Hello Gamers,

Guess what - my buddy and I fixed 40k. Yup, the hardship is over. The fun can proceed again.

Don't believe me? Follow these simple rules changes for a game or two and see for yourself. Please interpret them narrowly as I am sure there are ambiguities we take for granted since we discussed each rule during development of the DRAL Rules. The DRAL Rules for Competitive Play has reignited the hobby for us!

DRAL Rules for Competitive Play:

A) ALLIES
1) Allies may be taken in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side or in any game where there are more than 2 opponents.
2) "Battle Brothers" ally mechanic is banned and counts as "Allies of Convenience."
3) Revised Ally chart created by Forge The Narrative is likely to be adopted as well. http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/how-to-bring-sexy-back-banning-battle.html; http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TK7buLKXL1s/U1kg0UV9mvI/AAAAAAAAlRo/ecLb72eyVUk/s1600/matrix-New.jpg

B) ASSAULT
1) Charge Distance: Units charge per 5th Edition rules, generally 6 inches for infantry and 12 for bikes/cavalry etc. Units may now elect to charge an additional D6 inches however the result of 1 causes the charge to fail regardless of how far the intended recipient of the charge actually was to the charging unit. Resolve Overwatch as normal.

2) Challenges: A challenge may only be initiated by a charging IC.

3) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

4) Power Weapons: Ignore armor saves per 5th Ed. rule book.

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile. (NB: The number of Attacks used is the same as the number of shots the pistol would have otherwise been able to make if in the shooting phase. You do not use the assaulting units "A".)

6) Consolidation: A unit that wins a given close combat, and is permitted to consolidate, may do so and engage a unit in a new close combat if that unit was within 3" of the consolidating unit. The assaulting counts as making a "disorderly charge" (no bonuses) and the combat will begin in the following Assault phase. The unit accepting the assault does so as normal (i.e. Overwatch, Counter-Atteck, etc. may be utilized).

C) DEPLOYMENT
1) Opponents who elect to go first or steal the initiative may not launch an assault in game turn 1.

2) Reserve: Units entering from reserve, including Outflank but not including deep strike unless otherwise specified, may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play.

D) SHOOTING
1) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

E) USRs
1) Furious Charge: provides +1S and +1I per 5th Ed. rule book. Rumor has it Orks will have access to S5 one way or another. If this is true then DRAL will eliminate this revision of Furious Charge. Updated 1/30

2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the Run move or re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above) Updated and explained on page 3 of this thread.

3) Outflank: Unit may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play via Outflank. Alternative in consideration: "A unit that is deployed via Outflank may only be hit by snap shots the Turn they arrive but may be assaulted normally.

4) Sky Fire: Ignores a Flyer's save that results from Zooming status. (explained below)

5) Deny the Witch: Deny the Witch is now a USR and therefore may only apply to a unit if expressly mentioned in its profile/rules entry.

F) FLYERS
1) Shooting Flyers: All units may fire at flyers, regardless of the flying status (ie. hover or zooming etc), at full BS. No more snap shots... (weapon type restrictions remain however)

2) Zoom Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from an unmodified 3+ save from ground to air fire. Updated and explained on page 3 of this thread.

G) VEHICLES (generally)
1) Assaulting out of Vehicles: Units MAY assault out of Vehicles that had not moved during the movement phase (per 5th Ed. rules)

2) Defensive Weapons: A "defensive weapon" is any vehicle or walker mounted weapon with a Strength equal to or less than 4.
2.1) Defensive Weapons may Over watch (snap shot a charging unit) so long as the unit starts the Assault phase within the weapon's arc of fire.

H) SPECIAL CHARACTERS
1) SCs may not use Warlord Traits out of the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

2) SCs may not use psychic powers or disciplines from the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

I) MISCELLANEOUS
1) Expansions: Expansions may be used in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side
1.1) Definition of Expansion: Any rule set compatible with WH40k that is NOT (a) the main rule book (that which is purchased with the game or a counterpart version), (b) an army codex as defined by GW but where only one may be in effect for a given "army" (chapter, legion, "race", "species", coven et al.) at a time; or (c) Official FAQs or Errata as published by GW free of charge on their primary website, is considered an Expansion. (Horus Heresy or 30K is fantastic and is highly recommended even at 2000 )


That is the heart and soul of the DRAL Rules! Please play test and report back. If you love quick and deadly games without all of those "Gotchya!" moments, these rules are for you.


* * * * *

WIP

Currently Play-testing Vehicle Toughness - most notably for dreadnoughts and walkers.


* * * * *

Thanks for reading! Again, please try the DRAL Rules out for yourself and report back. Happy gaming (once again)!

If you want to play 5th edition...just play 5th edition...lol

So why the out of left field buff to Land Raiders, exactly?

 iGuy91 wrote:
If you want to play 5th edition...just play 5th edition...lol

but there were some improvements to 5th to 6th.

The goal was not to create a brand new game but instead take 6th edition and strive to streamline it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
So why the out of left field buff to Land Raiders, exactly?

As stated those are not technically part of the DRAL Rules but instead a highly suggested house rule for those that think Land Raiders fall far short of their fluff description and are drastically overpriced at 250 points and above. The changes attempt to cure the "wow i just got one-shotted by a 20 point guardsman" woes.

I feel like a lot of the nerfs are directed at IG. Did someone making these rules get beaten by IG alot?

 iGuy91 wrote:
If you want to play 5th edition...just play 5th edition...lol

This is the simplest solution to what you think of as "problems".

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
If you want to play 5th edition...just play 5th edition...lol

This is the simplest solution to what you think of as "problems".

Occham's Razor prevails!

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

Sooo I can get a powerfist that has a ranged attack, strikes at initiative, and can get an extra attack from a free CCW with only 1 less strength for 10 points cheaper than an actual powerfist? And I can dual wield these mythical "plasma pistols"? Sure count me in. Seriously though, good ideas here, but quite a but of work to be done. These rules create as many problems as they solve, if not more.

 ultimentra wrote:
I feel like a lot of the nerfs are directed at IG. Did someone making these rules get beaten by IG alot?

Actually none of the players involved are IG players and IG was not a factor. The driving forces were the desire to quicken game speed and boost the deadliness of assault. Another goal was to minimize unanticipated cheese combos. Admittedly, this concern has lessened naturally over time by the rapid release of new codices.

Why does this nerf IG? Because of the boon to assault?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rav1rn wrote:

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

Sooo I can get a powerfist that has a ranged attack, strikes at initiative, and can get an extra attack from a free CCW with only 1 less strength for 10 points cheaper than an actual powerfist? And I can dual wield these mythical "plasma pistols"? Sure count me in. Seriously though, good ideas here, but quite a but of work to be done. These rules create as many problems as they solve, if not more.

No you would get one shot for each plasma pistol. Pistols shoot once in the shooting phase. It is in their profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:
If you want to play 5th edition...just play 5th edition...lol

This is the simplest solution to what you think of as "problems".

But then the new codices won't work. 6th did bring a few positive changes with its release. I never said it was a complete loss.

Also, flyers are a welcome addition tot eh game but the way it was done was a silly money grab and made purchasing new, dedicated anti-air units mandatory. In our system you get very strong bonuses for dedicated anti-air, however it is not required to stay competitive.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
I feel like a lot of the nerfs are directed at IG. Did someone making these rules get beaten by IG alot?

Actually none of the players involved are IG players and IG was not a factor. The driving forces were the desire to quicken game speed and boost the deadliness of assault. Another goal was to minimize unanticipated cheese combos. Admittedly, this concern has lessened naturally over time by the rapid release of new codices.

Why does this nerf IG? Because of the boon to assault?

It's not just the assault boon its the assault out of outflank. IG has no or very little mobility, and this change absolutely invalidates any kind of range advantages they once had, because now you can just outflank your new deathstar (and trust me, even with these changes there will still be deathstar units, thats something you can't change because of IC rules and 6th ed in general) and IG won't be able to react to it. Tau has mobility in its suit units and jetpack infantry, and can react much better to outflanking assault units with interceptor and supporting fire. IG has chimeras, but when you combine the new assault rules (which always strike back armor, which invalidates Leman Russes as well now) with the Hull Point system Chimeras are now even weaker than before!

Congrats you've just broken the back of one of the most popular factions. The only other viable build would be close combat IG. And even then it would be hard to do without allies.

That's another thing to, 2500 points for allies? Seriously? Who the feth plays 2500 point games? I certainly haven't ever played one. Highest I've ever seen is 2k. And even those didn't allow double force org chart.

 ultimentra wrote:

 Deuce11 wrote:

 ultimentra wrote:
I feel like a lot of the nerfs are directed at IG. Did someone making these rules get beaten by IG alot?

Actually none of the players involved are IG players and IG was not a factor. The driving forces were the desire to quicken game speed and boost the deadliness of assault. Another goal was to minimize unanticipated cheese combos. Admittedly, this concern has lessened naturally over time by the rapid release of new codices.

Why does this nerf IG? Because of the boon to assault?

It's not just the assault boon its the assault out of outflank. IG has no or very little mobility, and this change absolutely invalidates any kind of range advantages they once had, because now you can just outflank your new deathstar (and trust me, even with these changes there will still be deathstar units, thats something you can't change because of IC rules and 6th ed in general) and IG won't be able to react to it. Tau has mobility in its suit units and jetpack infantry, and can react much better to outflanking assault units with interceptor and supporting fire. IG has chimeras, but when you combine the new assault rules (which always strike back armor, which invalidates Leman Russes as well now) with the Hull Point system Chimeras are now even weaker than before!

Congrats you've just broken the back of one of the most popular factions. The only other viable build would be close combat IG. And even then it would be hard to do without allies.

That's another thing to, 2500 points for allies? Seriously? Who the feth plays 2500 point games? I certainly haven't ever played one. Highest I've ever seen is 2k. And even those didn't allow double force org chart.

Sorry but, and i mean this lightly, if that is your opinion you may need to play more. I am not trying to start a flame war, i promise. If you know your opponent can outflank dangerous units then it is your job to mitigate the threat. IG do this with tanks. IG has tons of cheap metal boxes to block vulnerable points of attack. Add to that the ability to overwatch with defensive weapons (which a chimera full of guardsmen would have plenty of), and the greater difficulty of silencing tanks before they are wrecked, and the change that broke its back, as you said, is really not a big deal. BTW in 5th Ed, this was allowed and you didn't see IG complaining that they had a weak codex...

Now, 2500 for allies. Look, allies and double FOC, sucks. It does! The proponents of the DRAL Rules believe Allies is more balanced at larger point games. As for who plays 2500, well a lot more than you think! Especially with the introduction of Horus Heresy where a single primarch is 400-500 points, and Escalation where 350+ point Lords Of War are introduced, 2500 points is going to look like 1850 on the table-top.

Believe it or not, the DRAL Rules team has been playing warhammer since 2nd Edition... we been arond the block and have a good feel for the game and how the rules have progressed. I encourage you and a buddy to try out the DRAL Rules and report back your impressions.

Happy Gaming!

So your answer to criticism is "you should play more"?

Sounds like you're not interested in any feedback other than praise.

 curran12 wrote:
So your answer to criticism is "you should play more"?

Sounds like you're not interested in any feedback other than praise.

It is not feedback if it wasn't tested out.

Further, tactics change with every new release. Honestly, the complaint that guardsmen are vulnerable to assault is poor reason for claiming the rules fail. Shooting rules the roost and IG has guns in spades. The purpose was made clear, to boost assault so that it is a viable tactic. The strength of shooting has not only stayed just as strong BUT has been strengthened as well by making the average shot more dangerous against flyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides you miss characterized my reply. i gave a full explanation of why assaulting off the outflank is not unduly detrimental to IG.

considering that no one in your group plays as imperial guard, you seem very knowledgable about how they play.

