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

... changing the rules they dont like?

I'm running a 40k league at my local club and none of us are keen on the idea that you can allocate wounds to figures not in sight of the unit shooting (a good example is a unit of IG behind a hill with the heavy weapon team on top of it shooting away, any casualties can be taken from the figures behind the hill leaving the weapons team still firing away...), so we've changed the rule so that only figures that can be seen can be allocated wounds.

I know the idea of changing rules is no good for tournament players but if you play at a local club or with just mates, rather than moan about the rules, change them. It always used to say, and still does on some rules sets, that 'these rules are just a guide, if you don't like something change it'.

Just a thought...

Mick

Well the rule you are considering is in place as the entire squad once placed doesn't "stand still" as such.

Your meant to imagine the squad doing all sorts of things recon and observation and general moving around. As well the incoming fire doesn't always travel in direct lines.

For those reasons, or to add some "realism" they put in those rules.

For friendly matches its fine as long as your mates are happy with it and for one off games once again its sweet as long as your opponent agrees. For tournaments the rule set is up to the TO.

Bullets still obey the rules of gravity, for example if you fire a bullet out of a gun and drop a bullet from the same height, assuming no interference, they'll hit the ground at about the same time.

So by letting you allocate wounds to models behind a hill GW is just providing an ultra-realistic rule set by factoring in bullet drop.

Whats really fun is playing 40k vs Fantasy

Mick A wrote: Has Anyone Thought About changing the rules they dont like?

Completely.

That's what the 40K Revisited Project is.

Hollismason wrote:Whats really fun is playing 40k vs Fantasy

It might be fun for the guy with the heavy bolter. Try selling that line to the cavalry or swordsmen marching in.

40K vs Fantasy was fun when the rules were the same (2nd Ed). It don't work so well nower days.

"So my platoon HQ fires 4 flames at your infantry"
"Oh"
"They all die, roll panic"

ph34r wrote:"So my platoon HQ fires 4 flames at your infantry"
"Oh"
"They all die, roll panic"

"Ok, my Chaos Dragon is coming down behind your CHQ"
"Wait... what?"
"Ok, the Dragon has... eaten your CHQ."
"But what about..."
"And run into your HW squads."
"Oh dear..."

Winter wrote:Well the rule you are considering is in place as the entire squad once placed doesn't "stand still" as such.

Your meant to imagine the squad doing all sorts of things recon and observation and general moving around. As well the incoming fire doesn't always travel in direct lines.

For those reasons, or to add some "realism" they put in those rules.

I suppose this depends on how long in real time you consider a turn lasts. I would think it would be seconds so I dont see a unit milling around that much plus if I had enemy fire coming at me I would be hugging cover...
As for direct lines, the distances involved scaled up would not be that far.
I've never served in the military but others on this forum have, could any of you let us know if you are trained to fire regular small arms into the air to try and hit targets obscured by a hill?
I'm not trying to be a smart-a**e or anything, its just that GW's excuses for that rule seem pretty lame to me.
Mick

I thought it was as simple as, "another guy in the squad runs forward to pick up the weapon and fire back."

Anyways, that's not one of the things that upset me much.

As a guard player, the 4+ saves everywhere annoy me, surely there could be some variation? 1 for each squad/terrain piece you're shooting through for example.

That theory fails if the unit takes more than two wounds...
Mick

Compel wrote:I thought it was as simple as, "another guy in the squad runs forward to pick up the weapon and fire back."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the reason you can often allocate wounds to things other than heavy and special weapon-equipped models.

So how would that work if a vet sarge was on the hill? Would someone suddenly run up and gain 1 extra leadership and attack...?
Mick

augustus5 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:Whats really fun is playing 40k vs Fantasy

It might be fun for the guy with the heavy bolter. Try selling that line to the cavalry or swordsmen marching in.

Actually the performance of melee troops is so high in 40K that the bolter guys could be in trouble.

avantgarde wrote:Bullets still obey the rules of gravity, for example if you fire a bullet out of a gun and drop a bullet from the same height, assuming no interference, they'll hit the ground at about the same time.

