House Rules - Feedback Needed

[Alyster Wick]

There's been a lot of back and forth on certain rules changes, ideas, etc. I'd like to put a couple minor ones into practice for a game I'm running in a few weeks. Before then it'd be great to get some feedback and ideas so that these will be a little better thought out before I try them (the other players are relatively new so they won't know the difference, but still).

Reactions: Players get two "reactions" per turn. These out of sequence actions can only be performed in response to a completed action by another character and the responding character must pass an Initiative test to use them. They must announce the action before rolling the test.

A pinned character may make no reactions of any kind for the remainder of the turn (or until their have recovered in their own phase)

Close Combat: Start with the attacker:

Attacker rolls 1-5 – Defender gets a free attack

Attacker fails, but not critically – Defender announces their response and rolls. If the defender is successful, proceed per usual. If the defender also fails, see who failed by the least and they are successful. If an attacker "hits" on a failed roll they may not apply any bonuses due to strength or special abilities (ex. A character with Blademaster using a knife does not count as having a critical hit).

Attack Succeeds – Defender announces their response and rolls. Whoever succeeded by the highest margin is successful.
Reactions in close combat – If at any point an attacker rolls a standard "failing" roll and the defender rolls a standard "success" roll then the defender may use one of their Reactions to perform a close combat action. This choice to use a reaction is trumped by a successful parry role (in which case the parry attack is a free action and does not count as a reaction). In that case the right to "React" is given up (the character may not make the parry attack and then immediately follow it up with another reaction).

[MarcoSkoll]

Reactions: Players get two "reactions" per turn. These out of sequence actions can only be performed in response to a completed action by another character and the responding character must pass an Initiative test to use them. They must announce the action before rolling the test.

Every character always getting two reactions might well clog the turn up. I'd be strongly tempted (if going with reactions being counted independently of actions) to make it a default of one reaction per character and re-define "Lightning Reflexes" as an extra reaction.

Attacker rolls 1-5 – Defender gets a free attack

95-00, surely?

Attacker fails, but not critically – Defender announces their response and rolls.

While I like the core idea that a fluffed attack potentially leaves its own opening, and have been trying to work on the same principle for my own Inq2*, I think it'd be a lot simpler to say that if both characters fail, nothing happens.

*It's plain daft that characters get more chances to find holes in the form of a WS 75 character than a WS 50 one!

Reactions in close combat

I've been playing around with the ideas of special uses of stored reaction points in my own rules.

The idea of "extra attacks" doesn't work so well in my rules (where reactions are converted actions), but one thing I've been playing around with and which might work in most reaction systems is the possibility for characters to spend a reaction to "reset" their parry counter for the turn.

Very useful if you should happen to be dealing with multiple opponents...

[Alyster Wick]

Attacker rolls 1-5 – Defender gets a free attack

95-00, surely?

Yes! You are correct.

Attacker fails, but not critically – Defender announces their response and rolls.

While I like the core idea that a fluffed attack potentially leaves its own opening, and have been trying to work on the same principle for my own Inq2*, I think it'd be a lot simpler to say that if both characters fail, nothing happens.

Quickly (because I'm about to get on a flight), my intent was that the defender then say whether they would be dodging, parrying, etc. The idea I'm playing with here is that characters only really miss an attack on the critical miss (96-100) but that is they roll below their WS (w/ modifiers) that it's just a less effective hit (see my sentence on a lack of bonuses). So the defender isn't in attack mode yet.

My whole idea here is that it seems ludicrous that two low WS combatants are statistically likely to just keep whiffing each other. This way it there's a bit more interesting when two folks of similar WS's fight, regardless of their skill level. It's supposed to promote more action in close combat (which I believe takes way too much time and ends up being uninteresting in the end, especially with two lower WS characters).

[MarcoSkoll]

I'm not sure that'll actually work how you want.

In my collection, there's very few characters where "missing" would make much difference. It's mostly S values in the 50s and 60s, and the special close combat skills they have tend not to affect damage.
And for the four S80+ characters I have who'd sorta notice the lack of their strength bonus, they're still characters that it's best not to be handing extra hit chance to.

I definitely agree that close combat is one of the most lacklustre parts of the game. It can be alright for characters skilled enough to get into an interesting series of parries and ripostes, but that's about the only time it has any vigour.

