Legions of Steel Forum

Legions of Steel => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Clark on April 28, 2011, 08:55:11 PM

Title: Pinning
Post by: Clark on April 28, 2011, 08:55:11 PM
I wanted to discuss this because it seems to annoy many players but it is, in my opinion the heart of the Planetstorm rules as an analogy to present day warfare.

The following is taken from the Canadian infantry handbook:
------------------
The section commander gives the fire control order to engage the enemy
or to conduct searching fire. He retains the initiative by continuing to bring effective
fire on the enemy while his section closes for the assault. An example of an order
to win the fire fight follows.

ORDER GIVEN BY ACTION
(a) (b) (c)
TWO
SECTION, 150
METRES, RED
HOUSE - GO
RIGHT FIFTY
FALLEN
TREESNIPER
AT
BASE, RAPID
FIRE
Section
Commander
The section must first win the fire fight.
When the enemy is neutralized, the
section commander may order one of
the groups to maintain suppressive fire
on the enemy while the other group
observes arcs and prepares for
possible assault or fire task.

25. The section commander should remember the following points:
a. Win the fire fight and continue to suppress the enemy.

c. If there is a lull in the fight, the enemy will resume his fire and movement.
This must be avoided.
d. To advance or attack before the fire fight is won is dangerous.
e. Control fire to neutralize the enemy but also to conserve ammunition for
the assault and consolidation.

------------

Translated into game terms, "winning the firefight" means pinning an enemy unit.  Then you advance and kill them. 

I am thinking of some rules modifications like pinned figures are automatically exposed at 5" range and that - in some cases - AOE weapons don't pin at all.

Anyways, I think it is a very, very important rule that we have to finese.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Dave Chase on April 28, 2011, 09:39:05 PM
Any pin figure that attempts to move does not gain any movement modifiers to avoid being hit.
(Might not be worded very well, sorry, another long day. )


Dave Chase
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: YojimboUsaka on April 29, 2011, 08:27:24 AM
My humble thoughts on pinning/suppression (2 cents worth, non-refundable)

The reason you suppress someone is to keep their heads down and keep them from being able to react to what you are about to do to them, most likely run up/flank them and shoot them dead. 

The mechanic as is kind of does this but in a back end kind of way.  It makes the model more susceptible to being killed but if the player doesnt care or 'knows' that the other player has no more shots it doesnt work.  You get a lot more 'hero' actions as models ignore the pinning penalty and die like lemmings IF they happen to get shot.

Also guys who are 'pinned' are usually harder to kill as they are spending all their effort 'not getting shot', not easier to kill.  It just seemd a little backwards to me the way it worked in Planetstorm but I do understand the intent of the rule.

I would prefer a mechanic that enforces the pinning effect instead of suggesting it. "You shouldnt step out and take a shot but if you want to, go right ahead."  Maybe saying a figure can't fire unless the pinning is removed by either a fire action or a ldr/hero/command point spent?  This way suppressing a unit will take  away their option of reacting to you unless they have some extra help from a leader/hero/etc. 

I think AoE should be able to suppress/pin.  Grenades and such should have as much if not more pinning effect than other weapons.  Nothing tells a guy to keep his head down and take cover like some High Explosive Counseling.

Charles
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on April 29, 2011, 09:32:58 AM
Well, in real life pinning the enemy down is a good thing. That's the point you're trying to make, I think.

In Planetstorm, pinning is a bad thing. The boardgame is a brilliant game of maneuver. Whoever maneuvers to get that good first shot will win. In Planetstorm, because of the pin rule, as often as not that good first shot just leaves you exposed to even better return fire.

Despite the wording of the rules, in practicality you (the one pinning down the enemy) are the one being exposed. Even if the enemy fears getting "exposed" counters, all the enemy has to do is spend a single leadership point to allow the entire unit to act independently. Each pinned figure can then spend its fire action to become un-pinned, while the rest of the enemy unit has an advantage over you and smokes you. Why the advantage? If you had a good enough shot to pin them, they still have that same shot coming right back at you. And what's worse, they can take that shot stationary at a +1 advantage, meaning they're more likely to kill then to pin. If you're Fantasian and hindered with a bunch of high ROF 5+ kill weapons, you're even worse off. Because they (UNE, Machine for the most part) have low ROF 4+ weapons, that become 3+ when they're stationary, and 2+ against your crap armor. In that instance, it's even worth it for them to blow off spending the leadership, and just expose themselves. They have no fire penatly, and they're gonna kill enough of you (not pin you) that they don't really have to fear becoming exposed. Against non-Fantasians, the effects are similar, but to a less obvious degree.

Bottom line: Becoming pinned isn't enough of a penalty. When a figure is pinned, the whole unit needs to suffer. Otherwise payback is worse than the initial pinning.

Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on April 29, 2011, 09:37:13 AM
You should check out the CROSSFIRE rules for an effective use of pinning, though in those rules they call it being "suppressed". Like Planetstorm, it's a damage effect. Unlike Planetstorm, it causes you to lose the initiative both literally and figuritively.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on April 29, 2011, 09:13:30 PM
Any pin figure that attempts to move does not gain any movement modifiers to avoid being hit.
(Might not be worded very well, sorry, another long day. )


Dave Chase

Movement modifiers (defensive that is) only cut in if you are moving more than 16" or 8" perpendicular to the attacker.  So it doesn't really matter anyways.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on April 29, 2011, 09:29:50 PM
It makes the model more susceptible to being killed but if the player doesnt care or 'knows' that the other player has no more shots it doesnt work.  You get a lot more 'hero' actions as models ignore the pinning penalty and die like lemmings IF they happen to get shot.

Your criticisms are valid but I am proposing two fixes that indirectly address them.

First is a rework of the morale system so that you need to pass a morale check to become unpinned or exposed.  The second is that any figure that exposes themselves can be targetted by suppression.  In other words, you suppress a target and score a pin; if they try to move or fire you get another shot to kill them.

Other than that, I don't know what to do about the circumstances where you shoot at them. . . miss. . .and then they get to run away or shoot back.


Quote
Also guys who are 'pinned' are usually harder to kill as they are spending all their effort 'not getting shot', not easier to kill.  It just seemd a little backwards to me the way it worked in Planetstorm but I do understand the intent of the rule.

A pinned guy is no harder or easier to score a kill on unless they expose themselves.  I didn't want to make a pinned figure even harder to kill.

Quote
I would prefer a mechanic that enforces the pinning effect instead of suggesting it. "You shouldnt step out and take a shot but if you want to, go right ahead."  Maybe saying a figure can't fire unless the pinning is removed by either a fire action or a ldr/hero/command point spent?  This way suppressing a unit will take  away their option of reacting to you unless they have some extra help from a leader/hero/etc.

I'm not 100% sure of what you are getting at but I think that requing a morale check to unpin or expose solves that problem.

Quote
I think AoE should be able to suppress/pin.  Grenades and such should have as much if not more pinning effect than other weapons.  Nothing tells a guy to keep his head down and take cover like some High Explosive Counseling.

Charles


I'm trying to wrap my head around it but yes, an actual barrage should be pinning guys left, right and centre.  Interdiction by artillery is quite standard: you hose the area so no one can move through it.  However, non-artillery AOE attacks create no end of frustrations among players when they don't actually kill anyone.  The Plas-G is a classic example.

And some AOE weapons simply don't pin.  The blast from an SS-2000 either frys you or not.  There is no way to "go to ground" or dodge it.

Much of this is reflected in the draft rules I put in the media gallery.

You can't hide from Napalm-X or the spray from a Plasma Projector.  These weapons don't tend to pin.

Similarly, an anti-tank rocket won't pin either: it either misses or blows you into little bits.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on April 30, 2011, 08:24:50 AM
I always played that area of effect weapons also pinned. Was I playing incorrectly?*

*that was actually one of the saving graces of Fantasia in our games, since EMP effects didn't pin. A "daze" was generally a more favorable result than a pin.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on April 30, 2011, 10:53:23 AM
As written, AOE weapons will pin just like DF weapons.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 05, 2011, 07:17:13 AM
A few points, Clark, that you may recall from RCR Battleschool;

A section's task, ideally, will be to assault nothing larger than a single enemy or two, so it may take several soldiers firing on an individual for a truly 'win the firefight'=effective 'pin'.