Wait. What?

Are you saying that if I fire a Desert Eagle horizontally from shoulder height and my buddy drops the same caliber shell from my shoulder height, they would hit at roughly the same time? Newton is crying in his grave...



Ghidorah

HI all.
Yes , my group changed WHFB for Armies OF Arcana, and changed 40k for Xenocide Firefight/Stargrunt II.

Why use rules written to sell the latest GW product , when you can use rules written to maximise game play ?

Apart from the game turn /movement/weapon and armour/cover/command and control/rules issues, 40k is great!
The 40k rule set has become so abstract , to allow the devs artistic license,(pimp new releases.)
It suffers heavily from rules bloat that ads nothing to actual game play.

Have a look at 'freewargamesrules' on the internet.

Loads of rule sets to inspire your rules mods, or offer complete alternative rule sets to use.

Happy gaming,
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:Apart from the game turn /movement/weapon and armour/cover/command and control/rules issues, 40k is great!

lol... QFT.



Ghidorah

Ghidorah wrote:

avantgarde wrote:Bullets still obey the rules of gravity, for example if you fire a bullet out of a gun and drop a bullet from the same height, assuming no interference, they'll hit the ground at about the same time.

Wait. What?

Are you saying that if I fire a Desert Eagle horizontally from shoulder height and my buddy drops the same caliber shell from my shoulder height, they would hit at roughly the same time? Newton is crying in his grave...



Ghidorah

Assuming the bullet was shot in a vacuum, at a perfectly parallel angle, and the curvature of the earth does not come into play. yes, this is exactly what would happen.

and Newton would agree with this 100%.

Ghidorah wrote:

avantgarde wrote:Bullets still obey the rules of gravity, for example if you fire a bullet out of a gun and drop a bullet from the same height, assuming no interference, they'll hit the ground at about the same time.

Wait. What?

Are you saying that if I fire a Desert Eagle horizontally from shoulder height and my buddy drops the same caliber shell from my shoulder height, they would hit at roughly the same time? Newton is crying in his grave...



Ghidorah

Demogerg wrote:

Ghidorah wrote:

avantgarde wrote:Bullets still obey the rules of gravity, for example if you fire a bullet out of a gun and drop a bullet from the same height, assuming no interference, they'll hit the ground at about the same time.

Wait. What?

Are you saying that if I fire a Desert Eagle horizontally from shoulder height and my buddy drops the same caliber shell from my shoulder height, they would hit at roughly the same time? Newton is crying in his grave...



Ghidorah

Assuming the bullet was shot in a vacuum, at a perfectly parallel angle, and the curvature of the earth does not come into play. yes, this is exactly what would happen.

and Newton would agree with this 100%.

It doesn't have to be fired in a vacuum. See the Mythbusters episode where this was addressed and proven true.

Mick A wrote:... changing the rules they dont like?

I'm running a 40k league at my local club and none of us are keen on the idea that you can allocate wounds to figures not in sight of the unit shooting (a good example is a unit of IG behind a hill with the heavy weapon team on top of it shooting away, any casualties can be taken from the figures behind the hill leaving the weapons team still firing away...), so we've changed the rule so that only figures that can be seen can be allocated wounds.

I know the idea of changing rules is no good for tournament players but if you play at a local club or with just mates, rather than moan about the rules, change them. It always used to say, and still does on some rules sets, that 'these rules are just a guide, if you don't like something change it'.

Just a thought...

Mick

Question: How does your gaming club adjust point values for armies that are adversely/positively affected?

Why would any army be affected any different from any other army?
Mick

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Completely.

That's what the 40K Revisited Project is.

Hmm, I googled this and found an invision forum. for download currently are a couple imperium armies and chaos codices and the rulebook.

I'll definitely read into this, see if it makes 40k rules much better than they currently are (not too hard quite frankly )

Thanks for the (indirect) tip.

That's the site. The stuff there is old as the site hasn't been used in quite some time. 'Real Life' kinda took over for a while there, and we've only recently got back into the swing of things with new versions of the Rulebook, Eldar, Marines and Chaos Codices.