Honestly this reads to me like a list of things that an angry close combat player came up with after being beaten by tau or ig. Try putting this much effort into your list make up and tactics and you might not need these nerfs.

xruslanx wrote:
considering that no one in your group plays as imperial guard, you seem very knowledgable about how they play.

Honestly this reads to me like a list of things that an angry close combat player came up with after being beaten by tau or ig. Try putting this much effort into your list make up and tactics and you might not need these nerfs.

Lol wow so much hate. I expected it but yet didnt see it coming.

I don't play CC armies... never have. But I empathize with those that do.

Further, Just because there are no IG players that were part of this project doesn't mean we never played them. Quite to the contrary. Was my assessment wrong or are you just trolling?

The hobbyists that developed the DRAL Rules can and do play 6th Ed. successfully. But we feel as many do that the edition is slow, clunky, and boring. And that is the opinion by those that stuck it out instead of quitting altogether. Instead of quitting we aim at fixing. When I don't play someone from my immediate gaming group, I play pick-ups at the local gaming store... the largest on the east coast, and I play true 6th ed.

I don't hate you, just the rules you've come up with. At least be honest and call it AssaultHammer, or something. A unit of outflanking cavalry can move 12" onto the board, then assault 12" + d6", *then* consolidate into another assault. That in itself breaks the game.

Then you consider that every single elite melee unit just became capable of killing an entire army on its own....just no. You think you've balanced it by not making it a charge, but you've not. A unit of lightening claw terminators in combat with an infantry squad don't need the charge to wreck them, but that's okay because I can just swing my own awesome close combat unit in to - oh no I can't, I'm boned. I'm boned the moment a single assault unit makes contact with a single one of my units. Screw that.

If you think 6th is slow, clunky and boring, you are definitey in a minority. 6th has its flaws but my friends and I enjoy it far more than 5th. Incidentally if you think than an entire melee army loading up on transports, driving as fast as possible towards the enemy and popping smoke, then getting out and assaulting, is somehow a more "fun" game, then go for it. I don't in the slightest miss the dynamic of "Kill all his rhinos turn 1, I win. Kill all his rhinos turn 2, I lose". Your 5++ rules would make this dynamic even worse.

Not going to comment on the rest of the thread, but;

If you think 6th is slow, clunky and boring, you are definitey in a minority.

This simply is not the case. Heaps of people agree with one or more of the "slow, clunky and boring" descriptions, amongst many other issues with the game.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Not going to comment on the rest of the thread, but;

If you think 6th is slow, clunky and boring, you are definitey in a minority.

This simply is not the case. Heaps of people agree with one or more of the "slow, clunky and boring" descriptions, amongst many other issues with the game.

Well dakka is very negative towards 40k, but a majority of people still enjoy it. One could extrapolate that the 40k community as a whole is much more positive.

That's pretty off-topic though.

Slow and clunky and 'enjoyable' aren't mutually exclusive (though boring probably would be). Its simply a case of it not being *as* enjoyable as it otherwise could be.

xruslanx wrote:
Well dakka is very negative towards 40k, but a majority of people still enjoy it.

Why do you keep reposting that horrible poll (which you even admit was a biased poll designed to "prove" mine wrong) as if it actually means anything?

xruslanx wrote:
I don't hate you, just the rules you've come up with. At least be honest and call it AssaultHammer, or something. A unit of outflanking cavalry can move 12" onto the board, then assault 12" + d6", *then* consolidate into another assault. That in itself breaks the game.

Then you consider that every single elite melee unit just became capable of killing an entire army on its own....just no. You think you've balanced it by not making it a charge, but you've not. A unit of lightening claw terminators in combat with an infantry squad don't need the charge to wreck them, but that's okay because I can just swing my own awesome close combat unit in to - oh no I can't, I'm boned. I'm boned the moment a single assault unit makes contact with a single one of my units. Screw that.

If you think 6th is slow, clunky and boring, you are definitey in a minority. 6th has its flaws but my friends and I enjoy it far more than 5th. Incidentally if you think than an entire melee army loading up on transports, driving as fast as possible towards the enemy and popping smoke, then getting out and assaulting, is somehow a more "fun" game, then go for it. I don't in the slightest miss the dynamic of "Kill all his rhinos turn 1, I win. Kill all his rhinos turn 2, I lose". Your 5++ rules would make this dynamic even worse.

Outflanking cavalry is interesting. THAT will have to be play tested.

Consolidating into combats has proved to work well since it has been limited to 3 inches.

Guys, it would be nice if someone actually played with the rules before telling me you hate them lol.

@Deuce11: Dude(ette) I love these rules in theory. My favorite edition was 5th. I played eldar, daemons, grey knights, tau, dark eldar, and CSM/ Space Wolves. My experience with this game is varied and fairly deep.

Sixth was such a kick to the nuts of close combat oriented armies that I found myself literally upset! I couldnt believe that after all of the nerfs and variables added to CC and the buffs to shooting, they made shooty codexes even MORE powerful upon release. Rather then minor flavor/ rules tweeks to revitalize Eldar, for example, they grossly buffed their shooting while leaving ALMOST ALL (emphasis added to head off comments) of the close combat units relegated to either the shelf, or hoping and praying that your opponent doesnt sneeze at them before they get to assault something.

What you guys have done here is begin to bring in the brilliant parts of 5th, and there were many, with the brilliant parts of 6th, and there are many, leaving an all together more brilliant game experience. My only gripe is that you dont work for GW.

@ Negative Nancies: Play with the rules, then you can B**CH. Until then offer criticism and plan on trying them. The level of knee-jerk b**ching going on here is rediculous.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
@Deuce11: Dude(ette) I love these rules in theory. My favorite edition was 5th. I played eldar, daemons, grey knights, tau, dark eldar, and CSM/ Space Wolves. My experience with this game is varied and fairly deep.

Sixth was such a kick to the nuts of close combat oriented armies that I found myself literally upset! I couldnt believe that after all of the nerfs and variables added to CC and the buffs to shooting, they made shooty codexes even MORE powerful upon release. Rather then minor flavor/ rules tweeks to revitalize Eldar, for example, they grossly buffed their shooting while leaving ALMOST ALL (emphasis added to head off comments) of the close combat units relegated to either the shelf, or hoping and praying that your opponent doesnt sneeze at them before they get to assault something.

What you guys have done here is begin to bring in the brilliant parts of 5th, and there were many, with the brilliant parts of 6th, and there are many, leaving an all together more brilliant game experience. My only gripe is that you dont work for GW.

@ Negative Nancies: Play with the rules, then you can B**CH. Until then offer criticism and plan on trying them. The level of knee-jerk b**ching going on here is rediculous.

Seriously? "bi**chin" about the fact that you can outflank deathstar units and charge it into close combat with them easily, on top of buffs to things like furious charge, and a consolidation into combat? Kindly feth right off. If you want to play 5th then ask your opponent to play 5th. I don't like the fact that SM bike armies and Ork bike armies will literally be unstoppable now. Sounds like someone bought a gak ton of death company and rhinos and is buttdevastated that they can't use them anymore.

You guys are acting like assault is completely dead in 6th edition. It isn't! I see White Scars/Raven Guard rhino rush get into CC all the time. Ork truck rush and biker mobs get in to CC all the time. Tyranids are still around. Sounds to me like you guys have some rose-colored glasses about how "good" 5th edition was. Assault isn't dead. Yes assault is nerfed, but it isn't dead. Try fighting someone besides screamstar, seer council and taudar or flying bakery if you guys are so upset about assault in 6th ed.

thakabalpuphorsefishguy wrote:
@Deuce11: Dude(ette) I love these rules in theory. My favorite edition was 5th. I played eldar, daemons, grey knights, tau, dark eldar, and CSM/ Space Wolves. My experience with this game is varied and fairly deep.

Sixth was such a kick to the nuts of close combat oriented armies that I found myself literally upset! I couldnt believe that after all of the nerfs and variables added to CC and the buffs to shooting, they made shooty codexes even MORE powerful upon release. Rather then minor flavor/ rules tweeks to revitalize Eldar, for example, they grossly buffed their shooting while leaving ALMOST ALL (emphasis added to head off comments) of the close combat units relegated to either the shelf, or hoping and praying that your opponent doesnt sneeze at them before they get to assault something.

What you guys have done here is begin to bring in the brilliant parts of 5th, and there were many, with the brilliant parts of 6th, and there are many, leaving an all together more brilliant game experience. My only gripe is that you dont work for GW.

@ Negative Nancies: Play with the rules, then you can B**CH. Until then offer criticism and plan on trying them. The level of knee-jerk b**ching going on here is rediculous.

THANK YOU! Please try the rules out with your friends and report back with your experiences!

@ Ultimentra: "Seriously? "bi**chin" about the fact that you can outflank deathstar units and charge it into close combat with them easily, on top of buffs to things like furious charge, and a consolidation into combat? Kindly feth right off. If you want to play 5th then ask your opponent to play 5th. I don't like the fact that SM bike armies and Ork bike armies will literally be unstoppable now. Sounds like someone bought a gak ton of death company and rhinos and is buttdevastated that they can't use them anymore."

I cannot tell exactly what you are trying to convey here. I think your intent was to tell me that I should stop complaining but your wording wasn't exactly clear as you seem to vacillate between saying assault is already on par with shooting viability wise. I don't want to play fifth edition 40K. As I said in my post. The addition of overwatch to 40k was brilliant. BUT combined with random charge distances, terrain charge distance modification, remove from the front etc... assault is extraordinarily unreliable and if you disagree, well I would not know how to educate you otherwise as you seem determined to be obtuse on this issue. Feth off? Come off it "tough" guy. When was the last time you saw an ork army that was viable in 6th edition? It would be about time the poor ork players could have a strong codex again. Is your reading comprehension also abysmal? I listed all of the armies I played in 5th edition, did I mention blood angles?

@ Ultimentra: "You guys are acting like assault is completely dead in 6th edition. It isn't! I see White Scars/Raven Guard rhino rush get into CC all the time. Ork truck rush and biker mobs get in to CC all the time. Tyranids are still around. Sounds to me like you guys have some rose-colored glasses about how "good" 5th edition was. Assault isn't dead. Yes assault is nerfed, but it isn't dead. Try fighting someone besides screamstar, seer council and taudar or flying bakery if you guys are so upset about assault in 6th ed."

Assault isn't dead. Its just a side note in 40k now, barring a few select lists. Oh, congratulations on listing 2 of the 4 or so lists that can actually pull off CC in 40k as a core strategic doctrine. Then you oh so astutely go on to list tyranids, a decidedly shooty codex(On the table top) in the current edition that actually has the cannon fodder to allow stuff to reliably get into combat, a boon that no other codex can boast. 5th edition was good, it admittedly explained the "silly" wound allocations rules, casualty removal, LOS, movement rules etc... as matters of abstraction. The model on the table is an approximation of where the space marine with a lascannon is on the field of battle, the unit continues to push towards the enemy as it sustains casualties so just pull models from the rear, if the marine wielding a lascannon gets plasma rifled in the face, another marine is going to pick the thing up and apply some emperors wrath to the enemies hind parts generously. That was the beautiful part of 5th for me. Seeing 6th take a slight step away from its current setup would do wonders for this game.

Now your last sentence really takes the cake. How on earth did you figure listing the following was anything but nonsensical? Face beater, face beater, shooty as hell, shooty as hell and flyer spammy?! Really? Again, I would wager that I have much more experience, with vastly different codices, and wildly different list strategies than you do. So I find it quite hard to take the advice you bequeathed unto me... namely because I have already done it.

TLDNR: What in the world are you trying to say, try harder next time XD

Alright, the last few posts from feththatyournameistoolong along with "herp derp trukks and bikers can totally do CC guys" has swung it for me. I'll give the DRAL a go when club restarts in jan and report back

Have to agree, saying that Orks still win with CC invalidates your argument. Trukk rush still works?

