Simultaneous rounds

As Asp requested, here are the rules for simultaneous rounds we used during the Boring Meeting in Amsterdam.

It's pretty simple: You roll off for priority at the start of each turn (i.e. a sequence of movement-shooting-close combat) to see who goes first. Let's assume player 1 got a 6, player 2 a 2 and player 3 a 4.

Now, player 1 moves all his models, followed by player 3 and then player 2. Afterwards, player 1 does his shooting, then 3 then 2. Afterwards, the close combats of 1 are resolved, then 3, then 2.

That's pretty much it. We basically tried it to simplify a 3 or more way close combat, but found it makes moving and shooting quite different and more challenging, as everyone gets to do it in one turn. I pretty much like it and think it's cool in 1 on 1 battles as well. And it's nice for all the models not stuck in close combat, as one of the hth-phases is left out and the rest gets to move and shoot more often. Also, all the players are pretty much involved in the game at all times and noone gets bored when the other 5 players are moving.

Did anyone else try this before? Or did you do it somewhat different?

Eliazar wrote:

It's pretty simple: You roll off for priority at the start of each turn (i.e. a sequence of movement-shooting-close combat) to see who goes first. Let's assume player 1 got a 6, player 2 a 2 and player 3 a 4.

Now, player 1 moves all his models, followed by player 3 and then player 2. Afterwards, player 1 does his shooting, then 3 then 2. Afterwards, the close combats of 1 are resolved, then 3, then 2.

This is the core engine of Armies of Arcana, a mass battle game much like WHFB, and I really like it and highly recommend it if you like whole armies.

This kind of turn pretty good gives the impression of things happenning "simultaneously" and better than that, makes sure no one get bored sitting half an hour doing nothing, because in this mode you have to react several times per turn.

Now, there are several factors you must "fix" to get the most of this, because bear in mind models will be moving each turn (i.e. there's not "my turn-your turn to move") and if you allow march moves, that can make models cross the whole table in a single turn (well maybe not, but you get the idea).

Besides, shooters can very easily rule the game, as they get to shoot each turn (i.e. there's not "my turn-your turn to shot")

So, fixing these little details, a game can be very satisfying with "simultaneous" turns.

Hope that helps and clarifies things a little more.

Best wishes.

Eliziar: If you want to try and introduce it but your group resists, maybe try the 'Playing Card' turn order system (see the House Rules thread.) Lots of fun, and it's a fair compromise.

Actually, until I ran into fantasy games, I never played an alternate turn style game. ALL the "historical" games I was involved in were simultaneous that required written orders for each unit each turn.

Thanks!

So you roll for priority each "turn"?

I agree; shooters will rule.

Yes, with "turn" being a unit of movement, shooting and close combat. You could also say round.

Woo, if we implemented that, that would be another design feature for me to tamper with

+1 to priority rolls: Skaven, Elves
-1 to priority rolls: Dwarves, Orcs, Khemri
Neutral: All others

and so on...

But serously: Don't shooters take the cake under this system?

not really no,

You can only do your things in your own movement phase meaning only one shooting round per turn, just like in the normal turn phases

I'd say it all depends.

While Player 1 can move first and shoot first in his shooting phase, Player 2 can in his movement phase already hide from your shooting (as he now knows where you positioned your shooter). However, if P2 was to position his shooter in a great position to kill you, he has to take care that he is not visible for one of P1's shooters, who can kill him before he can shoot in his shooting phase.

So, it's not overpowering shooters (and we did play against John's Reiklanders with 4 bowmen, a blunderbuss, a crossbow, pistols and a Tilean marksman), but you have to be a little more careful with where you are going.

I've played simultaneous rounds before and to be honets it makes for a very entertaining game. How you describe it is basically how we've played it. It was funny, the first time we played simultaneous rounds was after a very long, dry spell of no Mordheim. So, when we got back into it, we just started playing simultaneous rounds as we'd completely forgotten that was not how the rules were intended.

