Posted: 2026-04-20 12:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by AnomanderRake, 36 responses at time of this post.
My playgroup has been messing around with various editions of Middlehammer (mostly 4th and 7th/HH1) recently, and we've been talking about trying to mess around with the rules a bit and see what happens. In theory this is in service of a set of rules using the bones of 7th, adjusted for ease and speed of play, with an eye towards maximizing compatibility with as wide a range of minis as possible. Some ideas we've been tossing around:
-Line of Sight/terrain height: I actually kind of like the 2d line of sight implementation in 10e, but I kind of want to pull in terrain/unit height to allow for a little more granularity in positioning. The idea would be that all units and terrain have a height (generally 1 for infantry, 2 for most vehicles/monsters, say), and then terrain adds its height to the height of things standing on it (a one-level ruin might be height 2, so it'd let an infantry unit see/be seen over most vehicles). You then draw LoS in 2 dimensions and it's blocked by anything that's equal to or taller than both the firing model and the target. Units would block LoS (both friendly and enemy), to let you hide valuable units behind expendable units like how old-school Target Priority worked but without having a whole extra dice roll step when attacking. Height might also factor into vertical melee distance so you don't need whole extra special rules to determine that a Knight can melee an upper level of a ruin from where it's standing on the ground.
-Unit coherency and blasts: Actually playing 7e involves a lot of spreading infantry units out into a maximum-coherency grid; I think removing "partial hits" from blast templates may have been an overcorrection to the addition of the 32mm base. That said having an extra dice roll step isn't necessarily something that I want to hold onto, but it might be interesting to make a partial hit from a blast/template dete...
Post continues at https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/818648.page
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-20 11:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by Mr Nobody, 36 responses at time of this post.
So right now the various denizens of twitter are bickering with each other over the current Yarrick trailer. More specifically the lack of The Armageddon Steel Legion within said trailer. Some lament the lack of the Steel legion while others are waving away such concerns by pointing out things like repainting or DKOK, making your own kitbashes or buying third party. I think both sides have valid points.
But then I thought to myself, what would be the best way to support the Imperial Guard? There are so many different worlds and warbands to pick from. I always felt that was the charm of collection IG. I remember older WD magazines being full of article for kitbashes and various paint schemes. Not as much as the vaunted space marines, but still.
So if you were in charge of GW, how would you handle the IG releases?
Should there be multiples codices or just one big book with a ton of customization? Maybe smaller, suplimental codcies like the various space marines.
Could there perhaps be multiple troop boxes? I imagine if you had three main regiments as boxes within distinct aesthetics, you could kitbash those into a variety of other regiments. Killteam is another route they could take. That's how they first reintroduced the DKOK. They could do the same with other regiment kill teams.
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-20 10:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by JNAProductions, 36 responses at time of this post.
See title.
A Great Unclean One has a 6+ Feel No Pain and 20 Wounds.
On average, that's the same as having 24 Wounds and no FNP.
I would be 100% fine changing them to no a FNP, 24 Wound statline. But this is also a case where that 6+ can be attempted a minimum of 20 times before death.
What about a 5+ FNP and a W2 model? That's, on average, the same as W3 with no FNP. But in practice it's pretty different, since you've still got a close to 50% chance of dying to 2 damage.
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-20 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-19 10:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by Adeptekon, 36 responses at time of this post.
I don't know how common place this is across homeworlds nor that which has been conquered, but I've recently learned that some of our brothers on fedual worlds are doing things the traditional way. Particularly when resources and supply chains are next to non-existent. To be specific the chapter militia, however as recruits are inducted into these militias some are clad like Astartes. The armor may be powered or not, but it is much smaller and lighter regardless. They do not compare in size or weight of a first born and it is a questionable practice to mimic presence of a battle brother. No... it's an offense.
Yet rather than to police that on distant worlds with little interaction other than their due tithe we may for now ignore it. The humans are equipped well enough to handle what they have to deal with. Though we will want to discuss transitioning this practice to something that distinqushes men-at-arms, base human "knights" from Adeptus Astartes marines, and lay ground rules with their Artificers.
For such a breed of horse to carry a first born it would need to reach five thousand lbs in order to bear the weight of a fully armored space marine, and as well any barding worn by the horse. This is unrealistic even with genetic engineering without the hand of the Emperor. The Templar regents on these low tech worlds cut off from supply lines have made an executive descision to use base humans in place of Astartes (marines they have no means to produce) to maintain their lands while only a single ancient remains to manage the chapter keep.
Here are a few images we captured (sorry embed appears not to work for these)
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-19 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 14:59:07
|
|
By JoshInJapan
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 13:59:07
|
|
By KeX
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 12:59:07
|
|
Unknown creator
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 11:59:07
|
|
By Olthannon
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 10:59:07
|
|
By RAFF
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-18 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-17 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-16 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-15 12:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by Dryaktylus, 13 responses at time of this post.
British science fiction writer Ian Watson died on April 13.
Well, I read only his four 40k novels and two short stories, but being the author of the first novel in the grim and dark weirdness of the far future he set a landmark. And while those novels were... special... I mostly liked them. And things like the fractured Emperor, the masochistic secrets of the Imperial Fists and the last chapter of Space Marine I'll always remember. Thanks for that. :'(
My condolence to his friends and family.
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-15 11:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by Da Boss, 36 responses at time of this post.
The thread on new editions got me thinking - in the various games I played, when did I think was the "best" time?
A lot of people say it's your first edition of a game that is your favourite, but for me that wasn't really the case.
40K - started in 2e and had a lot of fun, but I think the peak of the game for me was late 4e-early 5e, and if I had to pick one, I'd pick early 5e before the codex releases made it a bit less fun to play. The 3e system had matured into something pretty complete, I had a really fun codex in the late 4e Ork codex and I was having a blast playing the game with loads of build variety and new kits to play with. 6e and 7e bloated the system out without improving it, and introduced formations and superheavies as core game concepts and I really hate formations especially.
WFB - Started in 5e and again, had a lot of fun, though even I as a teen could see that my Slann Mage Priest was crazy over-powered. I think late 6e, when all the books were out, was the best time. I had so much fun playing narrative and siege games back then and although 40K was by far more popular I was really in love with the Old World. I was really optimistic about 7e and liked it at first, but the infamous trio of bad army books really soured me on the edition sadly. I was again optimistic for 8e but just a mix of things really put me off - stupid terrain rules, overpowered magic, massive unwieldy units...
Old World it seems to me is not an improvement on any of these, and they increased the base sizes so petulantly I'm not even gonna give it a fair go!
Warmachine and Hordes - I was an early adopter of this locally, got in in 1e. 2e was by far the best version of the game for me, though late in the edition they started introducing "theme lists" which were their version of formations and they were really bad. But you could just ignore them which I did. Really tight, f...
Post continues at https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/818705.page
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-15 10:59:07
|
|
By RAFF
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-15 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-14 10:59:07
|
|
|
Forum post by mrFickle, 36 responses at time of this post.
Hi All
I get the Abaddon it’s really powerful and skilful and a great leader and general etc. And that the black legion is a home for any astartes that wants to rebel against their chapter or faction or the imperium. But Abaddon has an arms length relationship with the chaos gods and uses their power without committing to them like a good demon prince wannabe.
Where are the word bearers are the OG CSM. They started the heresy and go harder than anyone else on their worship of chaos. So why haven’t the chaos gods gone all in on them giving them the power to wreak havoc and go on their own black crusades type adventures.
Is it just the way GW wanted to focus on the black legion when CSM launched? Or is there a lore reason?
|
|
Posted: 2026-04-14 09:59:07
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Next Page (older)
|
|
|
