Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Current Ruleset v0.5:
http://tinyurl.com/6wp2zur

Codex Update v0.1s:
http://tinyurl.com/6t7bhy5

• Removed Squad leader references
• Changed shaken to stunned where applicable
• Corrected some language issues
• Added Black Templars
• Added Necrons

Version 0.5
• Pinning now Stuns instead of shakes (as does going to ground)
• Replaced sniper’s directed hits with: Bulls eye: For each wound that rends, on a 4+ that wound is directed. (perhaps clunky)
• Changed stunned to allows “Combat” and “Strike” actions.
• Changed “Regain Combat rediness” to change Stunned->Dazed for your units, and Dazed=>Normal for enemy units.
(Stunned/Dazed have the same gameplay effects, they just differ in when they recover)


Link:
http://tinyurl.com/6wp2zur

Version 0.4


Version 0.4
• Actually changed walkers this time......Page 112.
• Removed “Covering Fire”
• Changed “Regroup” to allow any squad to attempt.
• Changed shooting to hit back to 5th edition (7-BS), and added rules for modifiers.
• Removed “Psychic Counter”
• Removed ALL “Squad Leader” references”
• Changed definition of “Character”
• Removed Flyers / Gargantuan Creatures / Super Heavy
• Changed “Squadron Discipline”. Free extra armour and immobilized removes model from unit.

Sounds good. How can I get your update?

-Matt

If i'm not allowed to post this link, let me know.

http://tinyurl.com/8xljgxk

Hyperlinks don't work inside google docs. So you have to Download it and use Reader.

Directed Hits simply must change. It's the most game-breakingest rule to ever exist (yes, that's not a word).

DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits simply must change. It's the most game-breakingest rule to ever exist (yes, that's not a word).

Can you explain how it's so broken? I can't seem to see it.

DarknessEternal wrote:Directed Hits simply must change. It's the most game-breakingest rule to ever exist (yes, that's not a word).

While I disagree with the whole "most game-breakingest rule ever" thing, it could certainly be toned down. What we are looking at doing for the revision in our group is making a weapon/model with the directed hits rule only get to select their target on a to hit roll of a natural 6. Also, cover-fire can only be used if within 24" of the target squad.

Proposed change to Directed Hits: (short hand)


Directed Hits:

All IC's and Characters (non-vehicle Squad Leaders) can use directed hits on any To-Hit (both CC and shooting) Rolls of 6.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Proposed change to Directed Hits: (short hand)


Directed Hits:

All IC's and Characters (non-vehicle Squad Leaders) can use directed hits on any To-Hit (both CC and shooting) Rolls of 6.

I really like that.

All directed hits needs to be fixed is people remodelling and shaking up their list. All sergeants need to be in a new armour category now!

It might seem overpowered, but the rule affects everyone, so everyone's PF, meltas and plasma guns will die first, not just yours.

Is it possible to put everything into more specific and logical sections? Hyperlinking is great, but it won't work if you're planning on printing them out and having them as you would a normal rulebook. I'm not sure how you'd do it (rewriting it all, I guess, though there has to be an easier way), but consolidating everything, maybe making a Reference section in which everything relating to a certain phase goes?

Like, Movement Reference, Assault Reference, Shooting Reference, Consolidation Reference? Might be cool.

Directed hits shouldn't be in at all, unless you want sniperhammer.
Expect the standard guard layout to become snipervets with 3 ratling squads.

Joey wrote:Directed hits shouldn't be in at all, unless you want sniperhammer.
Expect the standard guard layout to become snipervets with 3 ratling squads.

You are on a ridicolous crusade. You pretty much killed the 6th ed IG-thread with your whining. Please don't do the same with this thread.

Don't bother with this guy, he has been told a thousand times how to minimize ranged directed hits, and he has chosen to ignore all of it every time.

Sniper-vets will go from total garbage to somewhat usable in pancake edition, which is a good thing, but plasma and meltavets will still be better. Ratlings are a competitive unit with these rules (as in, can be used in a competitive list), but not anywhere close to overpowered.

