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.

 chrisrawr wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 rahxephon wrote:
stuff

You know, I never really thought about it like that. I've had conceptual problems with the way shooting works since I started the game, but like you said, on a d6 there's not much you can do to fix it. That would be one hell of a project, but I would love to try a d12 or even a d8 40k.

Why not XD6? Why not have the To-Hit skill simply give the number of D6's rolled, plus a modifier, and compare that to an evasive set of D6's plus modifiers?

Keeps the "everyone has D6's to toss around" feel, and most models will just have 1D6 of each in any case.

So like Warmachine's system? That works incredibly well, only thing is to import it to 40k, you'd need to add another stat, a Defense, or Evasion, or something. Getting it all to work would be probably easier than getting a dSomethingElse system in place, but at that point you're really just playing Warmachine anyway.

Rolling more than one dice per shot wouldn't really work...

Imagine a mob of 30 shoota boys, firing 60 shots which you have to resolve one at a time

 Dakkamite wrote:

I think we might have a different gaming culture over here in NZ. Counts-as is fine, and restrictions and rules and such are pretty commonplace - for instance, a Warhammer Fantasy tournament I'm going to in a few months limits the number of "shots" your army can field, puts limits on maximum cost for any one unit, maximum number of units of a specific type, and so on. I take no issue with the blanket restrictions, but only with the ones that target a certain army or unit - ie, maximum of X Skink Skirmisher units on the table, which is why I'm trying to find such blanket rules to apply in this situation. If you find yourself confronted with a "maximum unit cost of 200pts" blanket rule, and have to change your army around to fit it, I'd call that a good thing because it encourages thinking outside the box, and using strategies, units etc that you'd typically leave in the closet. It brings out the unpredictability GW has tried to achieve with random powers and such, but in a way that doesn't suck

.....

Like I said, theres already a clear precedent for such rules in NZ tournament settings. The one I'm going to in a few months for Fantasy bans certain units, limits the max points cost of others, limits the maximum power dice you can generate, and so on, because without those rules the TOs believe that certain armies get an unbeatable advantage. I dislike certain aspects of this, namely the restrictions on certain specific units, but have no problem with game-wide restrictions that force people to play differently for those games.

I'm just looking for similar rule changes that can, well, change up the game a bit, and simple fixes like the one in the previous post, blanket changes rather than "hurr durr no Hellturkeys" that should in theory affect all armies to if not an equal degree, then at least in the same way. Would be keen to hear any others that people know of.

I figure as someone who's attended "large" NZ events (Equinox, Over the Top, Fields of Blood, NatCon) as well as run a couple (Conquest), i should chime in here.

about 3~4 years ago, it was common for most NZ 40k tournaments to have a "Comp" system. That system was inherently flawed as it was unbelievably subjective. To be able to implement a system that helps "balance" the power level across all the codexes, you needed to be very very familiar with all of them, and the core rules (at which point, as several people here have suggested, you realise that making the game competitively balanced is a tremendously challenging task, akin to writing a whole new rules set)

A growing group of dedicated gamers (go look at the top 5 nationally ranked NZ players) pushed for a "Comp"less tournament and when it was successful, more and more 40k tourneys went "Comp" free. However, depending on where you play in NZ, the tournament scene is very very different. It sounds like the boys in Auckand are trying desperately to push the 40k scene to the level of the american one, with lists designed to exploit the best features of 2 codexes (a buddy of mine runs a very nasty sounding chaos/necrons combo) while the furtehr south you go, it seems the more people are interested in experimenting and winning games the "hard" way (taking suboptimal units, creating suboptimal theme lists, etc) Both approaches are good, and indicate a healthy scene (there's something for everyone)

I don't think Fantasy-style restrictions will ever come into play for 40k in NZ as the games are very different, even down to how you win the game, so making comparisons across systems is probably not productive.

If you're just interested in playing games in a different environment, under different (arbitrary) rules, then i believe Battlecry, in Auckland (http://www.cityguard.co.nz/), is more theme focused, and CavCon (team campaign event), or Tempest (1 day event with unusual restrictions) both in Christchurch (http://forum.nzwargamer.net/) might be worth investigating.

Thanks for the heads up man.

Cityguard is a pretty chill club, but we do get the occasional cheese build, especially when people from other clubs / non 'regulars' show up.