A section reacts to 'effective' enemy fire, and is trained to NOT be pinned; to ignore or shake off the effects.  That means that as dangerous as it might be, you have to return fire and win back the firefight if you've lost it.  If you don't they WILL do what you intended to do to them...close with and destroy.

The only thing that will get in the way of this is a soldiers instinct to stay alive, which will be at odds with his training.

When Ross and I were developing our 'War Game' we had this debate;  His point was always along the lines of: 'I will never allow my troops to  -insert our term for being pinned-  they will be better trained than that...why would they choose to lay down and wait to die?...we don't train to do that.'

My point was usually 'They don't always have a choice when their instincts kick in...sometimes they will get down and become one with mother earth, even if it's not tactically correct.  We don't train to do it, but we train with the assumption that our enemies will do it.'

Another point was that winning the firefight is often about perception.  An anti-tank rocket should certainly be able to pin.  An M-72 fired at an enemy trench and hits close by, even if it doesn't kill is going to have a shock-effect and will likely result in keeping their heads down for a couple breaths.  We have already established that suffering from a pin effect is not necessarily a logical reaction, it is a gut reaction.

Taking cover is logical.  Getting yourself 'pinned' is not.

Another point is Initiative!  How many times did I harp at young section-commanders-in-training that you have to 'seize and maintain the initiative!'  It is probably the most vital aspect in a firefight, and fairly easy to model in the game.


----------

In respect with the above, I suggest:

Every weapon be given a pin rating.  If another weapon stat is truly undesired, then perhaps go with the weapon's ROF (Though in many cases it would be better to customize the weapon's capability to pin).

When you shoot at an enemy figure and 'miss' within the pin rating  (if the pin rating is 2 and you need a roll of 5 to kill, a 3 or higher will pin.)  The pin effect is simply making that figure 'fired'.  He loses any unused movement and attacks.

When you kill an enemy figure...actually kill him, you will have an automatic pin effect on other figures around him.  You can also have this effect if you wound a figure, if you are also using some kind of wound system)

So if you had a weapon with a pin stat of 2 then all figures within 2" of that figure automatically become 'fired'.  They lose any movement and fire actions that haven't been taken yet.  This is the 'pin' effect. 

If the attackers keep winning initiative they can use their superior fire to keep the enemy from doing anything.  You are not getting cheated out of kills if you have good, accurate weapons.  However if you have lots of firepower heading in the general direction of an enemy, you will likely pin him, if not kill him outright.

If the pinned defenders manage to win initiative, then they have a chance of winning back the firefight, so having unused leadership and command points become vitally important to seizing and maintaining the initiative.

Another plus is that the pin effect is not a suggestion that a soldier can choose to ignore and keep fighting.  It is, for that moment, something imperative. Strong leadership however can get troops to recover and potentially turn the tables.

Submitted for evisceration by the gallery.



Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: grendeljd on May 05, 2011, 09:02:06 AM
Every weapon be given a pin rating.  If another weapon stat is truly undesired, then perhaps go with the weapon's ROF (Though in many cases it would be better to customize the weapon's capability to pin).

When you shoot at an enemy figure and 'miss' within the pin rating  (if the pin rating is 2 and you need a roll of 5 to kill, a 3 or higher will pin.)  The pin effect is simply making that figure 'fired'.  He loses any unused movement and attacks.

When you kill an enemy figure...actually kill him, you will have an automatic pin effect on other figures around him.  You can also have this effect if you wound a figure, if you are also using some kind of wound system)

So if you had a weapon with a pin stat of 2 then all figures within 2" of that figure automatically become 'fired'.  They lose any movement and fire actions that haven't been taken yet.  This is the 'pin' effect.

I like the sound of this whole mechanic - it definitely deserves some playtesting, I think.

Personally, I don't see an issue with adding another stat to the line for weapons to encompass a 'pin rating'.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 05, 2011, 05:56:16 PM
There is a distinction between morale effects and physical effects.  I viewed pinning as being a physical effect.  That is, the bullets are raining down around you but you manage to scramble to some notional cover  that keeps you from getting killed. However, if you tried to move or fire, those same bullets would likely cut you to ribbons.  By spending a fire action you can wiggle youself around to prepare to move or fire without being a sitting duck (getting unpinned).  Again, that is all physical.

On the morale side, you have to make a morale check to  get unpinned or expose yourself.  If you go back to the morale rules from Planetstorm (page177), if you blow a morale check you can flinch or hold, which blows your fire actions.  As written, you only check morale when the unit takes a kill.  However, a pin could trigger a morale check for the pinned figure and others nearby.

Increasing the pin numbers while leaving kills unaffected would have a pronounced effect on how often guys are getting pinned.  As written you basically have a 1 in 6 chance of scoring a pin for each die rolled.  Increasing that by a single point doubles your odds of pinning on any given roll, which is a pretty big jump in my mind.  A flechette gunner walking and firing at medium range  has a 42% chance to kill, 28% to pin and 30% of missing completely.  Increasing the pin number by one leaves only 13% to miss and 45% to pin. (Actually, the chance of scoring a pin is 42% and then 70%, but if you score a kill the pin is irrelevant.) That's firing on one target.  If you are able to spread fire you score an average of 0.5 kills and 0.5 pins.  With +1 that doubles to an average of 1 pin.  Autofire and you still average half a kill but 1.5 pins.

The actual battle drill is:

1. Double Tap. Fire two rounds in direction of
enemy to force him to react to your fire,
disrupting his fire or make him take cover.
2. Dash. Get out of enemy's view or enemy's
fire to a position of cover.
3. Down. Dive for cover.
4: Crawl. Move out of enemy fire and aiming
point based on your down-point. Crawl to point
of observation or fire.
5. Observe. Locate the enemy and friendly
troops.
6. Fire. Adopt a fire position and change
position if necessary. Return fire to win the fire
fight and to indicate the enemy.
7. Communicate. Pass information on
enemy strength and location to the rest of the
section. Keep your team mate informed of your
actions.
8. Move. On order to regroup or assault.

"Pinning" is just an abstraction of dash-down-crawl (you blow your fire action) if you are the one being shot at. Your section mates are going to use their full movement to take up a firing position behind cover (if available) and then return fire to win the firefight.

The big difference is that you generally know where the enemy is so you don't double tap in his general direction on the off chance that you will spook him, and your section mates are not going to go through the whole drill because they know where he is and who he is shooting at.

The blast of an m72 could certainly pin.  Having the rocket whiz by you might if you had to dive for cover, or it might force a morale check. When I mention AOE weapons not pinning I was thinking of, say, the ss-2000.  There really isn't anywhere to hide from a flamethrower.    Similarly, if you look at the draft rules, direct fire flame weapons like the Napalm-X and the plasma projector don't tend to pin either and are good at killing guys who are entrenched or otherwise under cover.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 05, 2011, 07:47:12 PM


The actual battle drill is:

1. Double Tap. Fire two rounds in direction of
enemy to force him to react to your fire,
disrupting his fire or make him take cover.
2. Dash. Get out of enemy's view or enemy's
fire to a position of cover.
3. Down. Dive for cover.
4: Crawl. Move out of enemy fire and aiming
point based on your down-point. Crawl to point
of observation or fire.
5. Observe. Locate the enemy and friendly
troops.
6. Fire. Adopt a fire position and change
position if necessary. Return fire to win the fire
fight and to indicate the enemy.
7. Communicate. Pass information on
enemy strength and location to the rest of the
section. Keep your team mate informed of your
actions.
8. Move. On order to regroup or assault.



Is this meant to be patronizing? I can't see it serving any other purpose to the discussion.  I can recite it in my sleep.  Is it for the benefit of others who may not know this drill?  Again, I don't see how it has any relevance to being 'pinning'. The react to effective enemy fire drill is not 'being pinned.'  It just starts the game called winning the firefight.