Some more ideas to chew on:


Walkers:

Assaults against front armour.


Tanks:

-1 on the damage table.
+1 to hit.


Fire Points:

1 Shooting Action per firepoint.
Model may act as relentless, if so LOS reduced to 18"


Open-topped:

Open Topped Tanks dont get -1 from being TANK.
Passengers do not get Relentless.
All passengers can fire if made a Combat Move.


Going to Ground:

+1 Cover Save for the entire turn.


Jink / Swarm:

Always -1 to-hit.
Unit losses jink if immobilized?


Turboboost / Flatout:

-1 to-hit. (stacks with jink/swarm)


Supersonic:

No Flyer rules.
As with flat out, except 4 x move and -1 to hit. (stacks with jink/swarm)



Hull Breach:
Can occur within the same volley.
Multiple "Wrecks" hull breach to "Explode"



Blasts:

Roll to Hit for each blast shot. Each "Hit" lands on unit, make multiple blasts touch.
All misses land in the same spot. Roll Scatter(No Hits)+2D6-BS

Barrage weapons use the same rules, except misses Scatter(No Hits) 2D6.


Flesh and Steel:

+1 Toughness Always.


Outflank:

Arrive from short edge of your chooing. Move onto the board as if you were just off the table.


Jump / Flying:

Move = 9.


Directed Hits:

All IC's and Characters (non-vehicle Squad Leaders) can use directed hits on any To-Hit Rolls of 6.


Sniper:

All sniper To-Hit Rolls of 6, Rend and are directed.


No Retreat:
Take LD test with penalties.
If failed, allocate a number of critical hits equal to the amount they lost combat by, to engaged units.
No model can be assigned more than one hit (including multiple wound models)

I am definitely interested in a hyperlinked version of pancake edition, not so much on modifying the rules.

ph34r wrote:I am definitely interested in a hyperlinked version of pancake edition, not so much on modifying the rules.

Let me explain whjy I feel the need for these changes. Again these are only suggestions that we can discuss if they are necessary or not.


1) Walkers being hit on the rear in assault, changes their entire role in an army. I am almost 99% positive that this is just an omission.

2) Tanks / Jink / Swarm: The EV system is a great idea. Its just needlessly complex. The chart is basically useless as you rarely use more than 3 values. Additionally MC being hit on 2+ (plus the addition of AP3 negating FNP) makes MCs very expensive for how survivable they are. So my suggestion makes only tanks +1 to hit, to offset their -1 on the damage table. Additionally, swarm and jink units are ALWAYS -1 to hit as they are small and agile. Therefore nothing gets a penalty for remaining stationary. The game rules already penalize units for standing still, as most units can score some points on objectives. It also reduces the sevarity of first turn shooting, as in the leak going second against an all shooting army you take tremendous casualties.

3) Turbo Boost / Supersonic: Again the flyers rule are needlessly complex and quite frankly don't add much to the game. Unit placement means alot less when someone can practically re-position anywhere every other turn. So instead, Make turbo boost -1 to hit (to jive with #2. And Change supersonic back to 4 x Move with a -1 to hit. (turbo and supersonic do not stack, but they stack with jink/swarm)

4) Firepoints: More just a clarification, as it stands now, a rhino that stands still, cannot have a missile launcher shot 48". That just seems restrictive. Make relentless an optional bonus with a drawback.

5) Open-topped: This one I'm not very "sure" on. I think they need to allowed to have all units fire if you made a combat move, because you are forgoing one of your advantages which is to hop out and charge. You should get something in return. It also just doesn't make sense to restrict an open-topped transport to 1 model firing (its immersion breaking). Since we are giving that, we should remove the opportunity to be relentless. Perhaps you limit the LOS to 18" on the move to be more in line with firepoints, i'm not quite sure.

Additionally I feel like its off to have NON-TANK NON-TRANSPORT Open-topped vehicles have no benefit or draw back. It effectively has no bearing on any rule in the book. I'm not a fan of adding a +1 to damage table as I think that is too far, but perhaps glancing hits are -1 instead of -2 to show their structural fragility. Again, not sure.