But I still think that the right fix is to make more of close combat, rather than try to get it all over and done with as quickly as possible. Memorable movie fights are usually full of characters trying unorthodox tactics, trashing the scenery, losing their weapon, improvising with a chair and clambering all over the set to try and gain the advantage.

[Alyster Wick]

I'm not sure that'll actually work how you want.

In my collection, there's very few characters where "missing" would make much difference. It's mostly S values in the 50s and 60s, and the special close combat skills they have tend not to affect damage.
And for the four S80+ characters I have who'd sorta notice the lack of their strength bonus, they're still characters that it's best not to be handing extra hit chance to.

I definitely agree that close combat is one of the most lacklustre parts of the game. It can be alright for characters skilled enough to get into an interesting series of parries and ripostes, but that's about the only time it has any vigour.

But I still think that the right fix is to make more of close combat, rather than try to get it all over and done with as quickly as possible. Memorable movie fights are usually full of characters trying unorthodox tactics, trashing the scenery, losing their weapon, improvising with a chair and clambering all over the set to try and gain the advantage.

I definitely agree a better way would be to encourage variable activities. That's a direction I'm interested in heading (even started a brief thread on it) but there are two reasons the proposal here is simpler (1) because I want to try a little bit of change and see how that works before throwing in more variables and (2) because as a GM I'm the only one who has more than a single game under my belt and the two folks playing are not 40K players (so they have more than enough to learn without me throwing in a brand new section on Close Combat options).*

I've revised my thinking a bit and I think this will help clear up some potential confusion.

Close Combat:

Both attacker and defender announce their actions (example: Attacker attacks, defender dodges) and they roll their dice simultaneously. 96-00 is an automatic fail, otherwise the person who performed best relative to their WS is successful. After that apply any special effects gained due to the success level of the successful roll (ie. was it a critical hit? did a block roll qualify to parry? etc)

Does this make more sense? I feel like this adds drama and makes combats between two less powerful characters more eventful (it's just really, really lame to have two characters with WSs in the 40s spend an entire turn rolling with zero hits). This way, someone is always successful, and if the result is still no action (someone successfully dodges, blocks but doesn't parry, etc) then at least it is earned.

Now, new thoughts on:

Reactions:

Characters get two "reactions" per turn. These may only be taken in the following circumstances:

- When the character whose turn it is initiates an action with you (for example, conversation). In this scenario it is GMs discretion whether or not a test needs to be taken (for example, you may not have to pass a test to answer a simple question about your favorite pie, but you may have to pass a test if your teammate is pointing a gun at you and yells "Duck!" so they can shoot at a character on the other side of you).

- During a close combat if your opponent has a critical miss you can test to take an action

- If you pass a pinning test you can test to take an action

- GM discretion

This narrows down the circumstances suitably and makes it a little easier to routinely interact with other characters. I, for one, have always struggled with conversations in-game. The tendency is to let folks just Role Play it out, which, while convenient, isn't really true to the format of the game. After all, if folks want to spend valuable seconds talking that should really allow the opposing team to get into position over the course of a couple turns.

Also, I think it fixes Nerves of Steel. While it'd also be great to have an ability that forces a character to delusionally stand around while fully automatic fire goes off around them, NoS shouldn't be that ability. By its name alone it sounds like a character who has faced down horrors and doesn't blink in the face of certain danger. That shouldn't mean that they'll stare blankly at a blazing autocannon. Now a character with NoS can skip the pinning test and go straight to testing for a reaction (where they can still opt to dive for cover, or maybe take a snap shot as the interloper).

The close combat aspect I'm still thinking through. While it seems rare to the point of being irrelevant to allow for this only when an opponent scores an automatic miss it seems unfair to make it too easy for the defender to counter attack their opponent. I don't see an easy way to do this unless we completely do away with counter-attacks. That said, it could be an attractive option to do away with parries altogether and let reactions be a characters means of counterattack (applying the Parry Penalty to the Initiative test if someone opts to counter attack). Having reactions in close combat also means that (rather than only having counterattacks as on option) the entire pantheon of actions is now open (perhaps the character just draws their holstered weapon).

Anyway, the above is just a rant. I literally started thinking it through while typing.