A tournament where you get 20% for "army selection" does sound right up my alley. And we never really get to hear about Sth Island events up here, even though it only costs like $100 for the flights.

I think having XD6 would be very difficult to bring in and would change the mechanics of the game a bit to much IMO. For shooting there's really only 2 ways I've thought of changing it:

1/ using a d12, with BS1=10+, BS2=8+ etc. Then if within inner quartile of weapons range add one to the rolls or in outer quartile minus one. But then this requires a D12.

2/ using a d6. When within inner quartile of weapons range it works similar to having BS6. Shoot at normal BS then reroll misses but only hit on a 6 (e.g guardsmen shoots lasgun at 6", misses on a 3 but rerolls to get a 6 so hits). Then for outer range quartile just reroll hits and if a 6 is scored it misses (e.g HWT lascannon shoots at 46" and hits on a 5, on the range roll gets a 6 so its a miss). Bit weird to do it that way but its easy being on a D6. I've only got about 3D12 lying around so #1 is a bit difficult.

$100 for the flights.

well... yesterday jetstar had those last minute flights deals to christchurch for $9. Almost went even though I've got zero reason to.

edit, thinking on it a bit more (and a bit more on topic), in terms of adding blanket rules here's a couple you could chuck in.

a/ have a maximum range cap, say maybe 48" so anything greater than that just maxes out at 48". Perhaps its a foggy day or something.
b/ just remove overwatch fire, or at least make it that a unit has to pass a Ld check before it can snapfire.
These would probably hinder shooting a little, but I dont think it would entirely kick it in the nuts.

Overwatch is the most over-rated rule in 6th. On paper it looks like it would have an impact on charging units, but in practice it's been relevant about a handful of times in my games since 6th Ed came out.

i haven't played new Tau yet, but still don't see it as a big deal (not if you know and prepare for it)

and yeah, when i moved down South i was stunned to see the difference between the style and level of play between the 2 islands. Would recommend trying to get around to a few tourneys on both islands just to see how different things are

 chelsea_hollywood wrote:
Overwatch is the most over-rated rule in 6th. On paper it looks like it would have an impact on charging units, but in practice it's been relevant about a handful of times in my games since 6th Ed came out.

i haven't played new Tau yet, but still don't see it as a big deal (not if you know and prepare for it)

and yeah, when i moved down South i was stunned to see the difference between the style and level of play between the 2 islands. Would recommend trying to get around to a few tourneys on both islands just to see how different things are

Against MEQs? Yeah Overwatch isn't all that much (unless you're charging a unit with a lot of flamers). But if you're using squishies like Boyz, Guardsmen, or Gaunts? Overwatch hurts. Overwatch against Burnaboyz is absolutely murderous. I've had a 30 hormagaunt brick completely vaporized by charging a burnaboy mob not long after the new edition hit. Like, the entire unit just went "poof", gone. Not one made it into assault past the wall of S4 AP5 autohits.

I'm just gonna join in at this point...

I have some differing opinions on some of your original ideas, but I'm not going to claim that you shouldn't do them just because I don't agree!
Anyway...
I do think seize the initiative has it's place in 40k, and I actually agree (for once) with peregrine on that particular topic.
I think the randomness of psychic powers doesn't make a huge amount of sense, as surely a Psyker would spend time trying to learn powers that are most useful to him on the battlefield? So I think the level of randomness should decrease as mastery level increases (so a mastery level 1 is completely random, mastery level two you pick three then randomise between, ml3 you pick two then randomise etc. For each power. Or something like that)
I dont agree with blanket night fight, but I appreciate the idea behind it. I think maybe a range cap or similar on first turn would achieve the same thing? (I wouldn't agree to that either, but it might fit want you're trying to achieve)
I definitely disagree with the FOC restrictions, as they will cause mass imbalance to the game, but meh.
Double assault KP is a nice thought, but would imbalance the game, perhaps character kills double or something? (as in your character does the killing)
Troops doubling is also not the best idea I've ever heard, but it's not the worst either!