6) Going to Ground: This again is just stupid. The leak modified a perfectly good rule to become effectively useless and immersion breaking. In the leak you can only use G2G against 1 units shooting, apparently you stand back up after that. Your still shaken mind you, but you gain no further benefit. My proposal keeps that rule EXACTLY as its written, with the change that you gain the +1 cover save for the entire turn. Not a massive change, but it at least makes it a decent option in battle.

7) Hull Breach: This one will need some play testing. But it bothers me to no end that if unit A fires a lascannon and scores an immobilized result, then unit b fires one and scores an immobilized result. The vehicle is destroyed. That's all well and good. The problem is if Unit C fires 2 lascannons at another vehicle and both score immobilized results.............the thing is just immobilized. Both vehicles got hit with the same number of shot and results, except one is destroyed and the other isn't.

To me this just encourages 1 dimensional list building (MSU).


8) Blast: I don't mind the blast weapon rules that much, except for Multi-blasts. In the leak, a 4 x Plasma Cannon Dev Squad basically cannot miss a decent sized squad. Because it has a max scatter of 4" with 4 templates that get to touch each other. My change still eliminates the need for the scatter die on most single weapons as they just roll to hit as normal. Its only on the misses (or group of misses) that you roll Scatter+2D6. Seems to me to be a decent compromise. It makes blast weapons better than in 5th, but not broken. Same for barrage, just less accurate if firing indirectly.


9) Flesh and Steel: Again its not like bike lists were ruling the world. Its unnecessary to remove the +1 toughness in combat. Keep it as in 5th.

10) Outflank: That made it AWESOME by just letting you choose the side, with a slight penalty to reserves as they have to go "the long way". But why give them a free 6" move ontop of that? It makes assault units from outflank the clear winning in deployment choices. Change it back to 5th where they are magically "just off the table" and leave it at that. Still powerful, but doesn't feel broken.

11) Jump / Flying: This is more a type correction. Its meationed that they are move 9 in some places, and move 8 others. 9 makes more sense, as it keeps the 18" threat range they had in 5th. While slightly lowering the normal movement, they do get to run a full 18" ever turn if they choose (where previously it was 12+D6.)

12) Directed Hits: Again this is just a balance thing. Too many directed hits and people cry cheeze. It doesn't matter if both sides get an equal opportunity to do it, as someone ultimately goes first. Making them have a chance, tones down the power and adds the anticipation to pulling it off. (much like tesla weapons)

13) Sniper: Again with having it tied it to a 6, you tone the power and increase the "fun" of rolling them.

14) No Retreat: This in fact may be how the rules re intended, so i'm not really changing anything here, more just clarifying, erroring on the side of reason.

Examples:

Trygon Prime looses combat by 3: He would take a LD test at LD 7. If failed would take 1 wound. (I think RAW in the leak he might take 3 and die. Which I think is dumb)

Trygon Prime + 7 Gaunts lose combat by 5: Each squad takes LD test. Each one that failed would take 5 critical hits. Trygon gets 1 (excess are lost) and gaunts lose 5 models. ( RAW the trygon would take 5 wounds, even if he was never hurt in combat. Have each model take maximum of 1 wound, regardless of wounds smooths this out.)

This actually encourages you to send in small units to aid monstrous creatures instead of fearing it. As any hits they contribute lessed the leadership penalty to help you avoid those woulds altogether.

Illumini wrote:

Joey wrote:Directed hits shouldn't be in at all, unless you want sniperhammer.
Expect the standard guard layout to become snipervets with 3 ratling squads.

You are on a ridicolous crusade. You pretty much killed the 6th ed IG-thread with your whining. Please don't do the same with this thread.

Don't bother with this guy, he has been told a thousand times how to minimize ranged directed hits, and he has chosen to ignore all of it every time.

