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.
2015/11/01 13:44:43
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Mine would be to change the objectives into one similar to the missions used in Risk.
At the beginning of the game, numbered (or otherwise marked) objectives are placed on the board by both players, with limitations to prevent them all being clumped together and to prevent one player from gaining any possibble advantage (12" from each other, only one in each deployment zone etc.)
They then each draw a card from an objective deck. This card will list what objectives they must secure in order to complete their mission. The players will not know what their opponents mission is.
At the end of the game, each objective you were required to capture gives you a number of points and the player with most points wins. If you control all of your mission objectives at the end of the game then you win, unless your opponent also controls all of theirs. In cases of a tie it goes to tie-breakers (first blood, controlling extra objectives etc.)
This would allow for actual feints and tactics to be used in play. Are you attacking the unit on that objective because you need it for your mission? Or is it just a diversion to pull forces away from another objective so it can be more easily captured? Does the player controlling that objective fall back as it is not a required mission objective in order to keep their unit alive, or do they try to keep hold of it in case their opponent holds as many mission objectives as them?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/01 13:48:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
These are ones that I'd like to see, but don't really affect me.
* Psykers should be required to use the dice they generate, then use the random D6 Pool to add to it if needed. Not a fan of 'Battery' Psykers.
* Hit and Run - Placed in 'Ongoing Reserves' if hit the board edge
* 'Invisibility' - Change it to a Malediction, and just have all current effects apply to that unit hit.
Others I'd wish players would actually accept.
* Start playing all 'Maelstrom', all the time.
RANT!!!
Spoiler:
Take some responsibility in your lists!!! Most (not all), of the complaints I see are literally about how players don't want to change their lists to meet the format. They will then blame their loss on getting a solid string of bad cards. It's never a problem with the list, or that your opponent was actually better than you. It's always the Objectives that they complain on a loss, or that their opponent got a better draw.
Upset that you can't kill a vehicle when your opponent has none? Well, that's a decision that your opponent made on his list, and you want to take that away from him too? I play Necrons as my main force, and I see the complaint because we still have the 'Cast a Psychic Power' Tactical card in our deck. If I wanted to insure that I am able to get that VP, then it's my responsibility to take an allied psyker unit to do so. If I were one of those Necron players who did, then I would be rewarded with the ability to do so when it comes up. Playing Grey Knights? Well then you need to accept that your opponent can kill multiple psykers in one turn, or how easy it is for your opponent to get that VP when he draws the card, because you chose that army, and not because that Card might be singling you out. Run an MSU army? Then you need to accept that your opponent can get D3 VP's from killing them, instead of removing that as a possibility that you might lose.
I got a group of guys to play straight Maelstrom missions for 3 mos, and we've had some awesome games. It's one of the best things to happen to this game and after the initial frustrations, we all noticed our lists change to accommodate the format, instead of trying to make the format work for the army. My current list for Maelstrom games has No Vehicles, No Psykers, No Fortifactions, No MC's/Gargs/Super Heavies, No Flyers, with1 Character and decent sized units to make it as difficult as possible for my opponent to score VP's. NOT playing Maelstrom penalizes me for playing that way, when ALL players can choose to do the same. I even recall a game where my opponent drew the D3 VP's for the Warlord being dead on T1, then my T1, my Shokk Attack Gun killed himself, giving up 5 VP's with my first attack. We had a laugh, and I didn't get pissed off. As Players, we need to look at the Objectives, decide which VP's you can and can not accept, then build a list to fit THAT.
I'm not saying that it's perfect. It's NOT. The only two offsets we have for it right now are the Discard 1 per turn, and the Warlord Table. It's never going to improve until we start playing it. That's never going to happen as long we ignore it!
* Start using Mysterious Objectives. It's been around for a few editions now, why are we still ignoring it?
* Stop using Area Terrain as the default for everything. I was surprised to find how many players are still doing this, and how normal it is. I get some odd looks when I clarify terrain as being 'Difficult' but not 'Area'
* Not everyone likes or has the money for FW, or even likes to play against it (regardless of whether you think it's balanced or not). Some are still new to the game and have never heard of it. Stop pushing it on everyone you see as being 'legal'. We get it, you spent the money, and you think everyone should be okay with it. Please, after a few games, have some lists ready where we don't have to hear 'Well I'd use the one in the Codex, but the FW one is so much better...'
Current Armies
40k: 15k of Unplayable Necrons
(I miss 7th!)
30k: Imperial Fists
(project for 2025)
2015/11/01 15:49:29
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: That would be the tactical part of it. Is it worth it to kill the vehicle now, or can it wait till later? Also, that is only a 1/36 chance to happen anyway so you're really playing the odds on that one.
No, that would be the stupid part of it. 40k is supposed to be a simulation of a real battle, not an abstract game where you exploit loopholes in bad rules. And in a real battle if your commander says "destroy that tank" and you reply "we killed it already" then you're going to be congratulated on succeeding better than expected, you aren't going to be lectured on how much you suck for killing the enemy too soon. There should never be a point where you have to leave an enemy unit alive because you're worried that you might draw a "kill this unit" objective in the future and be unable to complete it because the unit is already dead.