If you don't want to use my suggestions, then that's fine; you don't like them.  That's cool, they are only suggestions.  I'd appreciate a 'no thanks' or 'I'll think about it', but not a lesson in what I used to teach for over a decade.

I thought you were looking for a new system to deal with this stuff, which is why it's strange that you are using the parts of Planetstorm that you say people don't use to put down this new suggestion. 

For example:
Quote
As written you basically have a 1 in 6 chance of scoring a pin for each die rolled.  Increasing that by a single point doubles your odds of pinning on any given roll, which is a pretty big jump in my mind.

I know this, which is why I said it.  I believe that if you are going to accurately model people shooting at each other from across a football field-sized area or smaller, then people should be getting 'pinned' a lot more than 1 in 6.  But that's just an opinion.  People react all kinds of ways to getting shot at.  God only knows how machines would react...or wouldn't.

Anyways, forget it.  I already have.

Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Dave Chase on May 05, 2011, 09:21:55 PM
I figures that Clark put the 8 rules up so that everyone who reads this thread will have a common background/reference point in the discussion.

Please remember that what is common sense to you might not be common sense to the next individual.

Dave Chase
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 05, 2011, 11:39:51 PM
Is this meant to be patronizing? I can't see it serving any other purpose to the discussion.  I can recite it in my sleep.

Most people can't. Heck, I had to look it up again.

Quote
Again, I don't see how it has any relevance to being 'pinning'.


Quote
"Pinning" is just an abstraction of dash-down-crawl (you blow your fire action) if you are the one being shot at.

It takes you a few seconds to get out of harm's way after almost getting killed. If we change it such that you have to make a morale check to get unpinned then that reflects the level of training to be able to move to cover on your next phase and then return fire on the one following that.


Quote
I thought you were looking for a new system to deal with this stuff, which is why it's strange that you are using the parts of Planetstorm that you say people don't use to put down this new suggestion. 

For example:
Quote
As written you basically have a 1 in 6 chance of scoring a pin for each die rolled.  Increasing that by a single point doubles your odds of pinning on any given roll, which is a pretty big jump in my mind.

I know this, which is why I said it.  I believe that if you are going to accurately model people shooting at each other from across a football field-sized area or smaller, then people should be getting 'pinned' a lot more than 1 in 6.  But that's just an opinion.  People react all kinds of ways to getting shot at.  God only knows how machines would react...or wouldn't.

I meant to critique the idea, not toss out a 'put down'.  What made 40k so laughable was that you could have two guys firing bolters from less than a hundred feet away and have only an 11% chance of killing your target. Planetstorm ranges are relatively far, but yes, short range is typically only 50 metres.  However, with stationary autofire against your typical target in the open you have 56% to kill and another 19% to pin.  My concern goes the other way in making ranges too long and kill/pin chances too high because it almost becomes unplayable unless you have lots of cover or terrain (like being in an underground complex) to make things more interesting.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Scoutzout on May 05, 2011, 11:40:34 PM

/snip 
But that's just an opinion.  People react all kinds of ways to getting shot at.  God only knows how machines would react...or wouldn't.



This is an excellent point. There is no gut reaction. No feeling of fear for the machine. Are they still going to be "pinnable"


On the suggestion from sergeant_hastp

I just did a few rounds with PI and Machine and it seemed to be working pretty well. I used the the "exact number" needed as a TN for pinning. (I did like 3-4 exchanges, hardly scientific on my part)

I like the idea that a pin just makes the person "fired" There is no carryover and one can assume that the pinned model does what its trained to do on its next turn. One question..what if you pin a model thats already used its action?

Its perfectly inline with fire superiority. The more attacks I  make against the enemy unit the more chances I pin them and remove their ability to return fire.

The high RoF achieve kills or pins...like they are supposed to. They are designed to kill or keep their head down.

The shift in the percentage of pins by giving certain weapons a Pin Value is VERY interesting. It might make it even MORE tactical...if you dont use the appropriate moves and cover you will find your unit pinned repeatedly until dead.
I could see exact number as base and certain weapons given a +1 or +2 value max

The one thing I didn't try was the AoE effect of pinning after a kill..I could see  that a morale test or something to resist that effect. Seeing your buddy eat a deadbolt may give you pause (pin) or may inspire you to lay down some of your own fire.




Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 06, 2011, 02:02:08 AM
The morale rules need to get streamlined but what happens now is that the  unit as a whole has to check morale every time a kill is scored on the unit. Generally, machines don't check morale.  But again, I envisioned pinning as being a physical effect of the bullets narrowly missing you rather than a psychological effect of how the trooper deals with that fact.  Viewed that way, machines can be pinned but could elect to wander into the hail of gunfire without the need for a morale check.  It's still abstract because you could get pinned by one guy, expose yourself and then a different guy would still get the bonuses to kill you. It doesn't completely make sense but enforces the underlying idea.

It does raise the question of what happens if you are already fired because if you aren't you would probably be covering and if that was the case you would proably have used your covering fire on the attacker before he pinned you.  If, for whatever reason you didn't take the covering fire then you become fired and then the next phase would proceed as normal.  So the only effect seems to be to blow your covering fire.

I took a look at Crossfire.  Their pinning stops movement, suppression stops movement and fire, a second suppression kills.  Fire has unlimited range which, as I mentioned, forces the game to have lots of terrain, something like a third or half your board will be covered with it to clutter line of sight. You get to keep taking movement until one of your unit gets suppressed or pinned or killed, and you get unlimited fire until one of your shots misses. It's highly abstract but the ground scale is assumed to be about 1"= 10m

Scoutzout, as sergeant_hasp mentions a section can realistically only handle a few enemies at a time. If you took two Nightmares at a range of, say, 45" and give them the initiative against a PI section.  The Nightmares stationary fire giving them each 17% to kill and 17% to wound so odds are (56%) that at least one trooper is pinned or wounded.  A whole assault group firing stationary would have something like a 67% chance to kill outright and another 24% chance pin. Even if the Nightmares were under cover to give the troopers -1, that's still 41% to kill and 25% to pin.  If we juice the flechette guns with +1 on pinning the kill chances stay the same but pinning gets increased to 29% and 42%. 

I haven't sat down to actually run these numbers before.  Relative to your chance of actually scoring a kill, you don't pin as often.  If you were leapfrogging by  assault group withh one stationary firing and the other running and firing it's something like 32% kill and 32% pin on each Nightmare but then your chances keep going up.  But just using those numbers, after 4 turns, each Nightmare would have almost an 80% chance of being dead but only about one-in thre of staying pinned from turn to turn.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 09, 2011, 02:26:45 PM
On Pinning

First off, I want to say if my last entry on this thread came across as irritable, then I offer apologies.  I took offense where it was likely not intended, and I submit that I had just concluded a long night shift, dealing with a very belligerent criminal and was I was probably not in the best frame of mind for any sort of social discourse.

Anyways, in the following….essay….I will try to clarify my ideas for how pinning can work in a new and improved Planetstorm setting.  I offer these ideas to debate their merits with others of the forum.  Moreover I present it to Clark to twist, mould, chop or abandon however he sees fit to use in *his* game, and with the understanding I will likely use some variation in my own house games regardless, because I truly believe it can work as the most effective solution to modeling Canadian battle drills, circa 1990s.

Background
In the past when my friends and I played Planetstorm, I personally was always a big proponent of using the pinning rules, as I saw the intent of them.  Most often however I was overruled by the others I gamed with.  To paraphrase the typical argument I heard against using Pinning:  “Pinning rules suck.  If I hit the guy, I want to kill the guy.  A lot of the time I can only kill on a roll of an exact 6…I don’t want to waste that lucky shot for what amounts to an inconvenience and then have my own guy get killed right after.  Besides, it slows the game down too much, and we want to play with big armies.”

(I had an equally hard time promoting the decimation rules…but considering that my group actually played with decimation rules from time to time, it is quite telling of the bias against the present state of the pinning rules.)