Sniper-vets will go from total garbage to somewhat usable in pancake edition, which is a good thing, but plasma and meltavets will still be better. Ratlings are a competitive unit with these rules (as in, can be used in a competitive list), but not anywhere close to overpowered.

Well yeah, that's because directed hits make Imperial Guard pointless.
Only on a natural roll of six would go some way to addressing this, though I'd prefer it was removed all together, or at least remove rending. No weapon should get BOTH of those affects.
Unless fans think it's really cool and "makes sense in the fluff" in which case feth it make them 2+ to hit too

Didn't sniper rifles used to hit on 2+?

Anyway, I don't think directed hits are all that difficult to deal with. I do agree that it can be abused with certain armies.

Personally I would like to see sniper weapons give directed hits on hits of 5+ with rending on a wound of 6.

acekevin8412 wrote:Didn't sniper rifles used to hit on 2+?

Anyway, I don't think directed hits are all that difficult to deal with. I do agree that it can be abused with certain armies.

Personally I would like to see sniper weapons give directed hits on hits of 5+ with rending on a wound of 6.

That's not a bad idea either. That gives:

BS4 Snipers: 50% to direct and 25% to rend on each HIT.

BS3 Snipers: 66% to direct and 33% to rend on each HIT.

Sounds good to me.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

acekevin8412 wrote:Didn't sniper rifles used to hit on 2+?

Anyway, I don't think directed hits are all that difficult to deal with. I do agree that it can be abused with certain armies.

Personally I would like to see sniper weapons give directed hits on hits of 5+ with rending on a wound of 6.

That's not a bad idea either. That gives:

BS4 Snipers: 50% to direct and 25% to rend on each HIT.

BS3 Snipers: 66% to direct and 33% to rend on each HIT.

Sounds good to me.

Joey wrote:FACEPALM

OK. We have already established your disdain for directed hits / snipers. No need for further comment. You also realize that this thread is just for those that WANT to help with this. No one is making you post/read here.

I would gladly take your additional feedback on the OTHER items I have proposed. to further this thread along.

Its duly noted that directed hits are not unanimously loved. But you have to admit that if we keep the wound allocation as it stands in the leak, then without additional rules the SW and Sergeants will ALWAYS be the last to die. Something has to be done to shake that up a bit. Perhaps directed hits aren't the answer.

At this point 5th editions handling of wounds is out, as it is needlessly complex and time consuming in most cases.

Any idea what an additional solution could be?

Tapeworm711 wrote:
Its duly noted that directed hits are not unanimously loved. But you have to admit that if we keep the wound allocation as it stands in the leak, then without additional rules the SW and Sergeants will ALWAYS be the last to die. Something has to be done to shake that up a bit. Perhaps directed hits aren't the answer.

Special Weapons and sargents are only last to die if they succeed their armour saves, which is probably fair enough.
squad of 10 tactical marines takes 10 wounds, whaddya know the SW and Sargent will both have to take an armour save.
There's nothing OP or wrong with that.
Unless there's something in the proposed rules I've missed.

That's not how the leak works.

That 10 man squad takes 10 wounds. The entire squad is 1 armor group. Therefore you do not assign wounds to models, you just roll saves. For each failed save, you choose which models die.

So in the leak no one would ever choose to kill the SW or Sargent before the rank and file space marine.

This system works great for speeding up the game. You don't have to count out each wound for every dude that has different gear ect. So you are forced to either roll the dice in groups, or color code each die. This gets even more complicated when IC's are involed. Blood angels ASM squad with Libby and Priest for example. taking 12 wounds should be easy but it fifth requires 7 dice for regular guys, 2 for melta guns, 1 for sarge, 1 for libby , and 1 for priest.

The leak system forgoes all that and you just roll and pick. Which is great for game speed and avoid alot of tedious repetitive actions. But there needs to be some way to have them get killed.

Having some units have sniper weapons, IC and characters doesn't really break the game (especially if we make it on 6's)

Does that make sense?

Tapeworm711 wrote:That's not how the leak works.