Did I cover everything? If not oh well

I like the reasons for the change though, even if I wouldn't take part

Tactical_Genius wrote:

I think the randomness of psychic powers doesn't make a huge amount of sense, as surely a Psyker would spend time trying to learn powers that are most useful to him on the battlefield? So I think the level of randomness should decrease as mastery level increases (so a mastery level 1 is completely random, mastery level two you pick three then randomise between, ml3 you pick two then randomise etc. For each power. Or something like that)

I think a good way to reduce randomness based on mastery level could be for each level over one, you can add +/- 1 to your die roll. So if you're ml2 and roll a 1, you can take either 1,2, or 6. That might be a bit overpowered, but it's simple at least.

 Kain wrote:

 chelsea_hollywood wrote:
Overwatch is the most over-rated rule in 6th. On paper it looks like it would have an impact on charging units, but in practice it's been relevant about a handful of times in my games since 6th Ed came out.

i haven't played new Tau yet, but still don't see it as a big deal (not if you know and prepare for it)

and yeah, when i moved down South i was stunned to see the difference between the style and level of play between the 2 islands. Would recommend trying to get around to a few tourneys on both islands just to see how different things are

Against MEQs? Yeah Overwatch isn't all that much (unless you're charging a unit with a lot of flamers). But if you're using squishies like Boyz, Guardsmen, or Gaunts? Overwatch hurts. Overwatch against Burnaboyz is absolutely murderous. I've had a 30 hormagaunt brick completely vaporized by charging a burnaboy mob not long after the new edition hit. Like, the entire unit just went "poof", gone. Not one made it into assault past the wall of S4 AP5 autohits.

While i agree overwatch has changed who you can assault to some extent (Burnaz are the glaring exception as most units don't have more than 3~4 flamer equivalents) the more typical overwatch (say charging a tac squad) produces so few hits/wounds that it's of little to no consequence even for T3, 6+ save models. so i suppose it does affect the game, but no more than having some units be so much better at CC that they'll kill the the unit that charges them before taking any wounds.

and back to the OP, as a house rule, removing overwatch isn't really much of a way to "balance" the various codexes.

and in the spirit of the subforum, if you wanted to balance the armies/codexes, consider coming up with a generic way of costing stats and abilities (1 pt per point of toughness, 2 pts per point over 7, etc etc) and then recosting all the codexes you and your friends usually play. often something is only "broken" or "OP" because it's cheap in relation to it's ability to kill. rather than fight the rules fight, why not try re-pointing? it's a HUGE task, and probably best done with someone else who runs a different army, but relative to what you're trying to do (re-write some rules to "fix" an entire gaming system) it could be the "easiest"

One thing I never suggested was removing Overwatch. I actually like overwatch, it certainly makes sense to me and the 6+ hits don't really do anything even to my Orks

The only thing I dislike about overwatch, and I actually do dislike it quite a bit, is how it can stop you getting into close combat by killing one or two models at the front of the unit. I believe perhaps casualties from overwatch should be resolved after B2B contact is made, and so not foil the charge. Or casualties from Overwatch can be chosen by the charging player, just something like that. What would you guys think?

Love the +1/-1 for Psyker powers. I don't even use Psykers that need to roll on a table like that (weirdboyz ftw) but that makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.

That along with the "roll then pick a table" for Warlord traits is going on my house-rule list.

I do think seize the initiative has it's place in 40k, and I actually agree (for once) with peregrine on that particular topic

I think I may be coming around to that way of thinking myself. The combination of an abusive power player and a noterrain board really put me off of it. If there was somewhere to actually hide your gak then an initiative-seizing-night-fighting-ignoring-automatic-3-hits-no-LOS-to-rear-of-vehicle-needing manticore can't just blow your army to smitherines

 Dakkamite wrote:
The only thing I dislike about overwatch, and I actually do dislike it quite a bit, is how it can stop you getting into close combat by killing one or two models at the front of the unit. I believe perhaps casualties from overwatch should be resolved after B2B contact is made, and so not foil the charge. Or casualties from Overwatch can be chosen by the charging player, just something like that. What would you guys think?

I think you should just accept that sometimes you fail charges because of overwatch and start from a safer distance and/or put more models up front instead of trying to make a long charge with only a single model out in front.

Which just goes back to the original problem: you're trying to make house rules to "re-balance" various things without even establishing that there's any need for re-balancing. It looks like all you're doing is just identifying the reasons you lost your last game and deciding to change them all.