I will admit that the rules seem somewhat cherry - picky of 5th to 6th, but you did basically invalidate flyers... Lots of stuff ignores cover now-a-days so giving them a 3+ cover save but allowing everything to shoot at them also invalidates the necessity for sky fire.. again bringing us back an edition.

I've only played the game in 5th and 6th.. and very little 6th as I quit when flyers became a thing... so I hate flyers as much as the next guy, but now that almost all books have the answer, I find it strange to nerf them into oblivion. I probably won't play with the ruleset because I don't get any casual games in, but I would be interested in seeing some battle reports using the system if you've got some.

I will have to save a final judgment to when I see some hard evidence that it fixes 6th problems.

 Matt1785 wrote:
Have to agree, saying that Orks still win with CC invalidates your argument. Trukk rush still works?

I will admit that the rules seem somewhat cherry - picky of 5th to 6th, but you did basically invalidate flyers... Lots of stuff ignores cover now-a-days so giving them a 3+ cover save but allowing everything to shoot at them also invalidates the necessity for sky fire.. again bringing us back an edition.

I've only played the game in 5th and 6th.. and very little 6th as I quit when flyers became a thing... so I hate flyers as much as the next guy, but now that almost all books have the answer, I find it strange to nerf them into oblivion. I probably won't play with the ruleset because I don't get any casual games in, but I would be interested in seeing some battle reports using the system if you've got some.

I will have to save a final judgment to when I see some hard evidence that it fixes 6th problems.

remember though, blasts and templates still cannot hit a flyer!

And of course it is cherry picked, that is the point! to "fix" or otherwise improve the game! We wouldn't pick a poor mechanic if we thought it was poor to begin with and call it a fix would we?

Enjoy!

For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

 Selym wrote:
For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

I should reword that. I am sure that the CSM Codex expressly says that psychers have access to certain rulebook disciplines.

The intent behind G2 is to avoid unanticipated interaction with older codices. An example is Mephiston with Iron Arm. C:BA was not written with 6th Ed in mind. Meph has access to all the BA powers in the codex. The DRAL Rules seek to maintain that internal balance GW wrote into the codex at the time.

So no worries, 6th Ed CSM has the same psychic powers available to them under the DRAL Rules as they would under pure 6th Ed rules.

C:CSM doesn't specify which Disciplines any of its special characters can take except Ahriman - for the others, it assumes the same list as normal psykers from that book... however, a special rule stating that special characters (and only special characters) can't use those disciplines unless it's specified means that they can't use them.

Also - either allow assault from outflank, or allow consolidating into assault. Allowing both lets single units sweep armies, as previously stated (having experienced both versions of the rule in previous editions).

Challenges: While it appears a good idea, it totally invalidates characters like Vargaard Obyron, whose whole concept is that he teleports into combat, issues a challenge, and thus protects Zahndrek from the assassin. Since he consolidates into the combat, you've denied him from issuing challenges. Also, on a less snowflakey note, it also denies the Heroic Officer Sacrificing Himself For His Men in the same fashion.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
C:CSM doesn't specify which Disciplines any of its special characters can take except Ahriman - for the others, it assumes the same list as normal psykers from that book... however, a special rule stating that special characters (and only special characters) can't use those disciplines unless it's specified means that they can't use them.

Also - either allow assault from outflank, or allow consolidating into assault. Allowing both lets single units sweep armies, as previously stated (having experienced both versions of the rule in previous editions).

Challenges: While it appears a good idea, it totally invalidates characters like Vargaard Obyron, whose whole concept is that he teleports into combat, issues a challenge, and thus protects Zahndrek from the assassin. Since he consolidates into the combat, you've denied him from issuing challenges. Also, on a less snowflakey note, it also denies the Heroic Officer Sacrificing Himself For His Men in the same fashion.

Re. CSM: It is in the codex that they can use it then they can use it... c'mon guys lol.

Re. outflank or the consolidation... the consolidation is only three inches. it can be mitigated and has not proven to be OP in our test games. As previously stated, we have been playing since 2nd edition and remember the horror days of rhino rush and CC armies sweeping through back lines, one combat after another due to consolidating into new combats. But that was much further than three inches and I believe it allowed for bonuses to attacks. Further, shooting was not as powerful as it is now. AP2 was not as prevalent, special weapons of all types were more expensive, and the high rates of fire were not there.

Challenges is one of the mechanics that bogs down the game the most. If these rules were to ever be more highly adopted, we would issue some sort of FAQ to address those outlier situations that you noted. Since these are unofficial (obviously) i suggest you and your gaming group come to an agreement as to how your Necron SC works.

Whoa. I try to point out a hole that needs looking at and your response is "Go do it yourself"?

Talk about unwarranted hostility.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Whoa. I try to point out a hole that needs looking at and your response is "Go do it yourself"?

Talk about unwarranted hostility.

No hostility i promise. But it also not a hole. The rules have not been written air tight and we have not striven to achieve that level YET. So some common sense is necessary. Even GW publishes FAQs and Errata for a reason.

I like some of it, not all of it.

The assault leap-frogging seems way out of balance.

Assaulting out of stationary vehicles was good in 5th and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

The ability to charge from Outflank combined with the extra charge range youve added seems out of balance. Either is fine, both is not.

I like your idea that a challenge can only be initiated by a charging IC.
But I would see if the rule could be changed that only an IC can initiate a challenge but regardless if he has charged or not. But only an IC can accept a challenge as well.
Challenges are very thematic and has its place in 40k IMO but the rules are broken right now.

I dont think your Look Out SIr rule change is a good idea. Characters would die too fast and I dont see any noteworthy benefits of that happening.

A pistol being useable in Melee with its shooting profile is great.

Im curious how you would fix Walkers.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

I should reword that. I am sure that the CSM Codex expressly says that psychers have access to certain rulebook disciplines.

The intent behind G2 is to avoid unanticipated interaction with older codices. An example is Mephiston with Iron Arm. C:BA was not written with 6th Ed in mind. Meph has access to all the BA powers in the codex. The DRAL Rules seek to maintain that internal balance GW wrote into the codex at the time.

So no worries, 6th Ed CSM has the same psychic powers available to them under the DRAL Rules as they would under pure 6th Ed rules.

Two nitpicks about the Lord of Death:
He only has acces to The Sanguine Sword, Unleash Rage and Wings of Sanguinius, not all the BA powers in the codex.
The updated digital Codex expressly says that he has acces to certain rulebook disciplines, namely three powers from Biomancy, Divination, Telekinesis or Telepathy at the expense of the said powers above.

Did a small trial game and one issue came up. By simply staying 3.1 inches away you can avoid being consolidation charged. That lead to a whole bunch of fiddly nonsense measuring where every unit was kept 4.1 inches away from all other units so you couldn't get such a charge off.

Seems much better IMO to simply allow consolidation into assault. A gradient of risk is far better than a black and white 3" maximum.

Failing that, a Consolidation of simply 3" would be better and make more sense. Game needs to use dice alot less than it currently does.

Thanks for these, might suggest trying some of the rules out with my gaming group, particularly like the charge range , challenges and the look out sir changes.

Not a fan of the massive nerf to flyers though, and I feel you need to tackle the issue of flying monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain when swooping [wtf?]. Also the assault consolidation seems a bit OP. Finally, I actually love allies. Having Inquisition allied with my Sisters has really injected a whole new army building project [and has been a nightmare on my wallet lol].

My gaming group uses the following house rules:

1. Assaults from stationary vehicles allowed.
2. No VPs for dedicated transports.
3. When rolling for warlord traits you are allowed to apply the result to all 3 tables and choose the best one [or instead use the codex specific table].

Thanks for posting, some nice ideas.

Happy to hear some people are trying out the DRAL Rules

Keep the feedback coming!

If anyone has read the HH books, especially Massacre, you will see that FW gets it. They are making small tweaks here and there. Highly suggested read. Mortis pattern dreads of all kinds for example, gain skyfire and interceptor if they remain stationary in the movement phase. WOW brilliant and definitely in line with what the DRAL Rules are seeking to accomplish. Did I mention there is a new dread drop pod that is an assault vehicle but doesn't allow charges the turn it Deepstrikes. Yes, it makes up for it in other ways. So smart, FW. Also, they are curtailing allies based on army rules. Depending on Rites of War you may not be allowed Allies, fortifications or it may say you are expressly permitted to have certain battle brother allies (Word Bearers, I'm looking at you) . Such a great book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Did a small trial game and one issue came up. By simply staying 3.1 inches away you can avoid being consolidation charged. That lead to a whole bunch of fiddly nonsense measuring where every unit was kept 4.1 inches away from all other units so you couldn't get such a charge off.

Seems much better IMO to simply allow consolidation into assault. A gradient of risk is far better than a black and white 3" maximum.

Failing that, a Consolidation of simply 3" would be better and make more sense. Game needs to use dice alot less than it currently does.

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Comissar79 wrote:
I like some of it, not all of it.

The assault leap-frogging seems way out of balance.

Assaulting out of stationary vehicles was good in 5th and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

The ability to charge from Outflank combined with the extra charge range youve added seems out of balance. Either is fine, both is not.

I like your idea that a challenge can only be initiated by a charging IC.
But I would see if the rule could be changed that only an IC can initiate a challenge but regardless if he has charged or not. But only an IC can accept a challenge as well.
Challenges are very thematic and has its place in 40k IMO but the rules are broken right now.

I dont think your Look Out SIr rule change is a good idea. Characters would die too fast and I dont see any noteworthy benefits of that happening.

A pistol being useable in Melee with its shooting profile is great.

Im curious how you would fix Walkers.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

I should reword that. I am sure that the CSM Codex expressly says that psychers have access to certain rulebook disciplines.

The intent behind G2 is to avoid unanticipated interaction with older codices. An example is Mephiston with Iron Arm. C:BA was not written with 6th Ed in mind. Meph has access to all the BA powers in the codex. The DRAL Rules seek to maintain that internal balance GW wrote into the codex at the time.

So no worries, 6th Ed CSM has the same psychic powers available to them under the DRAL Rules as they would under pure 6th Ed rules.

Two nitpicks about the Lord of Death:
He only has acces to The Sanguine Sword, Unleash Rage and Wings of Sanguinius, not all the BA powers in the codex.
The updated digital Codex expressly says that he has acces to certain rulebook disciplines, namely three powers from Biomancy, Divination, Telekinesis or Telepathy at the expense of the said powers above.

Hmmm Maybe charging from outflank should be treated like charging through difficult terrain or something... I'll bring it up to the group and have it playtested. Good thought and curtailing it.

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the other more subtle rules. We'll keep playtesting.

Regarding walkers, FW just threw a wrench in our plans by releasing rules for Grave Warden Death Guard Terminators that would toss a walker with a T value on its head. More thought is needed as a result. Womp womp

One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

Not sure what to think of these rules. While some of them have merit and good potential (Pistols being allowed to use their profiles in close combat), the rest of this didn't feel right and mainly felt like making close combat (which is already powerful) even more powerful.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

 Selym wrote:

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

This was our experience too, Selym.

I suppose we can discuss the relative power of assault in 6th until we are blue in the face, however it is incontrovertible that assault has been slowed. I, personally, would say that assault has been slowed immensely. These long, drawn out, laborious combats are due to the challenge mechanic and commonplace multi-character units.

The DRAL Rules are striving to maintain the uniqueness of the challenge and the flavor of the narrative game, while also keeping the pace quick. To the team behind the DRAL Rules, this makes for a more fun game. We think that many gamers agree and so we created these rules for those types of gamers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pistols in CC

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/12/7th-edition-40k-not-65.html




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, CSM Players - If you are a legion player we highly recommend the World Eater rules in Horus Heresy Book II Massacre. They are finally deadly as they should be. Keep in mind that Book I Betrayal will be necessary to make a legal HH list.

 Selym wrote:

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

Don't disagree with you, I personally hate challenges, but if I'm trying to convince my group to change then I need a convincing argument as to why I'm proposing rules that would directly contradict a deliberate army wide mechanic in this one instance. I think it could open up a whole can of worms to invalidate a codex specific rule [bye bye ATSKNF? ]

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!