That 10 man squad takes 10 wounds. The entire squad is 1 armor group. Therefore you do not assign wounds to models, you just roll saves. For each failed save, you choose which models die.

So in the leak no one would ever choose to kill the SW or Sargent before the rank and file space marine.

This system works great for speeding up the game. You don't have to count out each wound for every dude that has different gear ect. So you are forced to either roll the dice in groups, or color code each die. This gets even more complicated when IC's are involed. Blood angels ASM squad with Libby and Priest for example. taking 12 wounds should be easy but it fifth requires 7 dice for regular guys, 2 for melta guns, 1 for sarge, 1 for libby , and 1 for priest.

The leak system forgoes all that and you just roll and pick. Which is great for game speed and avoid alot of tedious repetitive actions. But there needs to be some way to have them get killed.

Having some units have sniper weapons, IC and characters doesn't really break the game (especially if we make it on 6's)

Does that make sense?

It does. I was not aware that was how wound allocation worked in the leaked ruleset.
Limited directed hits wound indeed seem to balance it somewhat.

A civilized resolution to a message board argument? WTF?!?!!??!?!?!


Feedback would be great on any of the other items I ranted on about. =)

I am undertaking a similar project with my group. One of the goals is to continue what we see as a potential aim of the PDF rules, which is to incorporate several of the previous 40k expansions (Apoc, Planetstrike, etc) under a single game system that can easily be scaled to the size and complexity of game that you and your opponent agree to play. That being said I'll comment on where we are going with a few of the things you listed + plus a couple of the changes we are looking at.

1) Walkers being hit on the rear in assault, changes their entire role in an army. I am almost 99% positive that this is just an omission.

Agree 100%. Seems to be an omission and even if it isn't, I think it works better for one of their roles, and helps balance out their relatively slow speed.

2) Tanks / Jink / Swarm: The EV system is a great idea. Its just needlessly complex. The chart is basically useless as you rarely use more than 3 values. Additionally MC being hit on 2+ (plus the addition of AP3 negating FNP) makes MCs very expensive for how survivable they are. So my suggestion makes only tanks +1 to hit, to offset their -1 on the damage table. Additionally, swarm and jink units are ALWAYS -1 to hit as they are small and agile. Therefore nothing gets a penalty for remaining stationary. The game rules already penalize units for standing still, as most units can score some points on objectives. It also reduces the sevarity of first turn shooting, as in the leak going second against an all shooting army you take tremendous casualties.

Again, agreed 100% and is pretty much the exact same revise we are planning. While liking the modifiers for certain things, the system as presented is overly-clunky. Flat modifiers achieves pretty much the same effect without a rediculous chart, or additional "stat" An additional modifier that needs to be incorporated is a +1 for targeters.

3) Turbo Boost / Supersonic: Again the flyers rule are needlessly complex and quite frankly don't add much to the game. Unit placement means alot less when someone can practically re-position anywhere every other turn. So instead, Make turbo boost -1 to hit (to jive with #2. And Change supersonic back to 4 x Move with a -1 to hit. (turbo and supersonic do not stack, but they stack with jink/swarm)

This is where we start to deviate. In keeping with the spirit of trying to incorporate things like Apoc, the flier rule becomes a requirement. Fliers are not as easy to use as they seem, due to normally being effective or useful every other turn. Placement actually becomes more important as wherever your final placement of the flier is, you still need to be able to draw LOS for your weapons from that location to your target, be in range of your weapons, and try to stay 3" away from enemy units so they cannot use the Incoming! rule against you. To work with the removal of EV, we give fliers a -3 to hit that is unable to be additionally modified. AA weapons/models negate this modifier. I think the turbo-boost will get left as is for now, until we work a little more with bikes.

4) Firepoints: More just a clarification, as it stands now, a rhino that stands still, cannot have a missile launcher shot 48". That just seems restrictive. Make relentless an optional bonus with a drawback.