I have never failed a charge because of overwatch Peregrine.

I just dislike the whole idea of that possibly happening. The last thing shooting needs in this game is another buff.

I'm allowed to have opinions about the rules, as much as you resist that fact, and those opinions are not necessarily shaped by my losses in the game.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I just dislike the whole idea of that possibly happening.

And the point is WHY do you dislike it? Why is it such a bad thing, besides the fact that nobody likes failing? Have you actually playtested it thoroughly and concluded that the failure chance is bad for game balance, or did you just decide "I don't like this" regardless of the fact that failing a charge because of overwatch is often due to your own mistakes?

The last thing shooting needs in this game is another buff.

And IMO assault armies should be removed entirely. This is a scifi game with guns, screaming idiots with chainsaws should be nothing more than machine gun target practice. Be glad that you even have an assault phase.

 Peregrine wrote:
Have you actually playtested it thoroughly and concluded that the failure chance is bad for game balance, or did you just decide "I don't like this"

Its based on two things. The first is that assault armies are crippled in this edition and need a hand. And the second, is because as I said in my last post, "I don't like this"

I dunno why your getting your panties in a twist over this. Its two sentances with ten seconds of thought behind them, an idle comment designed to start a proper conversation with the rest of dakka about overwatch. Notice the words "believe", "perhaps" and "something like that" - I'm not making a statement here, I'm posing a question so I can get some reasoned opinions from other people on this site about possible ways to improve a rule.

You on the other hand seem to be actively looking for stuff to start gak with me over. Stop that. If you don't, theres a certain button I can press under your profile that will stop it for you, so I can be left in peace to talk to the more reasonable members of dakka.

And IMO assault armies should be removed entirely. This is a scifi game with guns, screaming idiots with chainsaws should be nothing more than machine gun target practice. Be glad that you even have an assault phase.

This isn't Sci-Fi, it's 40k. If anything, its the screaming idiots with chainsaws that should be mandatory.

You ever heard of Infinity? That game should be right up your alleyway, because with that mindset I'm starting to think maybe your in the wrong game.

Then again, the 40k fanbase is infamous for a reason after all.

Question: Why do people keep saying that CC is so nerfed and only shooty armies are good nowadays? I'll admit that close combat does need some ranged backup, but close combat is by no means a worthless practice. Hell, the meta at my LGS is over half based in close combat and good old hhack and slash wins most games.
With that in mind, Dakkamite, you still haven't made it clear why these things need fixing besides 'I don't like the idea of it.' And while you can make up all the rules you want, you'll never get a game in using them unless they are rules that people actually want to play with.

TL; DR: Make it fair and fun or you won't get to use the rules anyways.

 Dakkamite wrote:
The first is that assault armies are crippled in this edition and need a hand.

Still haven't seen you prove this.

And the second, is because as I said in my last post, "I don't like this"

But WHY don't you like it? Are you just making proposals based on an impulse "I don't like this", or have you actually playtested it and found constructive reasons for making a change? You have the right to make whatever house rules you can get anyone to agree to, but you aren't going to find anyone willing to consider your ideas if all you have is "I don't like it".

I dunno why your getting your panties in a twist over this. Its two sentances with ten seconds of thought behind them, an idle comment designed to start a proper conversation with the rest of dakka about overwatch.

And that's exactly the problem: you're posting impulsively without really thinking about what you're proposing. If you want to make quality suggestions you need to step back, think about everything carefully, and post good ideas instead of what happens to be on your mind at the moment when you click the reply button.

You on the other hand seem to be actively looking for stuff to start gak with me over.

No, I'm trying to get you to post constructive proposals instead of random useless ideas that nobody will ever play with.

Also, I love threats to use the ignore button, it means that I can criticize everything you write and you'll never defend yourself.

Got no interest in 'defending' anything Peregrine, and if this abrasive attitude of yours is what you call 'help', I don't want any of it. Ignored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Got no interest in 'defending' anything Peregrine, and if this abrasive attitude of yours is what you call 'help', I don't want any of it. Ignored.

Edit:

And while you can make up all the rules you want, you'll never get a game in using them unless they are rules that people actually want to play with.

