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.

Hi. I'm doing this because I find LD a bit confusing at times, heres to me to make it even more confusing!

Bad modifiers:
-1 for 10% of models dead.
-2 for 25%
-4 for 50%
-1 for any allied squad being dead.
-2 for any falling back allied squad.
N: this will be horrible for things like marines, who, loosing one model would lower their LD considerably, so maybe installing some rule to counter it.

Good modifiers:
+2 for having an IC in the squad
+1 for having a HQ nearby.
these don't stack up.
+1 for having something like a banner nearby.
+1 for controlling an objective
+1 for every dead enemy squad/unit/w.e
+1 for every enemy squad falling back.

N: in the case of some rules such as ANSKNF this could get quite difficult.

But, regardless. what does anyone think of the changes? these changes are only theoretical, but in a world where you see enemy guys ripping your troops head off, it could get quite scary.

my opinion.

N: this will be horrible for things like marines, who, loosing one model would lower their LD considerably, so maybe installing some rule to counter it.

It will be horrible for ANYTHING without Fearless.


Just say no, children

thats mean.

I meant take some take out some of the other ones.

LD is good as it is, but still its an interesting thought. How would stubborn interact with it. And just a straight no to -3/4 LD

Hi all.
The LD effects in 40k has been minimised to accomodate the horrendous effects of unrestricted shooting.
Removing the 'to hit' modifiers, means that units get badly shot up in the way into close combat.
And as 40k uses WHFB rules ,the game is close combat centric.

So rather than fix the bias towards close combat assault effectivley ,they overpowered shooting , and nerfed psychology effects.

If you are going to use modifers , let one set add to the dice roll, and the other add to the score required.
Rather than give + and - to dice or score required.
Its just easier to use.

Eg
A units moral grade is a number from 1 to 4.When making a moral check, the player has to roll over the moral grade of the unit on a D6 to suceed.
+1 to the dice roll for the following,
Unit in cover.
Unit at full starting strenght
Unit in coherancy and command range

+1 to the moral grade for the following.
Unit below 3/4 strenght.
Unit below 1/2 strenght
unit out of coherancy or command range.
(All modifiers are cumulative.)

So a Moral grade 1 unit (fearless) automaticaly passes moral checks while at full strenght and in coherancy and command and control.
(Roll more than 0 on a D6 !)
But later in the battle after being caught in a heavy bombardment (Orbital strike) they are out of unit coherancy, lost half the unit to casualties, and lost contact with all friendly units.
Now they have to roll over 1+1+1+1+1=5+ to pass a moral check.

TTFN
lanrak.

Captain Solon wrote:Hi. I'm doing this because I find LD a bit confusing at times, heres to me to make it even more confusing!

Bad modifiers:
-1 for 10% of models dead.
-2 for 25%
-4 for 50%
-1 for any allied squad being dead.
-2 for any falling back allied squad.
N: this will be horrible for things like marines, who, loosing one model would lower their LD considerably, so maybe installing some rule to counter it.

Good modifiers:
+2 for having an IC in the squad
+1 for having a HQ nearby.
these don't stack up.
+1 for having something like a banner nearby.
+1 for controlling an objective
+1 for every dead enemy squad/unit/w.e
+1 for every enemy squad falling back.

N: in the case of some rules such as ANSKNF this could get quite difficult.

But, regardless. what does anyone think of the changes? these changes are only theoretical, but in a world where you see enemy guys ripping your troops head off, it could get quite scary.

my opinion.

The entire point of military discipline is that you dont gak yourself when you see your comrades get shot. Do you think that armies the world over drill discipline into their soldiers just for poops and giggles? No, its so that their forces can stand there, under fire, hold their ground and be effective, not just run away at loud bangs. So from a fluff/realism perspective at least your modifiers make no sense.

From a game perspective there are already consequences to having your unit size reduced. You take a morale test when you lose 25% of the current unit size, not just the starting unit size, so as you start to lose more models you have to make more morale tests and it become more difficult to keep your units where they are.

Similarly units already use the Ld of any attacked characters, which is almost always greater, so there doesnt need to be any additional bonus for an attacked IC.

It may be an idea to actually learn the rule before you start trying to change them.

Captain Solon wrote:Hi. I'm doing this because I find LD a bit confusing at times, heres to me to make it even more confusing!

Bad modifiers:
-1 for 10% of models dead.
-2 for 25%
-4 for 50%
-1 for any allied squad being dead.
-2 for any falling back allied squad.
N: this will be horrible for things like marines, who, loosing one model would lower their LD considerably, so maybe installing some rule to counter it.

Good modifiers:
+2 for having an IC in the squad
+1 for having a HQ nearby.
these don't stack up.
+1 for having something like a banner nearby.
+1 for controlling an objective
+1 for every dead enemy squad/unit/w.e
+1 for every enemy squad falling back.

N: in the case of some rules such as ANSKNF this could get quite difficult.

But, regardless. what does anyone think of the changes? these changes are only theoretical, but in a world where you see enemy guys ripping your troops head off, it could get quite scary.

my opinion.

http://www.vicclap.hu/static/pic/photo/cave_troll.jpg

Solon, why in the world do you keep posting this stuff? Instead of posting a lot of junk, spend more time on a single idea, and polish it! I think you have the capability to produce solid ideas, but you have to see them through to completion as opposed to throwing out a half-dozen half-baked ideas per day.

This is an interesting idea, I think I might use it in a game or two.

What is confusing about LD? And I agree with others. Learn the rules before you decide to change the rules every day. Most of the threads in this sectionare started by you, and they all end the same way.

50% is the only thing I think makes sense of the negatives. You're gonna lose men, every soldier knows this and are nto shaken by losing 1-5 men. but losing 10 guys in a few seconds can be quite unnerving.