What we don’t want:  (‘We’ meaning myself and gamers that think like me…if any.)
We don’t want to have to use counters: Having counters like ‘pinning’ and ‘exposed’ add more clutter to the board.  It’s not TOO onerous fishing them out, but if they can be avoided that’s a big plus.

We don’t want to have extra dice rolls: Any way we can cut out an extraneous die roll is for the better, for overall game play and time.

We don’t want to have to shuffle and draw cards…for the same reasons as extra dice rolls.

What is the purpose of Pinning?
Pinning is the term that Planetstorm has adopted for the real-world battlefield effect of ‘Winning the Firefight’.

A firefight is when two factions are shooting at each other.  Without pinning rules of some kind, this is the status quo for a game of Planetstorm. A firefight. Both sides shoot at each other whenever and wherever they can.  Sometimes they hit, sometimes they don’t.  If you want to reduce the chances of getting hit, you stay out of the range of your opponent, or get behind cover or concealment. These are player-controlled actions.

With pinning, you can win a firefight.  This involves delivering accurate fire upon your enemy to the point where they cannot fire back effectively.  Ideally it will also ‘fix’ the enemy, which means they can’t move from their present location.

Thus the purpose of pinning is to deprive your opponent of the ability to shoot back at you, and keep him from advancing, running away, or maneuvering to counter your actions.  Killing the enemy is always preferable to pinning him, as killing all of your enemy will automatically guarantee that you win the firefight.  The less enemy you have shooting at you also reduces the chance that they will be able to turn the tide and pin your own forces down.

How does pinning work?

Pinning is intrinsically linked to the psychology of the combatant.  A fighter can already  make the tactical decision to take cover on his turn.  This is in the basic game system.  The player can look at the board, assess the opponent figure’s weapon and line of sight and make an educated guess as to how much danger his own figures are in.  He can then move his figures to a more advantageous spot or he can choose to shoot from where he is.

Winning the firefight goes beyond this theoretical threat of harm.  It uses the drive for self preservation as a tool to make the enemy stop whatever it was that he was doing or intended to do and ‘get down’.  In its most essential form…it takes away that figures next action.  What will cause this instinct to manifest?  The perception that the figure nearly died or is about to die.

This, in the game, is represented by a near-miss.  You need a 5 to kill the figure…if you roll a 4…that is close enough to a kill that it is likely going to force the figure to ‘get down’. (Note that the classic pinning rules required a hit on the exact number.  To me this is a kill.  Anything else just gives the player a feeling of being cheated as a kill is always better than a pin.)

A figure forced to ‘get down’ is pinned.  That figure immediately places a ‘Fired’ counter next to it.  It cannot move, it cannot fire, because it is too busy reacting.  Some weapons have a better chance of generating this effect, because of rapid-rate multiple, nearly simultaneous bullets or blasts, or perhaps there is a bigger effect, a louder weapon signature, a more horrific effect…in general a bigger ‘pucker factor’.  To put it another way…getting hit by an automobile of any kind is something that most people would not want…but when facing down a honda civic or a Peterbilt truck, there will be a different perception of danger.

This is how one machine-gun like weapon might be able to pin a target just as well as 3 or 4 rifle-like weapons.

To reiterate; being pinned is linked to the psychological.  In many cases it would be foolish to react to the shot.  The guy who fired at you obviously didn’t kill you.  If you have an action available, it would be logical to use that action to eliminate the threat rather than to ‘get down’.  But living creatures, being what they are, react to that near-miss by ‘getting down’, (unless they have access to superior training, instincts or guts…ie leadership or hero points).

What happens if you shoot at a figure that has already used his action this round (and is ‘fired’), or is already affected by a pin effect, and gets another pin result?

  Nothing!  That figure has already done what he had set out to do for that instant.  I would liken this to a guy in a firefight who is shooting at a target, who has several rounds kicking up dirt right next to him…that he doesn’t even notice!  You need the psychological engagement to have a pin effect.  If he doesn’t know he was almost killed…then how does he react to it? Likewise, if he already has his head down in the mud…and another round smacks dirt into his visor…what is he going to do that he isn’t already doing? Now if he was actually hit…then that effect takes care of itself.  We are still talking about a near-miss causing a pin effect. (as opposed to the classic Planetstorm pin resulting from a hit on the exact number requited).

So now what?
If the pinned figure survives the rest of the turn, and his side wins initiative, he has the opportunity to act as normal…he is no longer ‘fired’…he can try to move or shoot…but if one of the assaulters in the fire base has planted himself downrange with a covering-0 action…

Initiative

Initiative is of the utmost importance in this system, and therefore bonuses to initiative such as leadership and command points can prove decisive in a long-term firefight.

Consider: Whichever side has the initiative has the first chance to get into position and start trying to win the firefight.  If the opponents are already there, (or start the scenario with covering actions) they may get to take a covering shot first…which may kill the figure, cause a pin effect, or miss entirely.  A kill or a pin effect is what we call ‘effective enemy fire’.  A miss is not.

Once a firefight has begun, both sides are striving to neutralize the other’s fire, through killing or pinning.  When one side starts losing actions because of pin effects, it will free up the other side to start moving.

Ideally, only half will move though, leaving the other half stationary and covering…why?  Because if the side being pinned wins initiative they will get their fire actions back and become a threat.  The half of the assault force that has stationary cover will have the opportunity to fire on the figures that are no longer pinned…whether they try to fire or move to try to kill them or keep them pinned.

If the assault force chooses not to have sufficient numbers of their unit as a ‘fire base’ to keep covering the enemy, the pinned opponents may win initiative and see that the assaulters are advancing…all fired or covering -1 or covering -2. 

At the very least it proves why we train to do ‘Cover and Movement’, ‘Fire and Move’, ‘pepper-potting’, or whichever term you choose to use. ‘One foot on the ground’.

If this technique were not used, the defenders would have decent odds to survive the weak or non-existent covering fire, and score some kills or pins against the advancing assaulters.  This is where the assaulters may lose the firefight.  They would have to stop their advance and put effort into trying to win it back.  A big part of it comes back to initiative.

Morale?

My suggestion is to bin the morale rules for Planetstorm, not re-vamp them.  I don’t think my group ever used the morale system, and I for one never pressed for it.  It seems like a hold-over from fantasy and historical wargaming that has no place in a modern or sci-fi game.  I think this was talked about elsewhere on the forum. 

The idea that a modern combat unit would suddenly get a ‘de-moralized’ and fall apart as a cohesive unit to flee the fight, unless rallied by a commander is a little silly.  Do combatants in real life leave the field before fighting to the last man?  Sure, but this is better handled as part of victory conditions for the scenario.  When your position is untenable, you just end the game.

The most pressing example of ‘morale’ in a firefight is in the pinning effect.  I feel it starts and ends there.  What other effect would you want to model?  Units that are forced to retreat off the battlefield or disintegrate due to a die roll or a card draw?  I truly believe the momentary ‘flinch’ as a result of a volume of accurate firepower is all that is necessary for this simulation.

The buddy-effect:
The only other additional effect I would think about adding by way of Psychological effect is that of having a team mate go down.  This can be linked as a part of the pinning process.  When a guy actually gets killed, those figures immediately nearby become pinned.  This can be a function of what kind of weapon does the killing (once again, it’s all about perception. Someone blown to pieces by an anti-armor missile might have a greater pinning-effect on those nearby than its 1 ROF would warrant.  Likewise a sniper’s shot can be particularly unnerving.

I propose it as an area-effect.  Everyone in the designated area automatically becomes ‘fired’ as per the pinning effect above.


Machines
Which brings us to the machines.  Can machines be pinned?  I would tentatively propose ‘no’.  The machine player can make the logical decision to have his forces use cover where possible, but not react to a near-miss (see above to the illogic of it).

So perhaps that’s part of what makes machines so scary?  Of course Omega Fiends would be pin-able.