Thats why I made this thread. I don't want to just throw rules at people and expect them to use them. I'd rather talk about some ideas I had and see what it is that people agree and disagree with.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Thats why I made this thread. I don't want to just throw rules at people and expect them to use them. I'd rather talk about some ideas I had and see what it is that people agree and disagree with.

...
Then why are you ignoring, insulting, not listening, or failing to accept all the advice you've been given? If this thread is made to give you an idea of public opinion, then stop ignoring the public opinion.

mmmhmmm, I think this is going the direction of balancing CC to ranged (well it has been for a while). IMO CC shouldn't in general be as good as ranged, and this is the trend except for a few special cases like terminators or a couple of nids etc. Even with my green tide orks, CC isn't the first option. Tends to be heaps of wild shooting, then maybe introduce a klaw as required (yay anecdotal evidence). So I feel that units like TH/SS terminators dont really need a hand in CC, then other units like regular ork boys are reasonable in a melee but better at ranged overall due to the games favour towards it. Introducing a buff to those orks that would need to be applied universally may very well make some CC specialists broken.

^^ as to that, its probably more to people shooting down his proposals; original and new, but not adding any of their own. That gets tiresome

as to that, its probably more to people shooting down his proposals; original and new, but not adding any of their own. That gets tiresome

This.

Plenty of people have posted their opinions in a less dickish fashion and I've gone out of my way to incorporate what they've said. Show me where I haven't Waaaghpower, and I'll show you two times when I have.

mmmhmmm, I think this is going the direction of balancing CC to ranged (well it has been for a while). IMO CC shouldn't in general be as good as ranged, and this is the trend except for a few special cases like terminators or a couple of nids etc. Even with my green tide orks, CC isn't the first option. Tends to be heaps of wild shooting, then maybe introduce a klaw as required (yay anecdotal evidence). So I feel that units like TH/SS terminators dont really need a hand in CC, then other units like regular ork boys are reasonable in a melee but better at ranged overall due to the games favour towards it. Introducing a buff to those orks that would need to be applied universally may very well make some CC specialists broken.

Yeah, this game is very much shooting orientated so CC shouldn't take centre stage (we have WHF for that). Problem is, if one wanted to modify close combat to make it more viable, theres only two ways to do it - either a minor game-wide buff of some kind (that could end up breaking some units) or to painstakingly go through every single unit and apply bonuses or nerfs as needed. I was hoping to find a way to do the former rather than the latter if its possible.

I see allot of threads where people suggest limiting things like vendetas or Heldrakes because they are too good. If they really are too good then making them 0-1 will just mean everyone takes 1 of them, the optimal strategy is still obvious, take 1.

Increase their points cost until they are no longer an obvious take, that is why points costs exist.

I think your rules are trying hard to not look "targeted" (despite the fact that they really are). I suggest a few smaller more targeted changes such as "this unit now costs x pts extra", "this option now costs y pts". This would go a very, very long way.

Everything has a points cost at which is it no longer over, nor under, powered.

Ok so let me start of by saying I think where you kind of fall down here is with your title, improving competitive play. Simply put this is boastful and arrogant. It assumes something wrong with how other people are doing things. What it should be is "What do you think of my house rules/Comp system?" That said if you choose to host an event with these rules people that want to play with them will come and those that don't won't. One thing you don't consider is that not everyone has models in their collection to do as you've asked, and therefore your rules exclude any one who fits that description. Anyway, my take on the rules, as you have posted them.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Possible rule #1 is; No more seize the initiative


Going first is a major advantage. Placing second is a major advantage as well, one that can balance out going first. But a player who both places second and moves first has pretty much won the game already. So simply put, I'd remove the possibility of this happening - no more seize the initiative rolls. If you place first, you'll go first, full stop.

Going first is a huge advantage, especially when you are assured of not being siezed, I just picture infiltrating/scouting armies getting turn 1 and blowing people off the table turn 1. This rule is also a subtle Nerf to several special characters (Immotek Sieze of a 4+, Cotaez, Vect) who have rules that effect the sieze the initiative built in and paid for. It is also a buff to any character (Bjorn, Baron Sathonyx) that aids in the roll to go first

Possible rule #2 is; you must fill up the FoC


Since the games would have both objectives to hold, and kill points, players who skimp on troops, who say "screw this, here's my six ten man cultist squads you dick, now I'mma spend the rest on Helldrakes!" are going to be handing over a heck of a lot of points to the other side.

