like SM will move a lot more units per
activation than would say orks or IG.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ramos [mailto:primarch_at_...]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:34 AM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NetEpic ML] Heresy Rules Query
For some reason the two previous messages did not go through, here's a
copy.
Hi!
Yup. I had the same problem and resolved it the way you did, Tom will
fix that in time.
By the way, as the creator of Heresy, I am REALLY interested in you're
input on how the game plays and how you would fix anything in
particular.
Here are some things I plan to fix:
1. Army structure. I'm somewhat dissatisfied on how it works right now
and wanted to add more "character" and individuality to it. I have been
playing with the concept of "battlegroups" the name is merely generic
since they would be called different things in different armies, but the
concept is the same. Now, battle groups would vary in size and nature
from army to army. For example in SM the battlegroups are small, but SM
can command more of them contrary to IG where the battlegrop would be
very large, but IG commanders can command so many. The number of
"battlegroups" a commander can lead would be equal to his Leadership, so
SM leader could command 5 or more groups while IG on average could do 3.
The what you put into a battlegroup would vary according to the
commander and army. For example SM would have more support units at
lower levels of command while IG could not afford support assets at such
low levels of command. This eliminates the need for separate artillery
commander as they currently exist in the rules.
2. Artillery rules. These are somewhat clunky right now, especially the
rules on activating artillery and summoning bombardments, I'm ironing
them out to make them simpler.
3. I'm giving some thought to a initiative scheme, but will come laer.
Peter
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Fri May 24 2002 - 14:52:55 UTC