The 40k rules are like the Millennium Falcon. Half the stuff is just a crude patch or quick fix, hardly anything makes sense when you look at it closely... but the damn thing still works.

There are far better rulessets out there, but at this point 40k has had two and a half fairly major revisions of the current core rules (TVR/TAR, 4th, and 5th) after percolating for a while with RT and 2nd. Yes, from the ground up you could build a better wargame, but I'm not sure you can pick a few rules to change that would dramatically improve gameplay.

How about True LOS? Losing KP's? Writing vehicle rules that make vehicles act like vehicles and not bunkers?

Should I go on?

H.B.M.C. wrote:How about True LOS? Losing KP's? Writing vehicle rules that make vehicles act like vehicles and not bunkers?

Should I go on?

No, because you're missing the point. Nearly all of the rules for 40k are worse than they should be. I argue that "fixing" any one aspect wouldn't really improve gameplay that much. If anything, it would make other aspects worse.

True LOS is mostly a matter of taste. Honestly, I don't see a problem with simply saying that in the far future, nearly everybody has an idea where everybody else is. It lends a more visceral feel to the tabletop (you don't have hive tyrants hiding behind a few trees), and while I don't like it as a rule, changing that would require changing the rules for cover saves, as now it's harder to see, AND harder to actually wound. Doing that changes nearly every light unit in the game, plus all of the new cheap AP3 stuff added to 5th ed codices. So, an attempt to fix one rule will have a lot of consequences

I've come around on KPs. Yes, they're stupid. But they're less stupid than I thought, and here's why: they change the true cost of cheap transports, as well as small disposable squads. I think they're also best used as a secondary missions.

as for vehicle rules... well, they work. They may not be ideal, and they may not allow for the play you want, but they work in that people field and use vehicles. I think we're going to see more rules akin to "lumbering behemoth" for other armies in the future, to allow for different army's vehicles to act appropriatly (so Eldar can use S6 as defensive, tau can shoot SMS as defensive, etc.).

You're also dealing with a system where there are codices that might have to be used in each rule set without an update. That limits how far afield you can go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After thinking about it, I'm not sure what vehicles really suffer from bunker syndrom in 40k. Ork Vehicles are fast, except the battlewagon which isn't generally armed heavily. Tau and Eldar both shoot as fast vehicles, and are still plenty good (with the devilfish overcosted to be sure). The new landraider rules make it deadly on the move, and Rhinos now are viable transports. I guess you have a problem with razorbacks?

With things like Chimeras, Predators, and Hydras you do have a genuine "move or shoot to full effect" quandary. Of course, those three units are all dirt cheap for what they provide, and would have to be increased in cost if they could move and shoot better.

HI Polonius.
Are you saying use 40k as is , or change rule sets completley?

Well I agreee with you , BUT the culture shock of 'convoluted counter inturitve mess' to 'well defined intiutive efficiency' is too much for some to take!

And so trying out 'alternative methods' in a familiar setting is the best way to detox 40k gamers off 'GW rulz'.

Mind you starting with a simple intro rule set,( like CBT quick start rules,free down load,) can show how much game play can be covered with a few well chosen rules.

I can not see what stops players downloading FREE alternative rule sets and tryng them out with thier existing minatures & mates?
(If you are using 40k minatures & themes ,the game is still '40k' no matter what suitable rules you use, IMO.)


Love the minatures and lothe the rules, this is the perfect solution IMO.

Happy gaming
Lanrak.

I don't hate the rules. They're not very good, but they work fine for me. I have neither the expertise in gaming theory nor the bitterness to activley dislike the 40k rules. I think most armies work the way I imagine them, vehicles, infantry, and monsters all generally are balanced, and the new codices are all far better than anything before in terms of gameplay.

BTW, I feel the same way about linux compared to Windows. Sure, it's free and offers a ton of stuff, but windows does what I need and is readily available.

The 40k rules are about as Orky as a set of game rules can be in terms of construction and function.