5) Open-topped: This one I'm not very "sure" on. I think they need to allowed to have all units fire if you made a combat move, because you are forgoing one of your advantages which is to hop out and charge. You should get something in return. It also just doesn't make sense to restrict an open-topped transport to 1 model firing (its immersion breaking). Since we are giving that, we should remove the opportunity to be relentless. Perhaps you limit the LOS to 18" on the move to be more in line with firepoints, i'm not quite sure.

Additionally I feel like its off to have NON-TANK NON-TRANSPORT Open-topped vehicles have no benefit or draw back. It effectively has no bearing on any rule in the book. I'm not a fan of adding a +1 to damage table as I think that is too far, but perhaps glancing hits are -1 instead of -2 to show their structural fragility. Again, not sure.

We are having some issues on these as well. Before I get into what we are tossing around as a solution, I'll put down another 2 changes that are indirectly linked:

Instant Death/Eternal Warrior - Having multiple levels of these is a little too clunky for our liking, however just a single level of each does not really plug in well due to how other rules interact. A proposal for this is to have one "level" of instant death and eternal warrior. This functions exactly as ID(1) and EW(1) do in the PDF. This causes some problems with things like Swarms and Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates. So to fix this, we add another special rule named (temporarily) Overwhelming Firepower. When applied to a weapon or atack, this rule gives it the Instant Death property and ignores Eternal Warrior. All weapons/rules that currently have ID(2) or higher, now have the Overwhelming Firepower property instead. Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates also gets an effect for vehicles. Any vehicle with the Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates that recieves a penetrating hit from a template or blast marker whose hole partially covers the hull of the vehicle automaticlly recieves an additional glancing hit.

Now, back to transports, firepoints, and open-topped vehicles. Firepoints should be restrictive. The most realistic restriction would be in their arc of fire, but as many transports have hatches on the top that are used (giving no real way to limit the arc of fire), the next best solution is the range, in our opinion. 18" seems a little too much, maybe. We are considering increasing this to 24", but we need some more testing.

Open-topped transports would not have firepoints. Any model that is embarked on an open-topped transport may fire or use abilities as if they are standing on the table, using anypoint of the hull to measure range or line of sight from, without the range restriction of firepoints. If the transport moves or loses it's mutitargeting rule, the occupants suffer a range restriction as if they were firing from a firepoint, but all models in the unit may still fire. To balance this fairly powerful capability, if the open-topped transport is struck by a template weapon, or a blast marker whose hole at least partially covers the hull of the transport, the unit inside is subject to 1d3 auto-hits at the firing weapon's str and ap. In addtion to this, open-topped transports also recieve the Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates special rule with the changes I mentioned earlier.

Now we have not had the chance to really test this yet, so it may not balance well, or there may be some unforseen problems with it, but this is the general direction we are thinking.

6) Going to Ground: This again is just stupid. The leak modified a perfectly good rule to become effectively useless and immersion breaking. In the leak you can only use G2G against 1 units shooting, apparently you stand back up after that. Your still shaken mind you, but you gain no further benefit. My proposal keeps that rule EXACTLY as its written, with the change that you gain the +1 cover save for the entire turn. Not a massive change, but it at least makes it a decent option in battle.

We hadn't looked at this one yet, but I would tend to agree with you on this.

7) Hull Breach: This one will need some play testing. But it bothers me to no end that if unit A fires a lascannon and scores an immobilized result, then unit b fires one and scores an immobilized result. The vehicle is destroyed. That's all well and good. The problem is if Unit C fires 2 lascannons at another vehicle and both score immobilized results.............the thing is just immobilized. Both vehicles got hit with the same number of shot and results, except one is destroyed and the other isn't.

I think that in the case of attacks from a single unit, you should apply an order of operations of sorts, starting with the weakest result first. This means you would take any overflow stunned results first and apply them up to weapons destroyed, then overflow weapons destroyed results up to immobilized, overflow immobilized results to wrecked and stop there. I think that leaves the best balance of realism, common sense, and balance of power. Again, that's just my opinion though.