No, I love the idea of consolidate into assault, what I don't like is a 3" maximum on a d6 consol for doing it. Consolidation having those two seperate values is clunky - I'd much prefer that you can simply enter close combat with a consolidation move, even if the consolidation had to be reduced in distance to compensate.

Just to let you know, tried out challenges for ICs only yesterday and it worked really well. We also house-ruled Look Out Sir! to only be for ICs, and only on a 4+. Again worked really well and sped the game up. Much less fiddly and frustrating

 Dakkamite wrote:

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!

No, I love the idea of consolidate into assault, what I don't like is a 3" maximum on a d6 consol for doing it. Consolidation having those two seperate values is clunky - I'd much prefer that you can simply enter close combat with a consolidation move, even if the consolidation had to be reduced in distance to compensate.

Oh I see! i will bring it up to the DRAL Team for consideration. Thanks for the input.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Just to let you know, tried out challenges for ICs only yesterday and it worked really well. We also house-ruled Look Out Sir! to only be for ICs, and only on a 4+. Again worked really well and sped the game up. Much less fiddly and frustrating

Fantastic - so happy to hear you are enjoying the DRAL Rules! And, yes, the quicker pace of the game was the most obvious and immediate benefit. What else did you like (or dislike) about the DRAL Rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW the Rules has been updated and edited slightly to keep up with your input and our play-test games.

Tiny update (sorry, with all the Holidays the DRAL Team has been unable to game lately. So is life for the aging gamer): It seems all but fact at this point that Nids will not have access to BRB Powers which falls in line with the DRAL Team's opinion that unanticipated rules interactions were running rampant at the release of 6th Edition and GW is correcting itself with each codex release. Further confirmation that the DRAL Teams and its supporters (you guys that like the rules) were on to something.

Thanks for the Support you guys and please continue to play with the DRAL Rules fro Competitive Play. We are looking forward to more input from gamers outside our circle! Happy New Year!

All of your rules are great. You do have the massive problem of six edition being very similar to running are unicycle while juggling. My personal favourite part of six edition was the addition of overpowered underpriced units like the flyer. The addition of snap fire to slow down and already slow game. An example of this is when you're heavy weapons team has to move. Over watch what a freaking great game mechanic It's having an extra shooting phase out of sequence with smaller margin of Success unless you necrons then it's a broken game mechanic. Challenges what can I say! This is literally the dumbest game mechanical ever seen adding in a gentlemanly duel in the middle of a fight to plug a Demon gateway or Nids devouring the planet.

The DRAL Team is happy to assist, Yorkskargrim! Please try out the rules and fill us in on your experiences. Thanks!

I like some of your rules, such as Charging change as well as Furious Charge, Fleet, Assault out of Vehicles and some others.

some of your rules are unnecessary or even counter productive. Example of ones I don't like is allies, that point limit is WAY to high. Allies are a gateway to collecting another army without spending to much, but having to have 2,500pts before you can use them is ridiculous. Simply use it as 1000+ plus would be fine or say allies point level must be less then 50% of the over all army points. Other examples include Challenges disallowing Sargents from challenging and LOS, I like those mechanics, but lowering LOS to a 3+ 5 + might help and only allow 1 per phase. The power weapon changes are bad because they invalidate the different types of power weapons, no one will go to I 1 for +1 strength but plus + 1 strength AND AP? Maybe.

Consolidate into combat? No, FMC would be to good. Full BS into flyers? Maybe not, to much Tau ignore cover. But half BS and a 4+ Cover, 3 + jink? I'd agree with that.

Just my £0.02

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I like some of your rules, such as Charging change as well as Furious Charge, Fleet, Assault out of Vehicles and some others.

some of your rules are unnecessary or even counter productive. Example of ones I don't like is allies, that point limit is WAY to high. Allies are a gateway to collecting another army without spending to much, but having to have 2,500pts before you can use them is ridiculous. Simply use it as 1000+ plus would be fine or say allies point level must be less then 50% of the over all army points. Other examples include Challenges disallowing Sargents from challenging and LOS, I like those mechanics, but lowering LOS to a 3+ 5 + might help and only allow 1 per phase. The power weapon changes are bad because they invalidate the different types of power weapons, no one will go to I 1 for +1 strength but plus + 1 strength AND AP? Maybe.

Consolidate into combat? No, FMC would be to good. Full BS into flyers? Maybe not, to much Tau ignore cover. But half BS and a 4+ Cover, 3 + jink? I'd agree with that.

Just my £0.02

Regarding the allies rules... the DRAL Team will simply have to agree to disagree. It is the opinion of the DRAL Team, as competitive hobbyists, that allies in anything under 2500 points creates problems by exacerbating the race to the penultimate list without regard to army loyalty. You see this phenomenon in "TauDar" lists for example. Keep in mind, the DRAL Rules are for COMPETITIVE PLAY. The gateway to collecting new armies that allies rules provides is not an objective of the DRAL Rules. Also, I think you read it wrong. In games of 2500 points per side you may have allies... you don't have to have a 2500 point primary detachment in order to add an allied detachment; just that both detachments together add up to 2500 points or greater.

Consolidation into combat has been addressed in previous member posts. Play with it. 3 inches in not a long distance and that is the maximum distance a unit is permitted to consolidate into new combats.

Full BS into flyers is mitigated by the cover save a flyer has. Just as a jink save for a speeder is a cover save given in light of the unit's speed and nimbleness, the flyers get cover saves for their flight pattern against ground-to-air fire. The BS is thusly not effected.

The DRAL Rules seek to streamline the game and speed up game play. If competitive games are what you and your gaming group are interested in, the DRAL Team welcomes you to try using the DRAL Rules and see for yourself whether they achieve the objectives set forth in the OP.

Thanks for posting!

I like some of where you're coming from, but lots of times you seem to be trying to drive a nail with a sledgehammer:

A) ALLIES
1) Allies may be taken in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side or in any game where there are more than 2 opponents.

This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Using this rule, Allies would virtually never appear in games as games above 2500 are played considerably less often (I recall a poll on here once where 1750-1850 were the most commonly played point values). Also how does having more than one opponent make a difference for including Allies in your FOC? You aren't using the actual Allies rules at that point, you're using two separate armies and house-ruling the interaction between the two players based on the Allies matrix. As with many of these changes, you were unhappy with something in 6th, so you all but eliminated it rather than actually fix it.

If you want to fix Allies, first tweak the Allies matrix. Battle Brothers cause more problems than anything else, so make Battle Brothers rare (in particular, break up the Imperium/Tau/Eldar BB love triangle). Next eliminate the Allied detachment entirely: mandate that Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, and 1 each Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, but they use slots in your primary detachment. No more picking up a 4th Heavy Support by allying. Now armies that want to use Allies are actually making a trade-off and armies that have few or no Allies available aren't automatically screwed.

B) ASSAULT
1) Charge Distance: Units charge per 5th Edition rules, generally 6 inches for infantry and 12 for bikes/cavalry etc. Units may now elect to charge an additional D6 inches however the result of 1 causes the charge to fail regardless of how far the intended recipient of the charge actually was to the charging unit. Resolve Overwatch as normal.

This once again is overkill, and poorly implemented at that. You're increasing charge distances for every unit beyond what they were in 5th, with no downside at all. Electing to charge an extra D6" with an auto-fail on a roll of a 1 is not a downside except in the very rare case that the number you needed was a 1. If your normal charge is 6" and you need to go 6.1"-7", then you might care, a tiny bit, since there is a 1/6 chance that your charge will fail. If you need to go 7.1" or further, you will always roll your extra D6 with no consequences because a result of 1 is a failed charge anyway. Poor understanding of the implications of your own rules. Get rid of the additional D6" altogether and use it as a bonus for models with Fleet.

2) Challenges: A challenge may only be initiated by a charging IC. (NB: Consolidating into a new unit does not count as Charging)

This, again, is probably overkill. You don't like Challenges, they muck things up when your beatstick is charging into a squishy unit with a sergeant. So you all but eliminate them from the game. If we are keeping challenges at all, we can probably fix them easily enough by saying additional unsaved wounds beyond what is needed to kill your challenge opponent will carry over into the opponent's unit. Now the decision to challenge or not when you are being charged becomes situation-dependent, and Challenges are no longer a giant drag on Chaos Marines - Typhus easily bests the IG sergeant he's forced to fight and continues merrily slaughtering.

3) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

LOS, as stupid as it is, is necessary if you stick with 6th's casualty removal system. Otherwise your sergeant or captain is always reduced to cowering at the rear.

It's better if you think of it not as space marines throwing themselves in front of Marneus Calgar to stop bullets, but instead a combination of plot armor for your character, and the fact that every guy in the shooting unit isn't aiming precisely at the one model that's fractionally closer, their shots could be hitting anyone in view. Again, sledgehammer to drive a nail. Reduce LOS to a 3+ for IC's and a 5+ for regular characters and they will slow the game down less often because people will fail them and die more often.

4) Power Weapons: Ignore armor saves per 5th Ed. rule book.

Again, you didn't like the way a change affected your old codexes, so rather than tweak it somehow, you scrapped it. This is a non-starter at this point for several reasons. First, 2+ save models were greatly overpriced in 5th considering their vulnerability in HtH, and it's only gotten worse since then as new codexes adjust prices to reflect the new power weapon rules. Second, as much as people complained when the change happened, the differences in power weapon types are interesting and choosing a weapon for your model offers a pretty cool opportunity to specialize them for different opponents (poor Chaplains though). Third, the change to power weapons made weapons like power fists more viable, which is also a good thing. The power weapon change is a mixed bag, but it's too late to throw it out.

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

Clarify to say that you trade all your attacks for a single pistol shot. I'm fine with this.

6) Consolidation: A unit that wins a given close combat, and is permitted to consolidate, may do so and engage a unit in a new close combat if that unit was within 3" of the consolidating unit. The assaulting unit does not gain any charge benefits and the close combat will begin in the following Assault phase. The unit accepting the assault does so as normal (i.e. Overwatch, Counter-Atteck, etc. may be utilized).

This alone would probably fix assault armies. You have three major changes to assault here (change to charge, consolidation into combat, charge after outflank). You definitely cannot do all of them. I am in favor of consolidation into combat - I'd drop the other two entirely and make this work for the full 1D6 consolidation distance.

C) DEPLOYMENT
1) Opponents who elect to go first or steal the initiative may not launch an assault in game turn 1.

Taking a page from the Games Workshop school of rule-writing, this is very unclear. If you attempt to steal the initiative and fail, you can't charge in game turn 1, even if that means you are taking the second turn and could easily be within legitimate charge range? Clarify to say opponents who "... successfully steal the initiative". Except if you make that clarification, this rule basically does nothing. Player Turn 1 charges are almost completely impossible in 6th, unless you both line up exactly 24" across from each other and roll boxcars for your charge with a cavalry unit, so I'm assuming you added this because your modified charge rules basically broke the assault phase. Address that first and this rule is pretty much unnecessary again.

D) SHOOTING
1) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

Already covered it.

E) USRs
1) Furious Charge: provides +1S and +1I per 5th Ed. rule book.

Sure? Guessing an Ork or Blood Angel player added this. New codexes have compensated for the nerf to Furious Charge so adding it back in arbitrarily is probably a bad idea. Orks and BA will be brought in line eventually. It seems below the level of most of these large changes anyway, this is definitely a petty one someone was unhappy about. I'd toss it.

2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above)

And corrected above.

3) Outflank: Unit may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play via Outflank.

As others have said, this is pretty broken. Just give it up, man. Your Kommandos and/or Genestealers don't work like this anymore and need to be buffed in other ways. Yes, GW has already failed to fix Genestealers. So fix them instead of breaking core rules.

4) Sky Fire: Ignores a Flyer's cover save that results from Zooming status. (explained below)

Criticism below.