Or perhaps you can have machines be pinned, but only on the exact number minus 1…assuming they are hits that don’t penetrate, the shock of which disorients the machine…like in The Terminator where Arnie gets repeatedly pumped with shotgun blasts…to no real effect, other than he gets knocked off his feet…losing his next fire action.




Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 09, 2011, 10:53:14 PM
I'm glad we didn't lose you.

Your affection for the Decimation rules warms the heart of a fellow sergeant.

Let me digest this.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 09, 2011, 10:55:45 PM
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: bobloblah on May 10, 2011, 11:40:20 AM
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.
It totally made sense to me. I think that keeping Pinning along it's current lines is a large differentiator for Plantstorm. It can be a bit of work to use, but the effects on how things are played on the tabletop are significant. I'd hate to lose that flavour. I also like the thinking of Machines ignoring morale, but still being subject to pinning (unless they choose to ignore it - and get shot!).

Clark also mentioned what seems like a non-sequitur when a Pinned target is attacked by a second shooter who still gets a bonus. That never seemed far-fetched to me; the first shooter simply closed down the target's movement options, making it easier for the second shooter to get a bead on the target.

For what it's worth, I'm also a big fan of Decimation. While I can see it being an optional rule for casual play, I'd definitely want to see it used in more structured (read: tournament) game settings.

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on May 10, 2011, 12:54:34 PM
I always used both the pinning and the decimation rules in Planetstorm. My own, merely anecdotal experience is as follows:

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).

By the current rules it doesn't really have a strong detrimental effect. A minor inconvenience.

  • I tried changing the Pinning numbers to one less than the Kill number early on with the game, probably for similar reasons (i.e. feeling cheated by making that 6+, but only Pinning), but it has a really radical effect on gameplay. There just isn't enough probability spread on a d6 for that kind of change, I think...

The radical effect the current rules have on gameplay is to re-design your forces so that they have a better chance of killing than pinning. As you play more and more planetstorm, you inevitably begin to optimize your force just like any other game. You avoid weapons like the flechette gun, if possible, in favor of weapons like the autoram laser. You avoid weapons like the AK Rifle in favor of the PKM. You avoid any armor that gives your opponent a kill bonus, with the possible exception of sprint-capable or jump-capable troops. Entire units go out the window, like Fantasian Powered Infantry Squads. Fantasia as a whole, by way of example, only remains competitive with T85-heavy units once you're playing against someone who understands how to properly optimize a force.

Like I said, merely anecdotal evidence from one group's play fifteen or so years ago.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: bobloblah on May 10, 2011, 02:20:04 PM
I always used both the pinning and the decimation rules in Planetstorm. My own, merely anecdotal experience is as follows:

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).

By the current rules it doesn't really have a strong detrimental effect. A minor inconvenience.

 :o
Getting perforated (i.e. suffering a Kill) is a minor inconvenience? I don't think you understood what I was saying...
 ;)
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 10, 2011, 08:06:41 PM
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

The classic pinning rules look and behave like this:

Quote
4.32 Pinning

If a die of the attack roll equals the modified kill number then a figure is pinned

A pinned figure had a close brush with disaster.  It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.

4.323 To remove the “Pinned” counter, the figure must remain stationary and expend all of its Fire Actions.

4.324 A Pinned figure which moves or fires becomes “Exposed” and the Pinned counter is replaced with an “Exposed” counter.

4.325 If the figure was Pinned while activated, the figure must immediately end its movement and cover as its fire action to avoid becoming Exposed.

4.326 A Suppressing (4.84) figure which is Pinned must either stop Suppressing and have a Fired counter placed next to it or become Exposed.

4.327 Exposed targets are easier to target.  They have a -1 general modifier while Exposed.

4.328 A Pin result scores a Kill on an Exposed figure.

4.329 Certain weapons score kills on a Pin result. These will be specified in the rules for the weapon.

Okay, so as I see it:

Pte Bloggins the UNE trooper extraordinaire is walking along in arrowhead formation, watching his arcs. (for sake of the scenario, he has just completed a full action of walking, and is Covering -1)

A soulless Nightmare lurking downrange comes into view.  Pte Bloggin’s covering shot misses.  The Machine immediately snaps off a bolt of collapsed steel in his direction.  (He needs a 5 or better to kill him…and gets a 5 exactly).

Pte Bloggins’ proximity sensors are bleeping like mad…by all rights that bolt might have killed him, but luckily it did not.  Just as he’s trained, he seeks cover.  (He could theoretically choose not to take cover…but this isn’t allowed at this stage of the game.  Because he just technically got threatened by a shot that would have killed him…the alternative is to just kill him if he refuses to react as dictated….but in-universe…what makes him?)

 This takes his full attention. Even if he were to get off a double tap, then it likely wouldn’t hit the Nightmare anyway, so we don’t bother with that.

He is now taking the best advantage he can with the nearest bit of cover.  It may not be big enough to be represented on the gaming table top, but to Pte Bloggins, a simple rut in the ground that might otherwise go unnoticed is as welcome as a fully riveted fighting trench.

Now that he has that bit of cover…he is immune to similar shots from the Nightmare.  Exact ‘5’ results hit the cover…not him. (since further pins are ignored).  As long as he does nothing, he stays pinned…but keeps the protection of that piece of cover…  The Nightmare might still hit a part of him not protected…or even manage to put a good shot right through his cover ( roll a 6 or higher), but he is that bit safer as long as he chooses to do nothing.

Now Pte Bloggins is green, but he’s no coward.  He gathers his wits and spends his next action shifting himself so that he can get a decent shot, or find a relatively safe route to advance.  The fire position he finds or the route he takes will be no safer than he was originally when the Nightmare first fired on him…but at least he isn’t flagrantly exposing himself to every single enemy that has a line of sight to him.  (heh heh….exposing himself.)

Now if we bring in the classic Morale rules here…

Quote
14.8 Pinned Figures
A Pinned figure must pass a basic morale check to expose itself.
In this case, the player rolls three dice and compares the result to the figure’s basic morale.

So…Pte Bloggins may be brave enough to not take the time to squirm around for a safe-er avenue or fire position.  If something is really pressing…like Nightmare’s buddies advancing on his position, or a priority target is in the open…Pte Bloggins can exert his force of will to just take the shot or move to a critical spot.  If he does manage to convince himself to do this, anything that can see him has a 2 point better chance to kill him…since there is a +1 to hit him for everyone who can see him…AND since he is acting so bravely…he will obviously not react by taking cover if he is shot at with a near-hit. (pin result on exposed=kill).

Now we will assume that Pte Bloggins took the time to do things tactically and not heroically.  He spent a full action planning his route to his next position of fire.

When he does start moving, he passes through a Gremlin’s arc of fire.  (shudder).  That little bugger needs a 5 or better with his carbine, and has been sitting there, just waiting for this opportunity (covering-0)

He gets exactly what he needs, and Pte Bloggins again finds himself courting disaster. He dives for available cover, for the alternative is certain death.  But…now he still has his fire action which is converted to Covering….

(This is a bit confusing. (rule 4.326).  Does this mean he is pinned, and thus ‘fired’…or is he pinned…and still has a Covering 0, -1 or -2?)



So hopefully, I’m getting your intent that the Pinning effect is the actual action...the physical response of realizing you nearly died…and thus taking a dash and getting to cover, or just plain ducking if you are near cover or in a fighting trench.

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: bobloblah on May 10, 2011, 09:52:57 PM
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

<snip>

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

This is obviously Clark's ball o' wax here, but, for my part, I took it to be some of all of the above. And the figure does have a choice...it just takes guts (or programming) to make it. Hence the Morale check to stand in front of incoming fire. Diving out of a firelane is common sense - running into it takes some stones.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 10, 2011, 10:15:16 PM
And I may have to rethink my idea that "pinning is a physical effect" because virtually no one gets the idea.

Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

<snip>

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above? 

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

This is obviously Clark's ball o' wax here, but, for my part, I took it to be some of all of the above. And the figure does have a choice...it just takes guts (or programming) to make it. Hence the Morale check to stand in front of incoming fire. Diving out of a firelane is common sense - running into it takes some stones.