8) Blast: I don't mind the blast weapon rules that much, except for Multi-blasts. In the leak, a 4 x Plasma Cannon Dev Squad basically cannot miss a decent sized squad. Because it has a max scatter of 4" with 4 templates that get to touch each other. My change still eliminates the need for the scatter die on most single weapons as they just roll to hit as normal. Its only on the misses (or group of misses) that you roll Scatter+2D6. Seems to me to be a decent compromise. It makes blast weapons better than in 5th, but not broken. Same for barrage, just less accurate if firing indirectly.

Agreed, pretty much the same conclusion we had.

9) Flesh and Steel: Again its not like bike lists were ruling the world. Its unnecessary to remove the +1 toughness in combat. Keep it as in 5th.

We actually kind of like the PDF version of this. Bikes in CC have always seemed sort of silly to us. We've tossed around the idea of giving bikes some sort of global "sweep" attack like you see with Reavers and CCBs, but that's down the road.

10) Outflank: That made it AWESOME by just letting you choose the side, with a slight penalty to reserves as they have to go "the long way". But why give them a free 6" move ontop of that? It makes assault units from outflank the clear winning in deployment choices. Change it back to 5th where they are magically "just off the table" and leave it at that. Still powerful, but doesn't feel broken.

I think we are going to keep the consistancy of units entering the board from a table edge being placed up to 6" from the edge, but possibly limiting outflankers to a single move action (so combat move or engage).

11) Jump / Flying: This is more a type correction. Its meationed that they are move 9 in some places, and move 8 others. 9 makes more sense, as it keeps the 18" threat range they had in 5th. While slightly lowering the normal movement, they do get to run a full 18" ever turn if they choose (where previously it was 12+D6.)

We pretty much said that generally in any case that text blocks differ from tables, we accept the text block's version. There seem to be more typos in the tables than anywhere else.

12) Directed Hits: Again this is just a balance thing. Too many directed hits and people cry cheeze. It doesn't matter if both sides get an equal opportunity to do it, as someone ultimately goes first. Making them have a chance, tones down the power and adds the anticipation to pulling it off. (much like tesla weapons)

13) Sniper: Again with having it tied it to a 6, you tone the power and increase the "fun" of rolling them.

Addressed this in my previous post.

14) No Retreat: This in fact may be how the rules re intended, so i'm not really changing anything here, more just clarifying, erroring on the side of reason.

Examples:

Trygon Prime looses combat by 3: He would take a LD test at LD 7. If failed would take 1 wound. (I think RAW in the leak he might take 3 and die. Which I think is dumb)

Trygon Prime + 7 Gaunts lose combat by 5: Each squad takes LD test. Each one that failed would take 5 critical hits. Trygon gets 1 (excess are lost) and gaunts lose 5 models. ( RAW the trygon would take 5 wounds, even if he was never hurt in combat. Have each model take maximum of 1 wound, regardless of wounds smooths this out.)

From the No Retreat rule: "However,
he cannot distribute more hits to a unit than the
number of its models. If the player cannot
distribute all hits because of this, any surplus hits
have no effect."

You can never apply more than 1 hit to the Trygon, regardless of the amount of hits generated.



We are also looking at changes to the Strategem system, as we like it, but hate the bidding. Just revert back to a roll for choice of first turn, and seize to try and steal it away. We are looking at having 3 options for SPs depending on the game you want to play:

1) No SPs at all.

2) Each player gets a number of SPs equal to the results of a single d6 roll.

3) A flat SP amount based on the given scenario, which can be different for each player. This is mostly for themed missions, or missions that have an Attacker/Defender setup.

Just pointing this out, directed hits would finally make the SM combat-shield upgrade worth taking if they make it available to more than just assault marines.

IG sergeants can be allowed to upgrade to carapace too
.
If I remember correctly most Eldar sergeants already have a better save.

Ork Nobz can take 'Eavy Armour/cybork bodies.

The only ones that I can see losing out on this is Tau because unless shield generators can suddenly be taken as hard-wired gear, they don't really have anything that will protect them.