5) Deny the Witch: Deny the Witch is now a USR and therefore may only apply to a unit if expressly mentioned in its profile/rules entry.

In other words, virtually no one gets Deny the Witch except units who have psychic hoods, Adamantium Will, or maybe some unit somewhere that mentions it tangentially (any units or wargear who happen to mention, say, re-rolling it). Even most psykers won't get it as they don't mention Deny the Witch in their profiles. This is a jumbled mess that might make more sense as some kind of houserule when it's explained more clearly, or if you Errata'd every codex to say who did and did not get DtW now.

F) FLYERS
1) Shooting Flyers: All units may fire at flyers, regardless of the flying status (ie. hover or zooming etc), at full BS. No more snap shots... (weapon restrictions remain however)

2) Cover Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from a 3+ cover save from ground to air fire.

Nail with a sledgehammer again. A 3+ cover save is equivalent to snap firing when you're BS3, but worse for BS4 and up. Combined with so many other things that reduce or ignore cover, which we can expect more of in future codices, this resulting in nonsensical amounts of effective shooting at Flyers. Again this is probably fine for armies with old codexes where your flyers are underpriced already, but this makes almost every new flier completely non-viable. I hate flyers personally, but the only change I'd actually make is forcing flyers to come on the board from reserves one turn, then automatically move straight off the board again in the next turn, regardless of distance. Make any shooting attacks or disembark grav-chuting units at any point along your path while moving, during the Movement phase (so you can shoot while moving off the board too - this also allows you to get your shooting in before interceptor fire happens). Anyone who wants to turn tiny circles over the battlefield like current Flyers can switch to Hover mode instead, and anyone without that option can behave like an actual strafing aircraft.

G) VEHICLES (generally)
1) Assaulting out of Vehicles: Units MAY assault out of Vehicles that had not moved during the movement phase (per 5th Ed. rules)

We agree on something.

2) Defensive Weapons: A "defensive weapon" is any vehicle or walker mounted weapon with a Strength equal to or less than 4.
2.1) Defensive Weapons may Over watch (snap shot a charging unit) so long as the unit starts the Assault phase within the weapon's arc of fire.

Again, I agree, an almost entirely harmless change though.

H) SPECIAL CHARACTERS
1) SCs may not use Warlord Traits out of the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

2) SCs may not use psychic powers or disciplines from the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

This is another case of sloppy writing on your part, but a previous poster addressed it already, so I won't belabor the point.

I) MISCELLANEOUS
1) Expansions: Expansions may be used in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side
1.1) Definition of Expansion: Any rule set compatible with WH40k that is NOT (a) the main rule book (that which is purchased with the game or a counterpart version), (b) an army codex as defined by GW but where only one may be in effect for a given "army" (chapter, legion, "race", "species", coven et al.) at a time; or (c) Official FAQs or Errata as published by GW free of charge on their primary website, is considered an Expansion. (Horus Heresy or 30K is fantastic and is highly recommended even at 2000 )

Probably easier to implement a blacklist of things you don't allow - Escalation, Stronghold Assault, and dataslates.

1) Sniper Rifles: Sniper rifles always hit on 2+, and are Precision shot on a 4+, flesh bane, AP - . UPDATE: After further playtesting this rule has been found to be game breaking. Tau can upgrade Kroot to have snipers for a grand total of 7 points per model... mobs of sniper kroot would be devastatingly game breaking.

Yes, clearly broken.

2) Land Raiders: Free Dozer Blades
2.1) Pride of the Mechanicum special rule: penetrating hits with AP1 count as AP2.

Random? Land Raiders are a little overpriced so I guess it's fine.

3) Currently Play-testing Vehicle Toughness - most notably for dreadnoughts and walkers.

Ok.

4) Mortis Pattern Dreads of all types gain Interceptor and Skyfire when they remain stationary in the previous Movement Phase. Adopted from Horus Heresy Book II: Massacre.

Interceptor is a bit much (yes I'm familiar with the HH books, I just don't like Interceptor as a rule, especially since it shows up everywhere simply to give Skyfire units a way of hitting ground targets, because GW can't write rules without nonsensical loopholes). Just say they have the option of firing in Skyfire mode.

I don't know what DRAL stands for, but it's good your "team" (I'm assuming just a gaming group) is receptive to criticism, as these rules are all a bit of a mess.

If you are going for competitive play, why are you putting such a big nerf onto 2+ units. Since you are getting rid of sargent challenges now are back the days of the 'hidden' powerfist knocking out a few termies a turn. Now any old Sarge with a battery on his sword makes your new riptide armour worth naught! I like the new custom power weapons, they buff 2+ saves indirectly while nerfing Xenos armies indirectly by giving options for both the Sword and the Maul. That was a main reason GK's where broken, every single guy had a power weapon rendering most things with wing in their name pointless

Now the choices are far harder, will i meet enough 3+ saves to justify sword or enough 2+ saves to justify axe or just play it safe with Maul? Will i brake the unit on the chagre with the lance or is re-rolling to wound worth the loss of an attack on claws? Choices, viable choices make an interesting meta Unbalanced autotakes make an unbalanced meta, as you have already shown our dislike of Tau/Eldar lists and that is because they have to many auto takes.

I like a lot of these rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but two of the major things you're trying to fix is the assault phase and how stupid fragile most vehicles are. A house rule that I think fixes vehicles is giving them armor saves as opposed to toughness. There is no reason why a dreadnaught should take more damage from bolters to the rear than my carnifex. I've been playing this 10=4+; 11=3+; 12=2+; 13=2+/5++; and 14=2+/4++ And that way you can completely remove AP1&2 from giving bonuses on the damage table.

Okay, my opinion:

1: Fleet, This invalidates many eldar and dark eldar units (and indeed maybe other units in other armies) that fleet was designed foremost to allow them to move faster. I think this should be reroll the charge distance and reroll run moves

2: Allies: 2500 is far too high I think, I think 1750 is a clearer number, but personally I think allies are fine for all points levels as they bring more flavour to the majority of games than they do OP combos. Perhaps make allies count towards your main FOC before 2000 points?

3: Agreed with assault distance

4: Id vote for make power sword/staffs/mauls/maces AP2, Axes AP2 +1str specialist weapon (still a cheaper and faster striking alternative to the power fist), lance/spear (including shining spear lances and rough riders etc) AP2 on the charge and AP3 Otherwise, in addition to normal bonuses. This way we still get abit of a boost but keep the flavour of different power weapons set out by 6th without having such annoying occurances like chaplains being pathetic in CC. Although personally I think the general power weapon shift if good as it makes a 2+ save model like a terminator move valuable where as in 5th 2+ armour wasnt that great because everyone and their nan ignored it in CC

5: Limit to one attack max, make plasma pistols worth the cost but not crazy good

6: Yeah I dont think this is a good idea, consolidation into enemies was crazy good and the best bit about 5th was removing it, even within 3" its very powerful as it allows units to faceroll an enemy and then sit safe till next turn avoiding retribution. Have you tried it with allowing overwatch at full BS vs consolidating units?

C)
1) strongly disagree. If you manage a first turn assault then good on you for good planning and manoeuvring. You shouldn't be penalised for this

D) 1) Make it once per phase, once per game with the allocation rules makes character sniping incredibly easy. Have you also considered disallowing LOS from precision shots?

E)
1) Agreed

2) as above

3) No, this was hilariously broken last edition and im glad it got removed

4) You AA ideas intrigue me. But id say clarify it as a "fly save" not a cover save, as it would make ignore cover weapons and markerlights way too powerful vs fliers

5) Agreed

F)
1) See above, very interesting idea though

G)
1) Agreed 100% this was the worst rule change in 6th imo

2) Interesting, a very nice idea and "feels right" but then I would suggest make the tau vehicle upgrade that grants overwatch to S5 weapons an innate ability of all tau vehicles

H)
1) No. This unintentionally nerfs pre-6th dexes (although Im sure you didnt actually mean to do that) and limits tactical choice. With the exception of the eldar warlord traits which are terrible all other trait tables are mostly better than rulebook anyway. I cant actually think of many SCs who do have access to the main rulebook traits anyway though

2) I would instead take more time to "patch" who can take what. However If the base version of the SC can take the powers then why shouldnt they be able to? Your example of mephiston will probably remain in the new book as he will almost undoubtedly have "blood discapline" or w./e they call it, plus the normallly allowed disciplines for BA from the rulebook so biomancy will be an option

1) Not sure if your explanation allows it, but Allow FW at any level but FW experimental rules at 1750+, escalation, lords of war from HH, and SA at 2500+
++ You mention HH yet this is specially mentioned to NOT be used with normal 40k without serious rule tweaks, quite interesting really for a "balance fix", I would also nerf D-Weapons at pre-3000pt games to STR10 AP1 Instant death, shred, armourbane weapons


All in all your rules sound interesting for your player base and well done for changing the rules for your player base to meet what you guys want, kudos for just playing the way you want instead of just all whining at GW. However to present this as a "fixed" version of 40k all round is well.. maybe not. I would also be a tad less abusive to people offering opinions and feedback, you posted asking for such things, lighten up, discuss, think about it. If it works for your group then brilliant but dont expect other people to lap up your ideas as if theyre the best thing since sliced bread

Also take yourself a bit less seriously mate, saying THE DRAL TEAM (tm) all the time and using the term COMPETITIVE HOBBYIST constantly isnt gunna do you any favours. You might not mean to sound arrogant or a nob, but you do

With all the ap2 guns floating about power weapons need to stay as their modern version otherwise 2+ armor becomes worthless.

We played your rules tau were slowest to adapt but then bought out his kroot mob so now he is happy to have a 30 strong outflanking mob. Tyranid read as far as outflanking then dropped the rules and bought out a bucket (literaly) of genestealers. I fielded a bezerker army.

Your ruleset buffs cc too hard, tau guy got very upset previously we could get into cc by carefull maneuvering and decoy stratagems, now due to outflanking we run roughshod all over his back line he had nothing that could stop bezerkers in full swing, and tyranid was a complete ass with genestealers.

6th needed cc improvements but these rules supercharge it to the point were its ridiculous. Currently due to outflankers being mandatory we practically swap table ends by turn 4.

Use rbacus vehicle rules, we have been trying new rulesets for vehicles for ages and his is the best we have fielded to date purely due to its simplicity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of our lot don't like randomised psyker powers, but opposition to pick and choose is a bit high as the biomancy powers can turn any psyker into a demigod. Currently to save face we allow you to only get one pre chosen psyker power from a discipline and then you roll for the rest. Try it, it restores some of the tactical element to psykers as currently they are rather inconsistent

Hi! Thanks for this!

My take on some of your rules.

 Deuce11 wrote:
DRAL Rules for Competitive Play:
A) ALLIES
1) Allies may be taken in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side or in any game where there are more than 2 opponents.

Given that I never play games that big (lack of time, most games I play are 1500 or less, even 500, which are both fun and fast) that will rule allies out for me.

Don´t like it. Allies is broken, but it is a cool idea. It needs a fix, not destruction.

B) ASSAULT
1) Charge Distance: Units charge per 5th Edition rules, generally 6 inches for infantry and 12 for bikes/cavalry etc. Units may now elect to charge an additional D6 inches however the result of 1 causes the charge to fail regardless of how far the intended recipient of the charge actually was to the charging unit. Resolve
Overwatch as normal.

Not sure about the additional roll, I will take 6, 1D6 + Initiative or 1D6 +4 instead. I think I see the point of it however, but it is poorly worded: I am assuming you mean the unit already moved the 6 inches before the roll (you say it charge 6 inches and "now elect to charge an additional D6", meaning that there are two different decisions). Correct me if I am wrong. If I am wrong, then what CalgarsPimpHand said applies and the rule has no sense as it is.