But you are forgetting that the game itself is supposed to be a part of a larger battle. You aren't the only part of the army that is fighting. High command has decided that the enemy's tanks are giving them too much of an advantage, everyone try to weed them out. You've already destroyed the only tanks in the vicinity, so the command means nothing to you personally. You are just hoping your allies elsewhere are doing their job. Same with being told to take a certain objective, the war effort requires you to push to an area, either to distract the enemy and allow your allies space to move, as part of a larger push designed to force the enemy to bear the brunt of the assault head on, or hold your position to provide a breakpoint because the enemy is already pushing your support back around you, and the buck has to stop here.
Forge the narrative perigrin
If the narrative makes no sense (as your provided example) then there's no point in "forging" it anyway.
Saying that the game is part of a "larger battle" is just a personal assumption, and will only apply if you actually pretend that's the case. The fact that you have an enemy tank right before your face and your hands are wielding a meltagun specifically designed and crafted to turn tanks like that one into a melted and useless chunk of metal, means you should be trying to fry that tank, and the game should reward you for it. Only exception would be if said tank were aiming its gun at an objective you'd be interested to see die, and the tank were in a position where it simply couldn't reach you afterwards.
When "tactical objectives" are generated randomly and may contradict each other as a result (now grab this objective marker here and inmediately go punch the enemy commander, who's sitting at the opposite edge of the table) there's little tactical though involved. They should be called Random Objectives, as it's what they are.
I guess it wouldn't be so bad if points from achieving tactical objectives were just a third of the total points towards deciding the outcome of a battle. Something like points from Random Objectives + Kill Points + real Tactical Objectives (slay the warlord, holding markers at the end, etc).
Wouldn't the tactical thought involved be "how can I do these two disparate things without crippling my army?" Also, objective cards don't disappear at the end of the turn, just choose one. As to my personal assumption, I could have sworn that every core rulebook for this game I had ever seen described the game as a part of a larger war effort at some point. Doesn't seem to personal to me.
And again, if you had to kill that tank, then the tactical benefit gained should have been worth the effort to get the right weapon to the right place at the right time without the need for a victory point. If you didn't think going over there was worth the effort without the added bonus of a victory point for doing so then that tank wasn't doing much against you anyway.
Standard Jink to 5+ with a maximum of 4+, units cannot charge from a jinking vehicle and fire snap shots.
MC damage table only in effect for weapons with AP2 or AP1. Effects are cumulative. Roll a 5 and get 1-4 results. Stats can only go to 1.
MC damage table:
1-3 roll Losses an X point of WS and BS this turn where X equals the roll amount, 4 lose an INT for this turn, 5 MC is stunned and halves charge range this turn.
6 Lose one attack for the rest of the game.
Vehicles:
AV 13+ vehicles get to ignore damage on that facing on a roll Afterwards roll for any addition save (invul or cover)
AV 13 = 6+
AV 14 = 5+
Gets hot on Vehicles no long remove a hull point just prevent firing.
On charge you may move the distance your roll in dice if you fail. This lets you get back into cover if you moved out to charge.
Reroll for any 2+ or 3+ invul save is reduced to 4+
Psyker generate dice individually like Akar says.
2015/11/01 16:53:58
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
1. 4E/5E wound allocation. Closest first is stupid. Owner chooses is way better.
2. Maelstrom goes, because it's just stupid running around with no plans. Trying to do impossible things - at least auto-score impossible as completed.
leopard wrote: Simple one, from a previous edition, when rolling to scatter the result is capped at half the distance fired for weapons - so if you fire at a target 12" away the maximum scatter is 6".
Stops shells landing behind the firing unit.
Also if a shot scatters to where you couldn't have actually placed it, say behind a building, the shot hits whatever was in the way.
This would br incredible. Sick of blasts scattering further than the distance between me and the target.
From 3++
"Because your captain is smarter than Belial and all templar commanders ever, he doesn't discard his iron halo when you dress him up as a terminator. Remember this."
2015/11/01 18:27:35
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Wouldn't the tactical thought involved be "how can I do these two disparate things without crippling my army?" Also, objective cards don't disappear at the end of the turn, just choose one. As to my personal assumption, I could have sworn that every core rulebook for this game I had ever seen described the game as a part of a larger war effort at some point. Doesn't seem to personal to me.
And again, if you had to kill that tank, then the tactical benefit gained should have been worth the effort to get the right weapon to the right place at the right time without the need for a victory point. If you didn't think going over there was worth the effort without the added bonus of a victory point for doing so then that tank wasn't doing much against you anyway.
The problem comes when you've already destroyed the tank, then get the "destroy vehicle" card inmediately afterwards.
Next time you have an enemy tank at meltagun range you will probably think whether to blow it up right away... or wait until you have a "destroy vehicle" card objective that gives you an added bonus for doing it when the game randomly decides so.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
2015/11/01 20:12:16
Subject: Re:The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Maelstrom would work if you and your opponent drawn 10 at the start of the game, and you can choose to activate as many of them as you like at the start of your game turn. You don't complete it in that turn, it get's discarded, you complete it, you get the points.