As others have said this is difficult for lots of armies to do successfully, and is a big buff to armies with Cheap troops (I take Cotaez and 6 x3 Acolytes, and then I can spend my points in other slots at will). A better way to do something like this is to say you must take 1 HQ and 2 Troops (as normal) then you may take 1 more of each HQ, Troop, Fast, Heavy, Elite, but cannot take a second of any before you have one of each. While still not perfect it does not force filling the chart, it simply forces a more even spread of units. (cuts down on spam.) You could also not include the troops as part cap (you can take up to 6 troops without additional other slots, but must take them to unlock the other slots.) Also how does filling the FOC work with Allies, I would then need to take 6 additional choices if I wanted allies, and do I need to include a fortification as it is in the FOC as well

Possible rule #3 is; Kills in close combat award double kill points

So much shooting in this game, I think maybe an incentive for a little more close combat is required.

While not horrible I am not sure this is needed, not every mission has Kill points (infact most do not), but in those missions this really favors Close combat kill point denial armies (Orks, Paladins etc.) not sure this is needed, but could be built into a mission rather than just a general rule if wanted. You could even do something like only give the bonus point if you win a challange, or kill a character (this is not more competitive per say, just different.)

Possible rule #4 is; kills by troops choices award double kill points and/or only troops can contest objectives

Instead of emphasizing close combat, maybe we need to reward players who beef up their basic troops choices?

Not all troops are created equal, they don't need any bonus over what they have now. This is a giant nerf to armies that have crap for troops (Eldar, Daemons to a large extent.) Troops are already important, I'm not sure they need another boost.(especially using Book style missions, now if you run tons of KP missions that is different, but also not typical of the game as written.)

Possible rule #5 is; there is *always* night fighting

I'm not a big fan of seeing half my army blown away on turn one. This would help limit the effects of that.

Don't like this one, it is a large buff to armies with Night Fighting (De, and Tau) who can still alpha strike you , but now they are safe. Also detracts from the warlord trait that allows you to make in night fighting, and also Immotek who pays for this ability. Again, if you want this in your missions it is fine, but it is not more balanced, than normal (perhaps less so)

Possible rule #6 is; less random traits and powers

Instead of simply rolling for these at the start, the two players take turns vetoing powers or traits from the selected list until you've got the right amount filling out your character's requirements. Alternatively, your opponent can veto X options and you can pick freely from the rest. The more traits or powers your army is built to benefit from, the more likely you are to end up with the advantage you want, and it brings an element of mind-games to it - they'll be trying to figure out what powers benefit you the most and veto them, while your trying to hide the true intention of your army in order to grab the power you want.

This would take a lot of time, and generally makes them meaningless, it is too easy to veto the good powers and leave people with Crap. Lets see I choose to roll on Telepathy, you instant veto Invisibility, because it is good, so then maybe I decide to roll on Biomancy, well then you instant veto say Iron Arm, or Endurance. Essentially I would never take a psyker (except for divination) in your current setup as it is too easy for your opponent to fix it so you only get bad powers.

For instance Say I have to roll for 3 powers on Biomancy with my hive tyrant (also how do you work the Primaris power, is this veto free, can my opponent force me to take it? Or can I veto it? Lets say it can be vetoed) So we swap vetos, and say You go first and veto Iron Arm, well I don't want to get stuck with Hemorage so I veto it, SO then you veto Endurance, I don't want smite veto, so I end up with Life Leech, Enfeeble, and Warp Speed, Not horrible, but I never had the chance at getting the other powers at all.

If you wanted to lessen randomness you can do a couple of things.

For warlord, pick 3 (or 2) tables to roll on, roll a dice and select a trait from one of those tables. Makes it more common that you will get something useful. (your method, it is highly likely I will get something Meh. Any way you do it is a slight nerf to those characters with built in traits who payed to choose them.

Psychic powers, if you wanted to lessen the random here a bit, you could do similarly where you roll a die then pick a chart, (so if I have biomancy and telepathy I roll then pick the power on either that matches) or you could have me roll multiple dice at once, this makes it easier to decide to trade powers or not.

All that said I don't think this needs fixing (though I like fixing warlord traits as decribed above because too often they are largely useless.)