Quote: CalgarsPimpHand: "Electing to charge an extra D6" with an auto-fail on a roll of a 1 is not a downside except in the very rare case that the number you needed was a 1. If your normal charge is 6" and you need to go 6.1"-7", then you might care, a tiny bit, since there is a 1/6 chance that your charge will fail. If you need to go 7.1" or further, you will always roll your extra D6 with no consequences because a result of 1 is a failed charge anyway."
Assuming he means he already moved the 6 inches before the roll (something I am not sure), there are two consequences for the fail:
1) Overwatch is already applied.
2) The charging unit is 6" closer to the enemy when the enemy´s turn begins.
And it is perfectly possible to charge at a unit at 6" and then suffer casualties from overwatch, so the charge fails and you need to "go for it".

Still not sure about it, the punishment is too mild, the roll too easy. What about an Initiative test instead of rolling a 1D6? Or failing with a 1 or a 2. Just a 1 seems too un-risky for what looks like a desperate "go for it" move.

By the way, I am using Bloodbowl slang . In Bloodbowl, "go for it" allows a single square of additional movement, but if you get a 1 you get an injury. What about keeping the roll, but, in addition to the assault, getting a 1 is like having moved through dangerous terrain (potential wounds for all models / the model leading the charge)?. That´s risky.

2) Challenges: A challenge may only be initiated by a charging IC. (NB: Consolidating into a new unit does not count as Charging)

Sounds fine to me, but then again I really hate Challenges, so I may be biased.

3) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

Fine. This rule gets stupid very fast. I know its relationship with wound allocation, but it is still dumb to see 10 LOS! in a row. What about once per turn?

4) Power Weapons: Ignore armor saves per 5th Ed. rule book.

Don´t like it. There are some rules from 6th that are a nice improvement. Having lots of different options in close combat is one

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

As CalgarsPimpHand said, a lot of information is missing. I am assuming this is one single shot (lest enjoy a plasma festival all over the place). I will assume it is done with the BS attribute instead of WS, at Initiative 10 (bullets go faster than swords), and the pistol no longer gives an additional attack.

That I like.

6) Consolidation: A unit that wins a given close combat, and is permitted to consolidate, may do so and engage a unit in a new close combat if that unit was within 3" of the consolidating unit. The assaulting unit does not gain any charge benefits and the close combat will begin in the following Assault phase. The unit accepting the assault does so as normal (i.e. Overwatch, Counter-Atteck, etc. may be utilized).

Consolidation into combat was a really bad idea before and it probably still is. Sometimes units are very close to one another and this may get out of control very soon. I will give this rule to specific units (the Eversor being the obvious one), but not as a general rule.

C) DEPLOYMENT
1) Opponents who elect to go first or steal the initiative may not launch an assault in game turn 1.

Not sure on this one

D) SHOOTING
1) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

This one you posted twice

E) USRs
1) Furious Charge: provides +1S and +1I per 5th Ed. rule book.

Definitely yes! It is a nearly useless rule right now.

2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above)

Logical.

3) Outflank: Unit may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play via Outflank.

This is big, and a potential game-breaking is the charge range is kept, let alone enhanced. Too strong. You are not the first one proposing this. Tone down the range or it is not cool

4) Sky Fire: Ignores a Flyer's cover save that results from Zooming status. (explained below)

Below then

5) Deny the Witch: Deny the Witch is now a USR and therefore may only apply to a unit if expressly mentioned in its profile/rules entry.

Not wise I think. The costs for psykers have gone dawn partly because of this. If you really need to do that, add 10 or 15 points to all psykers around

F) FLYERS
1) Shooting Flyers: All units may fire at flyers, regardless of the flying status (ie. hover or zooming etc), at full BS. No more snap shots... (weapon restrictions remain however)

2) Cover Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from a 3+ cover save from ground to air fire.

I must admit I prefer CalgarsPimpHand´s solution here. But the best solution to the Flyers problem is a similar, yet more detailed concept by Peregrine: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570428.page#6381952

I find it quite superior.

G) VEHICLES (generally)
1) Assaulting out of Vehicles: Units MAY assault out of Vehicles that had not moved during the movement phase (per 5th Ed. rules)

Sounds good to me. It seems a lot of people see this as an improvement

LoS is a bit overused I will admit but some units like bodyguards and tyrant guard are designed to do that so I would omit the LoS rule in those instances were it is automatically passed.

Incidenly to those with the axe vs fist complaint. axe offers an extra attack due to being non specialized fist is 10 points more and is useless on 1 attack Sargent's. Also not everything has a fist option as well as a power weapon so stop whineing its better for all.

Challenge alternatives
Character's allocate their own attacks onto enemies in btb contact. So keep hidden powerfist but if he is hiding at the back you can't pick your targets. Plus it still means that champion of chaos can still make sure they kill characters for god buffs



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I dislike challenges and since when did chaos start fighting fairly anyway.

 Blackskull wrote:
(...)
Your ruleset buffs cc too hard, tau guy got very upset previously we could get into cc by carefull maneuvering and decoy stratagems, now due to outflanking we run roughshod all over his back line he had nothing that could stop bezerkers in full swing, and tyranid was a complete ass with genestealers.

6th needed cc improvements but these rules supercharge it to the point were its ridiculous. Currently due to outflankers being mandatory we practically swap table ends by turn 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of our lot don't like randomised psyker powers, but opposition to pick and choose is a bit high as the biomancy powers can turn any psyker into a demigod. Currently to save face we allow you to only get one pre chosen psyker power from a discipline and then you roll for the rest. Try it, it restores some of the tactical element to psykers as currently they are rather inconsistent

As a Tyranid player with 40+ genestealers I can report many play tests for "assaulting from outflank" that got the same result that Blackskull: very broken.

By the way, a lot of people do not like random psy-powers...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I like some of where you're coming from, but lots of times you seem to be trying to drive a nail with a sledgehammer:

[snip]

I thoroughly, thoroughly agree with what CalgarsPimpHand says here.

As Da001 said, Peregrine has posted up some mint flyer rules though I think them a little complicated myself.

Would be interested to see "rbacus vehicle rules" if anyone can provide a link?

As a Tyranid player with 40+ genestealers I can report many play tests for "assaulting from outflank" that got the same result that Blackskull: very broken.

Choppy players don't necessarily want to be broken, but to get equal treatment rather than ridiculous double standards

When I see "models can shoot absolutely fine from deep strike or outflank, but assault troops can go feth themselves just because" I want to rip the rulebook in half and punch the author in the face.

If outflanking/DS melee units could only be hit by snap shots, or were in some other manner protected from the typical solution of 'drop a pie plate on it' then that would probably be enough to even it out

 Dakkamite wrote:
(...)
Choppy players don't necessarily want to be broken, but to get equal treatment rather than ridiculous double standards

When I see "models can shoot absolutely fine from deep strike or outflank, but assault troops can go feth themselves just because" I want to rip the rulebook in half and punch the author in the face.

If outflanking/DS melee units could only be hit by snap shots, or were in some other manner protected from the typical solution of 'drop a pie plate on it' then that would probably be enough to even it out

100% agreed.

The solution "units coming from reserve can only be hit by snap shots" is my favorite by far . It fixes the problem of units entering the game and dying, while providing the other player time to find a tactical solution.

A possible problem is that shooty units coming from reserve get the same bonus and perhaps some of them don´t really need it. Shooty terminators, sternguard, chaos termicide, obliterators, horrors.... all of them get buffed. The easy fix "they can only use snap shots too" kills the basic terminators, already in a bad state.


About vehicles being "fragile" against assault, that´s the way it should be. Any war that includes tanks have people surrounding the tanks, protecting them from close combat, because tanks are highly vulnerable to some random guy getting near and using a grenade. It is a realistic aspect of 40k, and there are not many of these. It also ended the razorback/chimera spam in 5th and, more important, ended the "just moving all tanks ahead" playing style, with chimeras full of infantry ramming through enemy infantry. This shouldn´t work: getting tanks near infantry is a really bad idea.

The only exception are walkers. This was addressed in 5th edition: you can only hit a walker with a 6. Fixed.

Aren't terminators SnP or Relentless or some gak?

That could overrule snapshots only

Edit: Hit walkers on 6 is insanely good, I'd actually use the damn things

 Dakkamite wrote:
Aren't terminators SnP or Relentless or some gak?

That could overrule snapshots only

Edit: Hit walkers on 6 is insanely good, I'd actually use the damn things

Wait, wait... The "only with a 6" thing is only applied to grenades against a walker, sorry for the lazy quoting. They still didn´t get a chance against MCs. But walkers are usually cheaper and being hard to kill through grenades made them a viable option.

Full quote from 5th edition: Quote: "Walkers can make an assault even if they fired heavy or rapid fire weapons (...) Grenades and Melta Bombs can be used against a Walker. A model will only manage to score a hit with a grenade against a walker on the roll of 6. However, if the Walker is Stunned or Immovilised at the start of the Assault Phase, the attackers roll to hit based on the normal comparison of WS." Page 73 5th edition rulebook, "Walkers and Assaults".

Losing this rule was a completely senseless nerf to all assault walkers, to the point that nobody uses them any more.

<mode rant on> Seriously did somebody tested it before doing the change? Anybody? So a squad of ten basic space marines have a decent chance of taking down 6 195 points Defilers in a turn? Are we to suppose that someone playtested this?? It is a specific rule for a specific type of unit against a specific type of weapon, it could have been tested in five minutes. Come on<mode rant off>

Lots of input here guys, thanks! And a special thank you to those who are trying out the rules. I saw some good input and will be tossing the ideas around with the DRAL Team. The two rules most succinctly and liekly to be added or revised will be:

Outflanking Units: Units arriving via Outflank can only be hit by snap shots in the following Shooting Phase of the Opponent's turn.

Shooting at Flyers: We must bolster to the "cover save" we are affording zooming flyers so that it cannot be so easily ignores by cover ignoring weapons... looking at you, Tau.

Thirdly, I will be removing the rules changes that are not meant to be included in the DRAL Rules. For some reason this keeps confusing people. I included them, the rules for Land Raiders for example, as a fun extra. The more traffic this thread gets the more people seem to be confused. Sorry for that, its on me.

Thanks guys, really. And please, if you are interested in quick and competitive games that balance out the assault element with the shooting element of 40K, give the DRAL Rules a try!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please review the original post for some updates based on your input, Dakka!

Tyranid guy bought a hive crone under your rules this guy has no saves when shot at by a quad gun. We think this a bit unfair as in 40k he can jink for an extra save. Dive and evade now include an 5+ invun In addition to boosting cover to 2+ due to tau guy fielding skyfire misslesides, dang that's a lot of s7
In other news we recruited an ork player and an IG player into our new rule system.
Ork dude is loving the assault changes, seems a lot more happy now he doesn't get beaten up at the 40k table. He beat IG guy in a close run game through commando use and the fact that he can now hit Valkyries with cannons. IG guy beat my new space marines the armor saves for vehicles work brilliantly if you have forgotten
AV10 has 4+ armour
AV11 has 3+ armour (rhinos now have 3+ save like marines its so cute )
AV12 has 2+ armor (dreadnoughts are now awesome and chimeras need las cannons to be hurt)
AV 13 has 2 + armour and a 5+ invunrable
AV 14 has 2+armour and 4+ invunrable (land raiders absorb tons of fire and leman Russes are a bit too good but IG does suffer in the new rules)
Ork dude


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vector strikes are now ap 2 under the vehicle armor changes valkaries got 2+ saves against hive crones and we agreed it wasnt fair we retooled it to allow cover saves flyers can opt to skyfire and so ignore the cover generated by other flyers for vector strikes. Quad guns now have a hard time getting through 2+ armour so people have started using the Icarus lascannon instead. Except against tyranid guy who is using mawlocs to kill gun crews to save his new crone who has currently haywired my stormtalon to death.