With us, I think it was basically that no one read the multiplayer rules and we wondered how you worked out a combat with more than two fighters, so we decided to do it the easy way

EDIT: I just remembered what was weakening shooting in this system: It's that you can safely charge an opponent, kill him and then get into cover or charge again without risking being shot down. Whereas with non-simultaneous turns, you would charge and enemy in the open, take him ooa in your turn and then get shot down, you can now charge, be in CC for the shooting phase, take him ooa in the hand-to-hand phase and then get out in the movement phase again.

Also, there is less fighting back involved. For 3 player, everybody strikes once instead of twice+ (depending on who you're fighting agaisnt) during a full turn. That means longer CC in comparison to movement and shooting. So everybody can get locked out in combat quite fast and after that the shooters cant do much.

Hey, very interesting change, Eliazar!!!
Looks like it is real fun playing that way and with a little tinkering it could even lead to a more evolved and challenging turn system...
Thanks for sharing!

Cheers!!!

JohnYoung wrote:

Also, there is less fighting back involved.

That's what I found. Since shooting is done at the same time, it becomes a little more tactical and not a mad rush to dive into Close Combat.

It DOES sound like an interesting & entertaining new approach, but it isn't simultaneous. Simultaneous means you all move, fire, etc. at the SAME time. There is no I go, you go thing involved.

no one likes a smart ... nala! yeah, you're right, but it is a lot more simultaneous than the classic system, and, it represents the figures actually fighting in simulteneous turns... seeing as we didn't trust one another for one bit we had to keep track of each others cheating!

Actually it IS alot MORE REALISTIC than both the conventional alternate turn AND the true simultaneous turn systems. It nicely incorperates the moment of added adrenaline flow or lack thereof that gives an unexpected advantage to one side at a critical time. It adds a a touch of the Fog of War that is sadly lacking in virtually all war games & which is why War is called an Art rather than a Science.

It ALSO lacks the fudge factor inherent in the written orders common to a true simultaneous system, & SO dear to the heart of rules lawyers & other miscreants.

DeafNala wrote:

It adds a a touch of the Fog of War that is sadly lacking in virtually all war games & which is why War is called an Art rather than a Science.

Wise words, man!!!

I really like this idea, it sounds like it works pretty well.

What about time requirement? Does it speed it up or slow it down?

I can't really tell. Close Combat takes as long as usual (until one is dead), but does take a lower percentage of a total game turn, so perhaps being able to move and shoot more often speeds things up?
It certainly felt like the games were going a lot quicker, as you are doing something all the time and never have to wait ages until your opponent got all his stuff done (especially in games involving more than 2 players)

figured out the solution to this:

have two close combat rounds next to each other.

so:

movement:
1 roll for prioriy
2 player 1 moves
3 players 2 moves

shooting:
1 roll for prioriy
2 player 1 shoots
3 player 2 shoots

close combat:
1 resolve one round of close combat
2 resolve another round of close combat

Well, it has not exactly been a problem that there is one round of Close Combat left. Personally, I liked it the way we played it and don't think that less CC is necessarily a bad thing.

Asp, I see where you come up with the 2 rounds of CC, but the way we played it, you basically got that, as player 1 got his attacks, and then player 2 got his attacks, we just skipped the part where everyone gets to fight back -which is really lengthy in multiplayer battles and besides tends to easily allow you to lose track of who fought and who didn't...


We did however resolve all CC rounds in initiative order, with charging overruling that naturally...

Asp wrote:

figured out the solution to this:

have two close combat rounds next to each other.

so:

movement:
1 roll for prioriy
2 player 1 moves
3 players 2 moves

shooting:
1 roll for prioriy
2 player 1 shoots
3 player 2 shoots

close combat:
1 resolve one round of close combat
2 resolve another round of close combat

Perhaps even place one round of close combat before shooting and another one after, that way, you'll allow those that kill their opponents fast to shoot in the next round?

also, I'm not sure I understand how the example given by ezekiel works.
How do you let player 1 get all his attacks and then player 2 while still keeping in initative order?

Naw, they's have no time to draw their weapon. Unless you're the faster drawer in the world, you wouldn't have time.

Hmm. Sounds like a neat Wood-Elf skill:
Lightning Draw: If, after a round of hand-to-hand combat, all opponents that were in base contact with you were taken out of action or fled, you may make a single shot with a bow-type weapon.