*Along those lines (but as a complete aside) one the of these players through a great curveball last game (his first) when he took an action to pull a down a piece of intervening terrain to create some space between himself and a superior opponent during a close combat (I think they'll do fine without the extra options in the meantime).

[MarcoSkoll]

I feel like this adds drama and makes combats between two less powerful characters more eventful (it's just really, really lame to have two characters with WSs in the 40s spend an entire turn rolling with zero hits).

I'd agree on your objective - in theory, a WS 40 character is going to make it much easier to hit themselves by positioning themselves clumsily and the like, and a WS 50 character (a level that to me implies some training and practice) shouldn't find it too hard to duff up a WS 35 character (who could well be completely untrained) - your method sounds like it's going to completely redefine the WS stat; Characters with WS 70 or above are now regularly going to get what's effectively a second chance to hit against low WS characters.

your teammate is pointing a gun at you and yells "Duck!" so they can shoot at a character on the other side of you

Funnily enough, my reaction rules have been written in a fashion that mostly overlooks the idea that you might want to react to friendly actions...

Also, I think it fixes Nerves of Steel.

I'm not quite sure how. If anything, it sounds like it becomes a more appealing skill, now there's an additional advantage for not failing.

For me, my problem with NoS is that in its raw form, it doesn't really add to the character any better than a really high Nv does.

Take Feint. This makes strong implications about a character's fighting style in the way that a higher WS wouldn't. Hipshooting or Rock Steady Aim again show us the character's area of expertise. Traits like Regeneration or True Grit are different from just extra Toughness.

What NoS does is... well, I'm not sure. I've not heard a lot of explanations that work for me.

When I gave Silva "Strong Willed" (basically Force of Will "Lite": ignore Fearsome, downgrade Terrifying), it was to establish her confidence in close quarters.
The effect of Fearsome as a skill is to make being in melee with the character a scary prospect (although the intention may have been to make it a character you want to keep your distance from, the rules don't actually play that way), so it's a good skill for melee monsters like Orks and arcoflagellants.

However, given that Silva is an experienced martial artist and superhumanly strong/tough due to the extent of her bionic repairs, a brawl with such characters just isn't going to faze her in the same way. Being inside melee distance of an Ork is naturally less likely to promote thoughts of "Oh Emperor, I'm already dead" when your left cross can go through a brick wall.

Nerves of Steel? It would make a certain sense if it worked only if you weren't actually hit (i.e. replacing the normal +20 bonus), but outside of some rather spectacular delusions, it's a lot harder to justify why a characters is never compelled to seek cover even if a plasma gun has just incinerated their arm but also can lose their nerve if someone gets too close (an oft forgotten part of the aiming rules).

I don't see an easy way to do this unless we completely do away with counter-attacks.

It's something I'm thinking about, but my problem with getting rid of them is that I find counter-attacks are one of the few things that really works in the current close combat system. A good chain of parries and counter-attacks can turn a close combat into a good old swashbuckling affair.

Having reactions in close combat also means that (rather than only having counterattacks as on option) the entire pantheon of actions is now open (perhaps the character just draws their holstered weapon).

It may not be what you mean, but a counterattack doesn't actually have to be used for an attack. It's just a free action and can be used for whatever you will (trying to break from combat, changing weapons, shouting instructions to nearby allies, whatever).

Along those lines (but as a complete aside) one the of these players through a great curveball last game (his first) when he took an action to pull a down a piece of intervening terrain to create some space between himself and a superior opponent during a close combat (I think they'll do fine without the extra options in the meantime).

Sounds like a pretty good start as a player. It's the moments when even you're finding out what's going to happen next that really make GMing a worthwhile experience.

[Alyster Wick]

So the game happened, had a bit less time to prepare than I thought so I just focused on things like having character profiles ready. That said, I did experiment with reactions and was quite happy.

For talking back and forth, characters didn't have to take a test and they got two out of sequence responses. This was played rather loosely but I found it helped me as the GM keep track of when to cut off conversation between characters.

There were no super pro-active responses taken (people dove for cover as per usual) but there were a couple times in tense situations in which folks did need to take initiative tests in order respond to complex orders under pressure. I feel like there were a few good examples but I'm blanking on them right now.