Keep em coming DRAL ,we like our new game but its still a bit rough. And the 40k team don't like it. Also can we get an update on what DRAL stands for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should explain that the true 40k loyalists do not like us playing around with new rules, hence its hard to get them to play on our table, eldar guy was a bit harsh on our changes. IG seems to like the added durability of vehicles but is trying to adapt to flyer nerfs and cc buffs leading to interesting combos.

As for trying to nerf to markerlights dives for 5+ invun have kept railguns away and the armor rules mean that often armor saves are better than cover.

 Blackskull wrote:
Tyranid guy bought a hive crone under your rules this guy has no saves when shot at by a quad gun. We think this a bit unfair as in 40k he can jink for an extra save. Dive and evade now include an 5+ invun In addition to boosting cover to 2+ due to tau guy fielding skyfire misslesides, dang that's a lot of s7
In other news we recruited an ork player and an IG player into our new rule system.
Ork dude is loving the assault changes, seems a lot more happy now he doesn't get beaten up at the 40k table. He beat IG guy in a close run game through commando use and the fact that he can now hit Valkyries with cannons. IG guy beat my new space marines the armor saves for vehicles work brilliantly if you have forgotten
AV10 has 4+ armour
AV11 has 3+ armour (rhinos now have 3+ save like marines its so cute )
AV12 has 2+ armor (dreadnoughts are now awesome and chimeras need las cannons to be hurt)
AV 13 has 2 + armour and a 5+ invunrable
AV 14 has 2+armour and 4+ invunrable (land raiders absorb tons of fire and leman Russes are a bit too good but IG does suffer in the new rules)
Ork dude


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vector strikes are now ap 2 under the vehicle armor changes valkaries got 2+ saves against hive crones and we agreed it wasnt fair we retooled it to allow cover saves flyers can opt to skyfire and so ignore the cover generated by other flyers for vector strikes. Quad guns now have a hard time getting through 2+ armour so people have started using the Icarus lascannon instead. Except against tyranid guy who is using mawlocs to kill gun crews to save his new crone who has currently haywired my stormtalon to death.

Keep em coming DRAL ,we like our new game but its still a bit rough. And the 40k team don't like it. Also can we get an update on what DRAL stands for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should explain that the true 40k loyalists do not like us playing around with new rules, hence its hard to get them to play on our table, eldar guy was a bit harsh on our changes. IG seems to like the added durability of vehicles but is trying to adapt to flyer nerfs and cc buffs leading to interesting combos.

As for trying to nerf to markerlights dives for 5+ invun have kept railguns away and the armor rules mean that often armor saves are better than cover.

I am so pleased that you and your gaming group are trying out and enjoying (mostly) the DRAL Rules. I love that you are trying out your own as well. This is a community effort!

I have a question. What rules interaction made the Nid Hive Crone go down like a JV cheerleader?

Also, where di dyou get those rules for AV armor saves and how do they work? That was not something contemplated by our team of developers. EDIT: We did "contemplate" this idea but we decided that it was not worth implementing.

I am really excited that your Ork player had some new life breathed into his army!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More updates on the OP

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Blackskull wrote:
Tyranid guy bought a hive crone under your rules this guy has no saves when shot at by a quad gun. We think this a bit unfair as in 40k he can jink for an extra save. Dive and evade now include an 5+ invun In addition to boosting cover to 2+ due to tau guy fielding skyfire misslesides, dang that's a lot of s7
In other news we recruited an ork player and an IG player into our new rule system.
Ork dude is loving the assault changes, seems a lot more happy now he doesn't get beaten up at the 40k table. He beat IG guy in a close run game through commando use and the fact that he can now hit Valkyries with cannons. IG guy beat my new space marines the armor saves for vehicles work brilliantly if you have forgotten
AV10 has 4+ armour
AV11 has 3+ armour (rhinos now have 3+ save like marines its so cute )
AV12 has 2+ armor (dreadnoughts are now awesome and chimeras need las cannons to be hurt)
AV 13 has 2 + armour and a 5+ invunrable
AV 14 has 2+armour and 4+ invunrable (land raiders absorb tons of fire and leman Russes are a bit too good but IG does suffer in the new rules)
Ork dude


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vector strikes are now ap 2 under the vehicle armor changes valkaries got 2+ saves against hive crones and we agreed it wasnt fair we retooled it to allow cover saves flyers can opt to skyfire and so ignore the cover generated by other flyers for vector strikes. Quad guns now have a hard time getting through 2+ armour so people have started using the Icarus lascannon instead. Except against tyranid guy who is using mawlocs to kill gun crews to save his new crone who has currently haywired my stormtalon to death.

Keep em coming DRAL ,we like our new game but its still a bit rough. And the 40k team don't like it. Also can we get an update on what DRAL stands for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should explain that the true 40k loyalists do not like us playing around with new rules, hence its hard to get them to play on our table, eldar guy was a bit harsh on our changes. IG seems to like the added durability of vehicles but is trying to adapt to flyer nerfs and cc buffs leading to interesting combos.

As for trying to nerf to markerlights dives for 5+ invun have kept railguns away and the armor rules mean that often armor saves are better than cover.

I am so pleased that you and your gaming group are trying out and enjoying (mostly) the DRAL Rules. I love that you are trying out your own as well. This is a community effort!

I have a question. What rules interaction made the Nid Hive Crone go down like a JV cheerleader?

Also, where di dyou get those rules for AV armor saves and how do they work? That was not something contemplated by our team of developers.

I am really excited that your Ork player had some new life breathed into his army!!!!

the vehicle is "wounded" the traditional way and then gets a save based on that table, we widely agree it works well and Is balanced as MC are well monstrous, and vehicles can be one shotted on results of 6.
in short vehicles ended up with better durability than monstrous creatures but often don't last as long, due to the one-shot thing and the fact that you can circumvent their armour by aiming for rear plates.
it hasn't been all that rosey though, issues have been cropping up.
Autocannons, rupture cannons, missilepods, and deffguns have a hard time breaching AV12 now due to AP4, ork dude is actually now using zapp guns for anti armour.
Krak Missiles, and equivilents have also suffered

as for crones they have T5 and a 4+ save, with skyfire denying the cover save, that's 2+ wounding with nothing to save, resulting in a very dead crone.

changes implemented
I pointed this out but the majority of players simply outlined that you need a 5+ to damage AV12 with autocannon equivalents so often its not worth it, however we did rewrite ordnanace so that ordanace weapons ignore vehicle armour saves , SAG is now awesome, and so did the rupture cannon when it became ordinance 2 it because it was an ill thought out weapon.

 Blackskull wrote:



the vehicle is "wounded" the traditional way and then gets a save based on that table, we widely agree it works well and Is balanced as MC are well monstrous, and vehicles can be one shotted on results of 6.
in short vehicles ended up with better durability than monstrous creatures but often don't last as long, due to the one-shot thing and the fact that you can circumvent their armour by aiming for rear plates.
it hasn't been all that rosey though, issues have been cropping up.
Autocannons, rupture cannons, missilepods, and deffguns have a hard time breaching AV12 now due to AP4, ork dude is actually now using zapp guns for anti armour.
Krak Missiles, and equivilents have also suffered

as for crones they have T5 and a 4+ save, with skyfire denying the cover save, that's 2+ wounding with nothing to save, resulting in a very dead crone.

changes implemented
I pointed this out but the majority of players simply outlined that you need a 5+ to damage AV12 with autocannon equivalents so often its not worth it, however we did rewrite ordnanace so that ordanace weapons ignore vehicle armour saves , SAG is now awesome, and so did the rupture cannon when it became ordinance 2 it because it was an ill thought out weapon.

Oh yes, I see. Many problems do arise. The DRAL Team noted the same about two months ago so we scrapped the idea. We didn't want to make the game MORE confusing by having to change all the rules that interact with armor (e.g. melta rule, chain fists, Ap1, AP2, just to name a few). We also feel that the durability and utility of vehicles has found a sweet spot with 6th Ed. (SEE WE AREN'T JUST HATERS!) So, although we recognize a single mechanic for hitting, and "wounding" all units is preferable; we also do not want to fix what isn't broken.

The rules were obtained by a dakka poster called rbacus but I can't find the post. I thought It was on this post but I appear to be mistaken.
The ordanace change provides a nice difference between railguns and demolisher shells.

Also by popular demand that culminated in a vote that I lost we now allow jump infantry to assault flyers afterwards they take a dangerous terrain check I hated the idea. Until my heldrake got involved in a awesome fight with a stormboy nob. Ork guy needed reliable anti air and he got it so we made him happy. Gargoyles with adrenal glands proved themselves attacking my drake from the rear. Suddenly Triple drake lists don't steamroll everything and frankly I enjoy the change, when you sit on something that kills everything the temptation to use it is often too great.

 Blackskull wrote:
The rules were obtained by a dakka poster called rbacus but I can't find the post. I thought It was on this post but I appear to be mistaken.
The ordanace change provides a nice difference between railguns and demolisher shells.

Also by popular demand that culminated in a vote that I lost we now allow jump infantry to assault flyers afterwards they take a dangerous terrain check I hated the idea. Until my heldrake got involved in a awesome fight with a stormboy nob. Ork guy needed reliable anti air and he got it so we made him happy. Gargoyles with adrenal glands proved themselves attacking my drake from the rear. Suddenly Triple drake lists don't steamroll everything and frankly I enjoy the change, when you sit on something that kills everything the temptation to use it is often too great.

Haha so cool. Will try it out.

Lol wow, stormboyz as ork anti-air. Yeah sign me up for that

That actually sounds really cool. Would make me want to take Assault Marines.

BIG UPDATES:
FLYERS
(since you now use regular shooting mechanics to hit flyers, there must be a balance to afford them necessary protections)
2) "Zoom" Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from an unmodified 3+ save from ground to air fire.

This save is not a cover save nor an armor save nor an invulnerable save. Flyers already have a 5+ cover save called Jink, that when exercised come with a penalty, making all shooting from the flyer snap-shots in the following player shooting phase.

Now with each save there is a work around. Cover saves can be modified handily by most armies these days. Further, the inclusion of Destroyer Weapons even ignores Invuls. So, in furtherance of the goal which is to streamline the game and not write exceptions to every rule, this "Zoom" save must be created.

As with all units with two "saves", the Flyer may only elect to take one of these saves ("Zoom", unmodifiable 3+ save from G2A Fire, or "Jink", 5+ cover save).

So with this big revision from the rules in 6th, what has actually changed? We went from:
(a) needing 6's to hit unless skyfire then hit as normal, then
penetrate, then
Jink if desired

To:
(b) hit as normal, then
penetrate, then
Zoom save on 3+ unless the firing unit has skyfire
Jink if desired

We have successfully preserved the To Hit -> To Wound -> Save thus streamlining the game cognitively.

We have also taken the ball out of GW's court a little by not *having* to wait for new units releases to patch old armies. This is a huge boon to the game overall.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
USRs
2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the Run move or re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above) NB: 6th Ed. prohibits running ans assaulting in the same player turn by any given unit.

BIG news
We now have a necron girl on our table!

Typically with new blood comes new ideas and we have no exception here.
Vehicle armor table got scraped and vector strikes are back to normal. In short we undid everything except the flyer rules and stormboys newfound ability to leap into Valkyrie cockpit with a powerclaw.
Flyers keep the new aerial save (as it is now called) as my jump lord started slicing and buttering necron croissant's with a bit to much ease.
Plus ork guy made a strormboy nob called cuddles who sports 2 power klaws 5 attacks at s9 on defenseless flyers was a bit to much.

Walkers can only be hit on 6 with grenades unless immobilized If you read the description of krak nades you will find that they are fix on charges and that's somewhat hard to do on a machine with flailing legs and\or arms.

 Blackskull wrote:
BIG news
We now have a necron girl on our table!

Typically with new blood comes new ideas and we have no exception here.
Vehicle armor table got scraped and vector strikes are back to normal. In short we undid everything except the flyer rules and stormboys newfound ability to leap into Valkyrie cockpit with a powerclaw.
Flyers keep the new aerial save (as it is now called) as my jump lord started slicing and buttering necron croissant's with a bit to much ease.
Plus ork guy made a strormboy nob called cuddles who sports 2 power klaws 5 attacks at s9 on defenseless flyers was a bit to much.