And finally, the last rule I had in mind; no multiples of any non-troops unit

I know, half the players will need to leave two vendettas at home, but I'd like to see something else on the board for once.

Does not work well with filling the FOC, some armies (sisters, and GK) only have 2 Options in some slots (FA for instance) and thus without multiples are unable to meet both requirements. I think if you want to do this you need to include comp scores or forgo filling the FOC. Large benefit to armies with Good troops, and multiple good choices in each slot. I think that if you use my proposed FOC solution (1 HQ 2 Troops, then 1 of each at a time) it will largely fix a lot of spam because points will tend to evaporate before the 3rd vendetta can go in (to get 3 you would need 2 HQ, 2 Elites, 4 Troops, and 2 Heavy Support.) unless you ran them as a squadron, which in your system you can already do as they count as one choice.

Okay I'm sorry but I cannot sit by and have several people almost call for close combat to be removed. 40k is the gakky place where heroes wail at each other at swords not guns. I can understand having more armies orientated to shooty. It makes sense! But what some of you argue is to make it drop from the face of 40k. Honestly, I would prefer the two to be equally viable. You cannot remove the assault unless you remove much of the fluff and then kill several armies (Black Templars, Blood Angels, Chaos Daemons, Nids, Orks, did I forget to mention Chaos Daemons? Because they really don't have much dakka and the dakka they have is largely pretty bad). I picked 40k over fantasy because I wanted to be able to play assault running in bashing the enemy (Khorne) whilst still having an equal chance as my shooty Dark Angels and Tau armies. One cannot make assault a support aspect as it is integral to several armies above all else.

You say why is shooting better than assault? Well please explain to why assault isn't vastly inferior? Random charge distances, overwatch (Seems worthless unless you charge flamers or low bs characters like orks, units that can upgrade their overwatch like Tau, and any divination psyker that lets a unit fire at full bs). How now since you lose from the front charges are even less likely? How if you try to outflank, deepstrike, or anything of that sort your units stand still like incompotent dolts as they get blasted off the field? How Space Marines can fail their leadership, run away, and then turn around and gun you down? How if you kill the enemy on your turn then the whole enemy army can now fire upon you knowing when they should stop and fire on someone else unlike assault where you slow down, and the nerf to furious charge, fleet not letting you move again, and the stupid challenges that force you to fight the foe even if they just throw a sacrifice unit at your ABBADDON?

The reality is, assault should never become an inferior aspect. They should each be viable. I accept that their should be more shooting units than assault units. It makes since. The common guardsman and Marine tends to shoot "assault rifles" not close combat weapons that pierce through your armour because of a force field rending aura. The close combat specialists should be reserved for a few units, HQs, perhaps sergeants, and the armies that are exceptions (Chaos Daemons, Nids, etc).

You can still assault, but a prime example was where I tried to play a Nurgle and Khorne army (not many units). I was stuck assaulting the last of the enemy. I had 10 blood letters led by a herald of khorne and 10 plaguebearers led by 1 herald of nurgle. He had 2 groups of Tactical Marines and a Librarian. The librarian had rolled on divination to get the overwatch at full bs. I never got into close combat... I never had a chance.

Finally, I'm not sure if it can even be called Sci-Fi. It's really Sci-Fantasy. Some odd mess of technology from futuristic to barbaric eras. We have magic users, monsters that hulk about smashing people, and dreaded primarchs that could rip apart a titan by themselves. Now onto the topic, I sent a PM on it, but, the reality is that 40k is a horridly broken game no matter what. Even with attempts to balance, it will take a year or two to update all the codeces and there are bound to be "broken" units by that time. Use what you wish. If you want, use sub optimal units. Even though they aren't the best, that doesn't mean they are worthless. For example, the Mutilator. Would I use it? No. I don't care for the model nor the mobility. He is considered a particularly bad unit... but even then people have found uses for him. He is a rather cheap distractin unit that can be deepstruck in and force the enemy to focus on killing him or move their units around to avoid the assaulty guy from ripping their precious lascannon/etc unit apart.

I'm trying to get everyone to play 5ed as bad as it was, still better then 6ed

 StarTrotter wrote:
Well please explain to why assault isn't vastly inferior?