I think you miss my point.

To clarify further:  From the pinning rules: (bold added for emphasis)

It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.


So...when you get the exact number to kill...the figure MUST take the required actions. (pin) The figure does not get a morale check until the following round when it decides whether to try to expose itself, do nothing and stay pinned, or spend the additional time to act while not exposing.

I was pointing out that there is likely psychology of self preservation at work when someone is initially pinned.  Clark posted earlier that the psychology and the physical effect of pinning were completely separate.  He was considering rethinking that idea because no one was 'getting it'. 

I think I 'got it' but still don't agree with it.  I maintain that it's at least partially psychological, even if you mix it with training, good sense, and battle drills.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: bobloblah on May 10, 2011, 11:23:53 PM
I think you miss my point.

To clarify further:  From the pinning rules: (bold added for emphasis)

It must take time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack.

4.321 A Pinned figure is marked with a Pinned counter.


So...when you get the exact number to kill...the figure MUST take the required actions. (pin) The figure does not get a morale check until the following round when it decides whether to try to expose itself, do nothing and stay pinned, or spend the additional time to act while not exposing.

I was pointing out that there is likely psychology of self preservation at work when someone is initially pinned.  Clark posted earlier that the psychology and the physical effect of pinning were completely separate.  He was considering rethinking that idea because no one was 'getting it'. 

I think I 'got it' but still don't agree with it.  I maintain that it's at least partially psychological, even if you mix it with training, good sense, and battle drills.

I get what you're saying. I think I just have a different mental picture or justification for it. Is it possible that's my lack of exposure to combat or appropriate training? The closest I've come is paintball...

Anyway, Pinning models the enemy's ability to constrain my troops' mobility with semi-accurate fire. Incoming fire alters how troopers move about. If they do not alter their movement, they die. My first thought is that that's as much psychological as, say, taking cover. Sure, it could be because you're frightened, or that support weapon pointed your way represents a real threat. And you have to mentally decide to take cover. But cover is a real, physical thing; it's between you and the oncoming lead that happens to have the right-of-way. You could ignore the available cover (standing instead of kneeling behind a half-height wall, for example), but why?

Similarly, with Pinning, you could assume your trooper just keeps moving forward into enemy fire without taking time to avoid leaving itself open to further attack; in that case, just treat that Pin as a Kill instead.

Is that making any sense (I'm dead tired right now, so it may be gibberish)? As a follow-on question: if the effect of incoming enemy fire is purely psychological, why doesn't one move across a combat zone fully upright at a brisk trot from point A to B (as you would if noone was shooting at you)?
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Dave Chase on May 10, 2011, 11:38:57 PM
I think my concern is with just how real do you want the combat and pinning to be?

What if there is not cover with in the figures allowance of movement in one turn?
What if there is no cover available for the weapon type that just pinned the figure?

I don't mind the pinning rule desire for the game. But just how realistic are you attempting to be?

And how simple are the desired pinning rules?

Dave Chase
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 11, 2011, 01:22:57 AM

Quote
Is that making any sense (I'm dead tired right now, so it may be gibberish)?

Makes perfect sense to me.  The concept of pinning is the same in paintball, albeit with less mortal imperative.  You can afford to take more chances and possibly ignore incoming 'fire' more readily than if your life was at stake.

  I remember one (low budget) exercise we did demonstrating 'pinning' with tennis balls.  It was to illustrate the effect for new troops learning section battle drills and the effect of fire control.  Had 1 guy behind a low wall. with a box of a half dozen tennis balls.  His job was to throw a tennis ball and hit one guy, without getting hit himself.

On the other side were 8 guys, each with their own box of tennis balls.  Their job was to use theirs to keep the other guy from his task for at least 1 minute. (or something similar).  Fun way to learn.

You also see it in first person shooter videogames.  There is the conscious choice to take cover, but there is no..'pinning' effect per se, because you will never have your self preservation instinct override your tactical sense.  This is why a lot of newer games give you the reward of healing up if you take cover...most players need this effect or they would not play conservatively and thus trying to pin someone down would never work.

Anyways, back on topic; what you say makes sense.  And none of what you just posted is at odds with the suggested pinning system I posted earlier.  Is there something specific you don't like about it's streamlined nature, or is it that you would rather not change the pinning system on general principle?

Quote
As a follow-on question: if the effect of incoming enemy fire is purely psychological, why doesn't one move across a combat zone fully upright at a brisk trot from point A to B (as you would if noone was shooting at you)?

I never meant to imply that the every effect of incoming fire was purely psychological.  As I said earlier, you always have the choice to move tactically and take advantage of the terrain.  It's smart to do so.  What I did mean is that when rounds are landing very close, the decision to take cover may be taken away from you by your own mind and body.

Consider a make believe scenario that you are alone in a dug-in position.  You see 8 assaulters heading your way.  You mission is to kill at least one of them, hopefully at least 2, thereby slowing down their advance and then to get the heck out of there.

You take your shot, but they quickly locate your position.  The incoming rounds are now whizzing past your head and landing so close that the dirt-spray is hitting you.  You know, by studying their doctrine, that they will continue to fire at you in this manner.  Half will be shooting, the other half moving closer to you, and then they will switch roles.

They only have a 1 in 6 chance of actually hitting you, but as they get closer, the chances will increase.  When they get close enough, a grenade will drop into your trench, bounce around once or twice and then you WILL be dead.

Knowing all of this, it is logical to keep your head up and shoot at them, because you have the cover of the trench and they are in the open.  You've got a 1 in 3 chance of killing them...or better. It would also be logical to get out of the trench and take off before they get too close.

Why would you ever choose to duck down into your trench and wait for the inevitable?  Logically it would be suicide.  At the very least, if you knew you were going to die anyway, you might want to take a few of them with you.

This is why I say that there has to be a psychological motivation, at least in part.  If not, pinning...forcing the target to give up their fire action...wouldn't work. 

The reason I used that scenario is because that is the standard situation we set up when training infantry candidates the basics of section battle drills.  The trainees are the assaulters.  We train them to win the firefight, and tell them that the overwhelming firepower WILL keep the enemy's head down allowing you to move up in leap-frog style in relative safety and post a grenade into his position.

Ironically however, when we are training them how to defend a position, we train them to never cower down into the trench even when under fire.  They have to trust their cover and concealment of their position.  They have to watch and shoot: To keep their heads and weapons up and engaging, or the bad guys will come right up on them and destroy them.

So..its a paradox.  I mentioned in a previous post that it was in contention in another game I co-designed.  The thing at stake was whether pinning should be a mandatory effect, or should the player be the one to decide when and if the figures stop shooting and duck down for cover when fired upon.

Sorry for the text-wall replies.  I'm just trying not to be misunderstood.  I don't want to be in the position of a back and forth arguer.  If my position is understood, it will speak for itself.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 11, 2011, 01:35:55 AM
I think my concern is with just how real do you want the combat and pinning to be?

What if there is not cover with in the figures allowance of movement in one turn?
What if there is no cover available for the weapon type that just pinned the figure?

I don't mind the pinning rule desire for the game. But just how realistic are you attempting to be?

And how simple are the desired pinning rules?

Dave Chase

Sorry Dave, if this is not directed at me.

Here's my thoughts on your concerns if they are:

I believe the pinning system should only be realistic enough to generate the effect of being able to use your weapons to restrict your opponent from moving or firing on a turn by turn basis.

Besides the terrain pieces intended to be used as cover, I think the idea of cover can be abstract enough to assume that there is always someplace better to go when being shot at...even if it means just dropping down on your face in an open field or empty parking lot.  In my proposed system, being pinned never makes you harder to kill...it is a reaction from the realization of almost being killed.

I think the pinning rules should be very simple; no specialized counters, dice or cards required.  No extra game phases or extra effect determinations, just harnessing what is already in the game for a specific purpose.  No need to necessarily tie them into a 'morale' system.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: smokingwreckage on May 11, 2011, 06:40:29 AM
What if, on an exact kill, a player had the option of "pinning" instead of taking a casualty? It's player choice to invoke gut-reaction.