Walkers can only be hit on 6 with grenades unless immobilized If you read the description of krak nades you will find that they are fix on charges and that's somewhat hard to do on a machine with flailing legs and\or arms.

Congrats on the necron player for multiple reasons lol

Do me and the rest of the readers a favor by differentiating the DRAL rules you are play-testing from the home brew rules of your group. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

The DRAL Team is not yet ready to fully endorse allowing jump infantry to assault zooming flyers. It is in consideration but is being met with a lot of push back as it may not be in line with our objective. The DRAL Team is seeking to streamline for speed and improve the competitive aspect of the game. Permitting Jump Infantry to assault a zooming flyer is a fun fluffy rule but is also a big step that requires careful thought and play testing.

I don´t like the "jump units assaulting flyers" rule.

I am sorry, because it sounds quite a fun rule. But it totally breaks my "suspension of disbelief" regarding 40k. Flyers, while zooming, are supposed to be quite far from the ground. The mechanics of the assault don´t make sense for multiple reasons.

However, the rule is 100% cool for Hovering Flyers, units that are still way over the ground, and should be impossible to assault with normal units, but are still close enough that a jump unit may reach them. That would be cool.

On topic: about the two changes on post #1.
-> The alternative outflank rule sounds good.
-> Still not sold on giving additional saves to flyers. I don´t think it is needed, even after your changes. Perhaps I am biased against zooming flyers....

Regarding flyers... Did you read the variant proposed by Peregrine I linked?

 Deuce11 wrote:
Permitting Jump Infantry to assault a zooming flyer is a fun fluffy rule but is also a big step that requires careful thought and play testing.

Actually, I'd say the opposite. Assaulting flyers is incredibly stupid from a fluff perspective. Flyers being a few inches off the table is just a limit of what you can do with a practical flying base, in "reality" you're talking about aircraft hundreds or thousands of feet off the ground moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Jump infantry simply do not have the speed or jump altitude to reach a "real" flyer. The only reason to allow any units to assault a flyer under any circumstances is if you want it as a balance factor to provide better AA capabilities to armies that don't really have any under GW's rules.

Snapshots seem just as immersion breaking to me, as well as aircraft being able to target units both at full BS and which are within a stones throw of their allies with no issue.

Not to mention being unable to sweep/consolidate into additional assaults, or charge from outflanking etc. I mean what on earth is happening there? Krump some gits and then sit down for fething tea?

Hell, the entire game is ridiculous if you think about it. I'm hard pressed to find anything that makes sense here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QFL4QB3NE

one man and his jump pack

and one plane down

love planetside 2

what's more for flyers to work as ground attack craft they have to be at fairly low altitude

From what i see, you basically just add "closest die" and overwatch to 5-th ed.

 da001 wrote:
I don´t like the "jump units assaulting flyers" rule.

I am sorry, because it sounds quite a fun rule. But it totally breaks my "suspension of disbelief" regarding 40k. Flyers, while zooming, are supposed to be quite far from the ground. The mechanics of the assault don´t make sense for multiple reasons.

However, the rule is 100% cool for Hovering Flyers, units that are still way over the ground, and should be impossible to assault with normal units, but are still close enough that a jump unit may reach them. That would be cool.

On topic: about the two changes on post #1.
-> The alternative outflank rule sounds good.
-> Still not sold on giving additional saves to flyers. I don´t think it is needed, even after your changes. Perhaps I am biased against zooming flyers....

Regarding flyers... Did you read the variant proposed by Peregrine I linked?

Permitting Jump Troops to assault a zooming flyer is on the editing room floor at DRAL headquarters. To those that like it, enjoy it, but the DRAL Team has not adopted it.

I read Peregrine rules and although interesting, they would never be adopted by the DRAL Team. The DRAL rules are meant to be easily adoptable by the competitive/tournament oriented 40K player base. We are trying to preserve the game GW has created for us the best we can. The rules proposed by Peregrine are too drastic of a change. It may seem that the DRAL Team is being hypocritical with it's reasoning, especially if you like those flyer rules, but we strive to keep GW's efforts at the core of our DRAL Rules.

Thanks.

The more I read the recent rule edits (like snap firing at a unit coming from outflank) the more I am starting to like the rule set. Especially jump troops assaulting flyers, as I have always viewed 40k as a whacky game where the improbable or the impossible seems to happen often. I see this-

"AV10 has 4+ armour
AV11 has 3+ armour (rhinos now have 3+ save like marines its so cute )
AV12 has 2+ armor (dreadnoughts are now awesome and chimeras need las cannons to be hurt)
AV 13 has 2 + armour and a 5+ invunrable
AV 14 has 2+armour and 4+ invunrable"

Is not mentioned as an official DRAL rule anywhere, is this homebrew from the user or a DRAL rule that isn't on the first page?

I'm confused now - is assaulting fliers with jump troops *in* or *out*

If its out I might homerule it in, but I would like to know how the DRAL team mindset for it

Also if its anything that makes a ruleset legit its posts like this asking for a ruling

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm confused now - is assaulting fliers with jump troops *in* or *out*

If its out I might homerule it in, but I would like to know how the DRAL team mindset for it

Also if its anything that makes a ruleset legit its posts like this asking for a ruling

I was like "what?" when I read it.

I mean: you like the rule? It is in. Don´t like it? It is out. This is Proposed Rules, not YMDC

When trying to get people to play DRAL, I'd rather say "lets try out DRAL rules" instead of "lets try out DRAL rules plus assaulting fliers" you know?

LOLOL My bad! I wrote "prohibited" but meant "permitted" and then used a negative. To clarify: We are not adding rules to allow jump troops to assault zooming flyers.

Sorry guys, that one is on me.

Ok our table has finalised our ruleset all in all its rather enjoyable.
Armor
AV10 has a 5+ save
AV11 has a 4+ save
AV12 has a 3+ save
AV13 has a 2+ save
AV14 has a 2+ and a 5+ invulnerable
This table still makes autocannons usable along with the rest of your ap4 stuff. Note lance strips invunrables off av14 by making it 12, zoanthroapes now upset me greatly.

Ordanance
Against anything with AV ordinance weapons Ignore armor saves. For blast weapons the hole has to be on the hull of the target.

Flyers (both monstrous and vehicle)
Can be shot at normally but have a 3+ aerial save in addition to armor (like fnp but can be rolled in addition to fnp) providing they are not in melee combat or being attacked by skyfire. Still immune to templates. Evade for flyers grants 5+ cover as normal. previously space marines would hit a flyer just as often as an ork despite being trained to the highest standards in use of ranged weaponry

Psykers
Can select 1 power and roll for the rest unless they are ML1 or come with pre selected powers. adding back the tactical element of psyker powers

Outflank
Firing units count as bs1 on turn of outflank, blast and large blast weapons scatter will be d6 extra due to rapid aiming of guns in addition to BS1.

Jump
Can assault but not lock in combat flying units providing they haven't used their jump pack. at initative step 10 roll a die for every model in the combat on a 1 they take a wound with no armor saves allowed. Your stormboy got sucked into an engine, splattered over the front of a stormraven, over shot the target or something similar. FMC can opt to perform a vector strike instead of firing overwatch at their initiative step.

Vector strikes
Are ap2 and ignore aerial saves. You can however take cover saves from them. Note flyers can jink to dodge your claws, and going to ground also works.

MC
Ignore the effects for moving in area terrain and cannot take saves from it. they also ignore any special (good or bad) effects of the terrain as well. carnifexes hiding with gaunts in a crater and getting identical saves for cover isn't right. ruins providing they block line of sight are fine.

I am obliged to add these are not DRAL rules and that they are only here for inspiration for the DRAL team. However if you like warhammer 40k blackskull edition feel free to have a go and tell me how it went. Even eldar guy is now playing on our table,and we now have enough people for a small tournament.

note I intend to repost this on a separate post as it isn't fair on the DRAL team to have my rules all over their post

I think vehicle armour saves should cap at 3+, Krak missiles were made for tank busting.

Area terrain needs height categories or something. A wheat field will not hide a Carnifex but a 2-story ruin will.

Awesome, Blackskull.

Taking a hard look at your armor save approach to AV. That is an additional save I assume. (Drawing a comparison between T and AV, and infantry armor to this new "save")


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think vehicle armour saves should cap at 3+, Krak missiles were made for tank busting.

Area terrain needs height categories or something. A wheat field will not hide a Carnifex but a 2-story ruin will.

Agreed.

A landraider (AV 14) with a subsequent 2+5++ is absurd, at least at first glance.

Krak missiles are made for tank busting but a RPG shouldn't be able to level what is literally an armored bunker on wheels. AV14 encompasses both land raiders and bastions and similar fortress like objects.

The tank armor save is subject to ap and since most high powered anti tank weapons are ap2 or better the effect for them is minimal. melta still shames all armor.
Also I forgot to add the ordinance change have another look

As for the MC cover thing. Area terrain is basicly things like wheat feilds, craters, and forests. MC got a slight boon in ignoring all effects on terrain even bad ones. MC trample down carnivorous forest's and so don't get bitten to death.

Rumor has it Orks will have access to S5 one way or another. If this is true then the DRAL Team will eliminate the revision of Furious Charge. Sorry Blood Angels!

New Article out of BoLS.... finally????

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/02/40k-deep-thought-we-cant-ignore-problem.html

A few ideas

AV 10 has a 6+ save
AV11 has a 5+ save
AV12 has a 4+ save
AV13 has a 3+ save
AV14 has a 2+ save

That would seem a little more balanced as LRs with invul saves could easily be abused
Also for assaulting to try and add the fact that an assault could be less than or greater than movement maybe say that assault range is 2/3 movement plus d6. That keeps a random element while making it logical.
Also, while keeping the rules that were last posted involved, should units assaulting flyers only be able to make one attack it am I just insane

For you consolidation haters, maybe this one will come about as well: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/02/breaking-imperial-knight-codex-inbound.html

Honestly, give me that "consolidate into a new assault" rule and idgaf how many D pieplates whatever it is they add to the game can throw out

Not sure how much I agree with the doom and gloom of the latest whinging re; the LVO winner. And thats odd because usually I hop right on the complain train at the first opportunity

Redhawk wrote:
A few ideas

AV 10 has a 6+ save
AV11 has a 5+ save
AV12 has a 4+ save
AV13 has a 3+ save
AV14 has a 2+ save

The issue is that AV10 is too easy to kill, and giving it a 6+ save doesn't help it in any way.

I love the idea of vehicles w/ armour saves though, so what about:

Light armour (AV10/11) has a 4+ armour save
Medium armour (AV12/13) has a 3+ armour save
Heavy armour (AV14) has a 2+ armour save

this means that bolters, etc have a harder time with AV10 (making Dark Eldar and Ork trukks slightly more playable), and increases the uses for AP4 weapons (heavy bolters and flakk missiles are both slight winners here, while eldar AP6 scatter lasers and that bloody serpent shield are slightly less effective)

I like that one. After all, most flyers are AV 11 or 10 and flak missiles are designed to shred flyers
I like the idea of grouping by Light, Medium, and Heavy.

So charges are apparently coming in the form of a revised 6th Edition. We will see how that stacks up against the DRAl Rules.

Some rumored changes will be the elimination of the Battle Brothers rules. DRAL supports this simple change and is considering adopting the FTN revised Ally Chart. Please see the following links:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TK7buLKXL1s/U1kg0UV9mvI/AAAAAAAAlRo/ecLb72eyVUk/s1600/matrix-New.jpg

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/how-to-bring-sexy-back-banning-battle.html

Not what the DRAL Team was expecting but we think it just makes a stronger case for our own rule set: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/05/40k-7th-edition-early-rumblings-7th_5.html