As always, Joey is correct.

It needs removing... or things are gonna get really stupid, really fast.

Directed Hits should be on a Wound roll, not a Hit roll.

Otherwise you're in a situation where you have to roll wounds separately (because some are directed) and then saves separately (because some are directed), We can at least cut out a step.

Directed Wounds:

All IC's and Characters (non-vehicle Squad Leaders) can use directed wounds on any To-Wound Rolls of 6.


Sniper:

All sniper To-Wound Rolls of 6, Rend and are directed.

Defensive Fire

All defensive fire actions are executed after all units arrive from reserve. Units within 12" of any unit arriving via Deep Strike can execute Defensive Fire.
Defensive fire CANNOT be used if there is an intervening unit (friend or foe) between the firing unit and its target.

NOTE: I like this small change to defensive fire as it makes it so the firing is not always guaranteed, but depends on your unit deployment and the direction the deep striking unit is arriving.

Examples: 2 IG gun lines that are infront of each other. Like this =========. If a unit deep strikes infront of them, only the front most unit can execute a defensive fire action.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Change Log v0.2:

• Corrected Font embedding.
• Removed “Evasion” paragraph from page 27.
• Removed “To-Hit” chart from page 32
• Changed “Instant Death” to “Overpower / Decimate”. Corrected references to these rules.
• Changed Eternal Warrior to be only 1 level. Ignores Overpowered attacks, but not Decimating ones.
• Changed “Fearless” to be one level, ignores all morale / pinning. Page 41.
• Added “-1 To-Hit” penalty to Flat Out on page 53
• Added “Multiple wounds models count as one model for this purpose” page 61.
• Changed Evasion to To Hit Modifiers, pages 70,71,72,73,89,113, 129, 148
• Changed “Directed Hits” to only work on to wound rolls of 6, page 81.
• Changed “Scatter” to 2D6-BS on misses, 84
• Changed Multiple Blast Rules to each shot rolls to hit, but only 1 scatter, 85
• Jet Pack gained “Relentless” page 99
• Changed “Flesh and Steel” and added Relentless to all Bike types, page 100.
• Updated Unit Summary page 104
• Changed “Hull Breach” on pages 114 and 115.
• Removed free 6” from Outflanking, page 141.


Link:

http://tinyurl.com/6wp2zur






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Version 0.3
• Forgot to mention:
- Walkers get hit in assault on Front armour value.
- Go to Ground, +1 Cover bonus lasts until the end of the phase.
• Fearless needed updating to allow for Abilities and Psychic powers to not auto-pass.
• Changed Preferred Enemy to Re-Roll hits in Shooting and Assault. Page 38.
• Added “Intervening Unit” restriction to Defensive Fire, page 77.
• Relentless for embarked units is now voluntary. Page 122
• Corrected wording on “Disembarking” to not allow re-embarking on the same turn. Page 123
• Corrected Anti-Aircraft to negate negative modifiers.
• Lots more spelling corrections.....lots by me!

To Do List:
• Clarify Open-Topped(transport) rules (can they fire everything after combat move, do they get relentless, damage modifiers?)
• Clean up the "Squad Leader" / Character. The rules are weird with opponents choosing leaders and what not. Also squads like Warriors that have no leader need clarifying.



Proposed Changes to Squad Leaders:
1) Only members of a unit with a separate codex entry (ie. Sergeant) can be BOTH a Squad Leader and a Character.
2) If your unit starts the game with all identical models (ie. Necron Warriors), You do not have a squad leader per se. When a rule mentions a squad leader, select any model you choose. (These Squad Leaders are never characters)
3) If your unit loses your squad leader, use the rules for #2. Again they are never characters.
4) Change "Regroup" from being a character only action to Character OR Squad Leader (this means that units will ALWAYS get a chance to regroup.)

These changes prevent any character from gaining Missile Launcher for the most part. It also makes ALL units able to regroup. This also reduces the power of ATSKNF a bit. (they previous were the only ones that can regroup without a character)

Thoughts?