Clearly it would need to be close to as bad as a kill. What if a squad could instantly each move two inches, blow their fire action, and "go prone" or similar? In essence, cede the firefight for a moment to avoid taking kills? Can anyone see a way that such a rule could be balanced?
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on May 11, 2011, 11:56:26 AM
To once again be clear, our group's complaint with pinning had nothing to do with realism or lack thereof or whether it's psychological or physical. Our issues were purely gameplay issues. In its most basic form, the issue was as follows. It is easier to score one 5+ on two dice than it is to score one 4+ on one die. But it's harder to score one 6+ on two dice than it is one 5+ on one die. I think that point is made in either the Advanced Rules or the Scenario Pack, when advice is given on when to autofire. In short, if you need a 4+, the advice is to autofire, and if  you need a 5+, the advice is to not autofire.

In a Legions of Steel, an AK Rifle and a Deadbolt Launcher are quite similar weapons, with the AK Rifle given a slight edge due to the flexibility of a higher rate of fire. In normal circumstances, a Deadbolt Launcher requires a 4+ on one die, or a 5+ on two die, to score a kill. In those same circumstances, an AK Rifle requires a 5+ on two die, or a 6+ on four die, to score a kill. The net result for both weapons is that the 5+ on two die is the preferred attack. Where the AK starts to gain an advantage is in specialized circumstances, where spreadfire maikes the ROF 4 6+ kill more attractive, or where standing still makes a 5+ on four die an option, and so forth. Where the Deadbolt Launcher gains an advantage is at medium range or covering -1, where a single 5+ is better than the two 6+ of the AK Rifle. And so forth. Bottom line: you can make an argument that the weapons are equally powerful, though they demand slightly different tactics.

Now look at Planetstorm. In order to score a kill in normal circumstances, the AK Rifle now requires a 6+ on two dice, while the Deadbolt Launcher requires a 5+ on one die. this is where the "equality" of the weapons starts to break down. the Deadbolt Launcher gains a clear advantage. Additionally, the -1 GM of the T70 armor is no longer balanced with the +1 Move score for a typical Fantasian. Again, this is due to the skewing effects pinning has on kill numbers. However, if you look at the UPV of a AK Rifleman versus a G1 Nightmare, the AK Rifleman costs 3 points more. Yes, Gauss Grenades are better than nachtmachers, but that only counteracts the armor disadvantage (the +3 modifier helping counteract the -1 armor modifier), not the weapon one, and that's only two charges while the units are closing on each other. And yes, the AK Rifleman has a MASLAW, but he'll have to be extremely lucky to get close enough to use it. Bottom line: in most circumstances in Planetstorm the G1 will have an advantage over the AK Rifleman, specifically due to the pinning rule, and yet the AK Rifleman costs more.

You can look at the other high rate of fire weapons and come to the exact same conclusion. Two Flechette Gunners...6 ROF at 5+...versus an AutoRAM gunner and e-loader...3 ROF at 4+...and yet the flechette gunners cost a few points more. Basically any weapon that requires a 5+ kill is a weapon to be avoided.

Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 07:28:25 PM
If you take a look at the UPV calculator spreadsheet I posted in the media gallery, you can see that, given my assumptions, the AK end up being an exra UPV indoors and basically the same outdoors as the DBL.  That had to do with the assumptions about how often you might be shooting at different modifiers as well as the relative value of a pin compared to a kill.  If you assume fewer negatives and more more +1 shots, then the value of the AK creeps up.  If you value pins more than the 0.25 kills currently, then the value of the AK goes up a little as well, relative to the DBL (which is pegged as the base weapon worth 20 UPV).

The AK is basically a DBL that always autofires but has the option of double-autofiring. It gets deadlier with stationary fire but worse whenever you kill number goes to 7+ because of the way roll enhancements work.  In general, your average number of kills is the same, but your chance of missing goes up as you also have a chance at scoring multiple kills, which is only good if you have adjacent targets or a fiend.

(+1 modifier)
1d6@3+    17% to pin  50% to kill
2d6@4+    19% to pin  56% to kill
4d6@5+    28% to pin  52% to kill

(+0 modifier)
1d6@4+    17% to pin  33% to kill
2d6@5+    25% to pin  31% to kill
4d6@6+    23% to pin  29% to kill

(-1 modifier)
1d6@5+    17% to pin  17% to kill
2d6@6+    15% to pin  16% to kill
4d6@7+    18% to pin  11% to kill

(-2 modifier)
1d6@6+      8% to pin    8% to kill
2d6@7+      11% to pin  5% to kill
4d6@8+      11% to pin  0% to kill

The DBL can choose the first or second option, the AK can choose the second or third (a Lance would have to choose the third, or go nutz with 8d6).  For Fantasians troopers vs Nightmares, the problem isn't so much the weapon as it is the armour.  They have to get to cover first using their superior speed and gauss grenades to cover their advance or to stun the Machines.  They can't trade stationary fire at 55" in the open because fig-for-fig a Nighmare can dish out more than 3 times as many kills (not counting leadership which would put three troopers from a section on par).

In general, the weapons don't vary all that much, although with lots of weapons firing, the difference between 5% and 8% kills is huge, proportionately speaking.

The flechette gunners actually have the advantage at longer ranges (41"-45" and 51"+) which might be why the computed UPV ended up 9 point higher for two of them compared to an AutoRam team but I think that should be revisited.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 08:55:22 PM
Tp summarize Sgt_Hasp's recommendations and make some observations:

A pin forces a figure to become fired and halt its movement.  If it is already fired, a pin will still stop additional movement if the pin was due to cover fire, but if you score a pin on your turn on an enemy that is already fired, there is no effect because they have already finished moving anyways.  If you cover and wait for them to go, then you take a -1 penalty, so for the same roll to pin the guy, you could have killed him on your own turn, so you take the shot, or pick a target that isn’t fired if one is available. However, you won’t be encouraged to cover 0 rather than stationary fire at +1.

You might suppress if the rules were modified so that a suppressed figure that tries to become “un-fired” can’t without a morale check, or you get an extra attack in if they try to move or fire.

It might be worth your while if you pin on one or two less than a kill, for all weapons and not just support weapons, which comes back to your other suggestion.

You can’t effectively pepper pot unless you have a numerical advantage, or at least weapons that allow one attacker to pin two targets.

You are probably right about breaks and rallies being a hold-over from medieval games, although I recall ASL used break and rally rules.  I really don’t know of any real world examples off hand from the 20th or 21st century where troops broke and ran and then rallied, rather than simply surrendering as the enemy approached or simply keep running.

Keeping only the “flinch” result from the moral rules, then you take a kill, and your unit has to pass a morale check or be fired (pinned).

The flip side of the buddy effect is that having guys close tends to increase morale, and when guys get scared, they tend to bunch up (which makes them fodder for automatic fire). Not sure how that would be reflected.

There should be some sort of pinning effect for Machines, if nothing else but play balance, but also so that you can use the same basic tactics against them as well.

There were actually two reasons for putting pinning into the game.  First was to reflect the whole “winning the firefight” but secondly was to cut down on the lethality of the game, which is why you pin on an exact roll and not a near miss.  FIBUA is a meat grinder, and indoors you have walls blocking your fire, and you are walking or running to get into firing positions while using grenades and stuff to impede fire.  Occasionally you have a bunch or guys all in a room rolling initiative to see which side gets to stationary fire at the other first, but generally you keep moving which keeps the lethality in check.

Outdoors there isn’t as much blocking terrain but there tends to be more places to hide than in a tunnel; even flat terrain isn’t and has dips and such that can prevent a clear shot or allow the target to get some sort of cover (ie. pinned) rather than getting killed outright.