Because:

1) Assault ignores cover. Remember how ADLs are mandatory and half the competitive armies have IG blobs sitting on an objective behind them? Assaulting fixes this problem and turns a lot of units from "almost impossible to kill" into "don't even bother rolling your saves".

2) Assault is decisive. With shooting you frequently leave the last few models alive and holding their position until next turn (especially if they go to ground in a good defensive position). With a properly-executed assault you will often wipe out the unit entirely, and even when you don't you send them running and occupy the space they used to hold. And in an objective game the difference between one guardsman sitting on an objective and one guardsman running away 6" from the objective is a huge one.

3) Assault allows better force concentration. With shooting it's rare that you have a single powerful unit that is able to wipe out entire enemy units by itself, usually the gap between offense and defense is too small for that to be reliable. To reliably kill an entire target you need to concentrate several shooting units on it (including several transports for those units, several pieces of cover for them to occupy, etc). On the other hand it's very easy to have a single assault unit that will consistently wipe out a target, which allows you to focus a lot of force onto a single point and overwhelm it immediately.

So no, 100% pure assault armies may not be viable, but assaulting is still very much part of the game and I don't see any reason why it needs to become easier and even more consistent.

I'm not getting into the mess of a discussion about improving CC, even though if you could my now 1 attack bloodletters ,without the option for counterattack and with any good combat rules requring a minimum 75 pt character that takes an HQ away from a Bloodthirster, who is only as good as he is because he can fly, with no ranged options to make use of their BS5, would probably love you forever.

My opinion though, flyers are too hard to hit, and expensive marine armies who paid lots of points to be better at shooting are as good at hitting them as an ork boy.
So my suggestion, instead of snapshots at flyers, halve your ballistic skill, rounded up, when shooting flyers/FMCs.

 KhorneDawg wrote:
My opinion though, flyers are too hard to hit, and expensive marine armies who paid lots of points to be better at shooting are as good at hitting them as an ork boy.

That's exactly the point. Without specialized AA weapons hitting a flyer is a matter of blind luck, no amount of skill can compensate for the fact that your only hope is to throw up a wall of bullets and hope that you hit something. If anything the rules are too generous to non-AA weapons, most of them shouldn't even be able to fire at aircraft at all.

Great topic, biggest wall of text I have seen in a while.

40k really leans on fluff and does not have airtight rules but as demonstrated by many postings things like seize initiative remove certainties that could be exploited so some serious game testing was done.

If you want truly competitive game play play something that is a derivative of chess where pure skill rather than bucket-loads of luck has the greatest impact.

The other option is to house-rule it down to the basics or convert to the epic system rules. You just have to get other players to agree...

GW is the official holder of the rules and no whining or claims of unfair or over powered will change that.

I have a friend new to 40k but an old hand at table top games. He was ready to change a horde of rules before even playing the first game. I told him to play me three times before he changes a single thing. He was down to 2-3 suggested "house rules" near the end after seeing that many rules worked for a reason.

Some direct critiques:

Night fighting and seize initiative each have their uses to prevent "being shot to death on the first turn". Dark Eldar would thank you for the always night fighting.

Picking out largely troops or "other" is all a gamble on how to get those scoring units to objectives: Elites to clear the way or spam troops so they do it themselves. Orks will thank you for these changes.

Kills in close combat and troop choices getting extra points: good leaning for "horde" armies so Tyranids will be happy and Orks will vote you in as an official green member. Tau would put marker lights all over you "for the greater good". Tau in melee? Really?

I like thought given on how the rules can be improved who knows: GW might be listening. What has been proposed still sounds like addressing symptoms.

I would propose that fast attack vehicles on turn one are considered to have moved to whatever extent the owning player wishes until their turn (so they get jink save etc.).

I feel it always best to put forth an idea and not only criticize other people's ideas.

Talizvar. I like your idea on Fast Vehicles counting as moving for the first turn.

I think that is the largest issue I have with Seize the Initiative with my Eldar.

Eldar vehicles are already overcosted for their abilites, add to the fact that I set up to TRY to get my transported troops closer to the enemy if I go first since I have no assault ramps nor am open topped....

Then, after the opponent siezes, I have too many of them shot down first turn simply because I am a more technologically advanced race that doesn't use AV13-14 as a means of survival instead of my speed.