The ranges are still short compared to the actual effective ranges due to the assumption of instinctive shooting rather than aimed fire.  Whether that should be changed or modified is another story, but look at a battle in the open.  With your typical weapons at under 25”, 12 Nightmares will score 7 kills and 2 pins.  That’s all she wrote for a UNE section.  The UNE section (one leadership to each flechette gunner plus one other RAM laser fire) will score 5 or 6 kills plus 1 or 2 pins if they fire on separate targets, but if they are able to spreadfire the average for the section is 7 kills and 4 pins, which basically takes out a horde.  Keeping the same kill numbers and making a pin on a near miss would keep the same average number of pins but increase the kills by the number of pins.  Basically, at short range, a stationary unit will take out another similar unit if it is standing in the open, which is the way it should be.  But how much more lethal do we want to make it? And how much more lethal at longer ranges?
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 09:18:53 PM
I always used both the pinning and the decimation rules in Planetstorm. My own, merely anecdotal experience is as follows:

I'm still reading and digesting sergeant_hastp's post/essay, but I think I disagree on some of his points (forgive me if I'm not understanding them correctly yet):
  • I really don't see Pinning as a purely psychological effect, I see it as trying to avoid getting perforated - which has a significant, detrimental impact on one's combat effectiveness (Machine or otherwise).

By the current rules it doesn't really have a strong detrimental effect. A minor inconvenience.

I think he meant that getting dead was detrimental, which makes you think twice about exposing yourself even if you have unshakeable morale like a machine.

Quote
The radical effect the current rules have on gameplay is to re-design your forces so that they have a better chance of killing than pinning. As you play more and more planetstorm, you inevitably begin to optimize your force just like any other game. You avoid weapons like the flechette gun, if possible, in favor of weapons like the autoram laser. You avoid weapons like the AK Rifle in favor of the PKM. You avoid any armor that gives your opponent a kill bonus, with the possible exception of sprint-capable or jump-capable troops. Entire units go out the window, like Fantasian Powered Infantry Squads. Fantasia as a whole, by way of example, only remains competitive with T85-heavy units once you're playing against someone who understands how to properly optimize a force.

You bastard, the whole point of the UPV system was so you couldn't optimize! ;D ;D

If you look at the other post, there isn't a significant difference between DBLs and AKs, although the point is taken that the Flechette gunner is a bit overpriced compared to the AutoRAM team (the latter should be about 109 less a discount for needing the e-loader and operating as a team and such).

The armour thing is more problematic.  It just might be that the Fantasian gausss weapons are overpriced.  If I recall, the base for the armour was 10 UPV, +2 for the 5 movement, 20 UPV for the AK, and then 4 points a piece for the gauss weapons for a total of 44 UPV.  Additionally, the Fantasians are overgunned for the strength of their armour since the UPV is calculated as Offence+Defence rather than OffenceXDefence, the optimal is to have a weapon UPV equal to the UPV of your armour.  Not sure what to do about that without  making the UPV system more complicated and less grounded.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 09:59:01 PM
Okay,

Just to make sure I understand it right;

The classic pinning rules look and behave like this: . . . . .

Okay, so as I see it:. . . . .

That's pretty much it.

Quote
When he does start moving, he passes through a Gremlin’s arc of fire.  (shudder).  That little bugger needs a 5 or better with his carbine, and has been sitting there, just waiting for this opportunity (covering-0)

He gets exactly what he needs, and Pte Bloggins again finds himself courting disaster. He dives for available cover, for the alternative is certain death.  But…now he still has his fire action which is converted to Covering….

(This is a bit confusing. (rule 4.326).  Does this mean he is pinned, and thus ‘fired’…or is he pinned…and still has a Covering 0, -1 or -2?)

4.326 involves a suppressing figure, which becomes fired.  4.325 involves a moving figure which has not fired that becomes pinned; it ends its movement and covers at -1 if walking or -2 if running (and theoretically 0 if it was stationary and was about to fire or suppress when it got pinned by covering fire).

Quote
So hopefully, I’m getting your intent that the Pinning effect is the actual action...the physical response of realizing you nearly died…and thus taking a dash and getting to cover, or just plain ducking if you are near cover or in a fighting trench.

The question remains for me…what makes him go to cover?  Is it a training drill?  Is it fear of almost dying? Is it just good sense?  A bit of all of the above?

You have the morale-factor for getting back up…but what MAKES him dive for cover, without any choice?

Good sense/survival instinct.  But you do have a choice, which is what 4.325 is all about.  Perhaps you need to make a morale (ie. training/discipline check) to ignore a pin result, but it goes like this:

Suppose you come under fire while advancing at a walk, and take a pin.  But wait, since it was their covering fire during your phase (they were lying in wait), you have a choice: you can take the pin, stop moving and cover -1; or you can ignore the pin, expose yourself, finish your movment, and take a normal shot.  If the enemy has blown its wad, then there is no one left to shoot at you this turn then, depending on the range and such, it might make more sense to charge them (finish your move) and fire to kill or pin them in return. Does that sound a bit more like how you would win the fire fight?

If you have already fired, then nothing happens until you decide what to do about being pinned.  At that point you can expose yourself, cover, or come un-pinned.  But in the meantime we assume that you have your head down rather than being exposed until you make that decision.

For an immobile target like a forcewall: you can't pin or expose it, you just kill it as you walk your fire on to it because it can't react. To keep the rules unnecessarily consistent, your near miss would expose it and then you would probably kill it the next turn, but why bother with that hassle?
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 10:09:08 PM
I think my concern is with just how real do you want the combat and pinning to be?

What if there is not cover with in the figures allowance of movement in one turn?
What if there is no cover available for the weapon type that just pinned the figure?

I don't mind the pinning rule desire for the game. But just how realistic are you attempting to be?

And how simple are the desired pinning rules?

Dave Chase

It's a bit abstract in that you can't represent every nook and cranny on a battlefield so even "flat" and "open" terrain provides some modicum of cover. So the what if question is answered in a sort of anthropic manner: if there was no cover available when he was pinned, he would have been killed instead of pinned, so obviously there was cover available.  ;D 

In the Draft rules there are allowances for different types of terrain.  If you tried to go to ground in the middle of an empty parking lot, it wouldn't help much so you tend to get killed instead of pinned.  At the other end, if you are in a fortification and you start taking fire, you just duck down so the chances of pinning are a lot higher, and the pinned guys are harder to kill so you generally have to advance and grenade them, or flame them to finish them off.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 11, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
Dending on the FPS game, you can get different reactions.  Counterstrike isn't particularly realistic as you can run, leap through the air, and shoot the other guy in the head.  Or you can take a full mag of 9mm to the chest and still return fire.  But if you are at any sort of range - particularly if you don't know where the fire is coming from - then you find some cover, move about and then pop out from the cover at a different point to engage the enemy.  Ghost Recon is a different story because one hit usually kills.  Again, if you don't know where the fire is coming from, you take cover, acquire your target and return fire.  If you are already in a firing position then you ignore the near misses and line the bastard up in your sights.  If there are multiple opponents then odds are one of those near misses will find you, so maybe discretion is the better part of valour.

I've only played paintball once way back in the day, but if you are under cover and rounds are landing all about you, I would think that you would try to shift position a couple of metres, pop up where they don't expect you, and return fire. 

I see the paradox in the training because you expect them to be pinned but expect our guys not to fall for that.

Due to the way turns go, it seems that simply making a covering/moving target fired (and no effect on one that is already fired) isn't a big enough penalty.
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: SgtHulka on May 11, 2011, 11:08:56 PM
Wow, dude, I concede based on the completeness of your response alone! How the heck did you follow and respond to three different arguments at once?

I am convinced. Planetstorm by the rules as written or bust! =)
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: sergeant_hastp on May 13, 2011, 12:39:00 AM
I remain unconvinced.  8)

But I think I've made my views as plain as I can.  Obviously there will be the official version, and then the version used in my house.  (I've never been much for playing by the rules for very long anyway.  ;D )
Title: Re: Pinning
Post by: Clark on May 13, 2011, 02:09:02 PM
People often make the mistake of thinking that soldiers (and lawyers) actually follow the rules.