Makes it more tactical then as you have to choose when you decide to play the card and position yourself to do so.
In the same way, I'd nominate game turns at the start of the battle to when your reserves will turn up, but cap it in some way so you can't have everything in turn two. Up to 50% of units in turn two, then whatever you choose for each game turn after then.
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
2015/11/01 20:23:18
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
everything will turn up in turn 3, except for those units that mus come in turn 1.
You can decide at the start of the game if you want your reserves to come together in turn 3 or not.
If not you can part your units in Reserve into Formation.
Roll for each formation at the start of the turn if the turn in.
(6+ at turn 2, 5+ at turn 3, 4+ at turn 4, etc)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2015/11/01 21:01:42
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
A unit attempting overwatch mus pass a leadership test, even if it's fearless/immune to leadership. If it's failed, no overwatch. If overwatching a unit that has the fear USR, apply a -1 modifier to their leadership. Units which are immune to the Fear USR ignore this second part of the rule.
Fleet allows run and charge.
Jump pack units have HOW, even if they used their jump pack in the movement phase.
Bulky confers HOW. Terminators/Oblits/Mutilatords/etc get HOW.
Remove cover saves, implement the equivalent via bs modifiers a la WHFB.
To wound rolls made by weapons with the poisoned usr made against GCs reroll successful rolls.
SH tanks not immune to immob/weapon destroyed.
All units get a movement characteristic.
ID changed to D3 wounds. EW changed to roll 2 dice to determine these wounds, picking the lowest.
Snapshots are made at BS of the model minus 2.
2015/11/02 01:19:00
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
JohnHwangDD wrote: 1. 4E/5E wound allocation. Closest first is stupid. Owner chooses is way better.
2. Maelstrom goes, because it's just stupid running around with no plans. Trying to do impossible things - at least auto-score impossible as completed.
Otherwise it's at least playable in a casual way.
1) Closest first is better than defender picking. Doing Defenders choice makes some weapons/gear/characters almost invulnerable. There needs to be a way to allow for the special model to be targeted/destroyed. But there needs to be a way for the melee unit to not lose ground when charging, maybe closest model for the shooting phase, and any model of the defenders choice during the assault phase. Thus you don't suddenly find yourself out of charge range, and that special model can survive to do it's thing in melee, while I have a chance to gank him at range do to positioning.
2) Fully agree here.
All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
2015/11/02 01:40:54
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Weapons and gear and basic sergeants *should* be invulnerable. In a military unit, everybody knows how to use the BAR, the SAW, etc. Physical weapons almost never get destroyed, so there is always a user. There is a clear COC and fallback in case the SL dies, so that's not an issue. And quite frankly, keeping those models accelerates the game by maintaining a higher average level of lethality. It also looks better when Sergeants can lead from the front.
As for losing ground or not, that's the shooter's risk. If you want to swing that mighty sword, don't shoot as much on the way in.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Weapons and gear and basic sergeants *should* be invulnerable. In a military unit, everybody knows how to use the BAR, the SAW, etc. Physical weapons almost never get destroyed, so there is always a user. There is a clear COC and fallback in case the SL dies, so that's not an issue. And quite frankly, keeping those models accelerates the game by maintaining a higher average level of lethality. It also looks better when Sergeants can lead from the front.
As for losing ground or not, that's the shooter's risk. If you want to swing that mighty sword, don't shoot as much on the way in.
The Sergeant is also likely he primary target as their loss can lead to confusion is lesser trained units.
As to gear, stopping to pick up that weapon, assorted power packs/weapon clips that are not compatible with what you are carrying is not always a good idea. Especially when you are looking at having to undo backpacks just to wear/use the weapon. Mounted gear is almost impossible to switch out during combat, and also likely damaged from the guy mounting it getting fragged, the weapon itself may be unharmed, but that back pack mounted power generator/ammo feed bin may have been. Grabbing a single use weapon from a fallen comrade is easy enough, just run and grab, but crew served/pack mounted type stuff ...not so much. even for a Space Marine who now has to unbolt everything.
Long story short...I disagree with the special models "should" be invulnerable bit. I think they should be more difficult to kill, but not always the last guy there.
Wasn't there an edition where wounds were divided by model? Every model had to take a save, but the defender chose which of a particular set of models died when multiple models of the same type were present. Example; A 5 man squad with 2 special models took 7 wounds, each special would have to make 1 save each, and the 3 regular guys would have to take the remaining 5 saves. If there was 10 wounds every model would have to make 2 saves each. Maybe it was a different game, but this is what I would consider a good method of wound distribution. Maybe it was axed for taking to long? Closest model really is the simplest way to do it, though not the best way.
All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
2015/11/03 03:59:49
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Sorry, but making stuff up that defies reality doesn't work for me. The rule should be minimize saves, maximize casualties, but let the owner choose the survivors.
If someone was targeted in the real world by a tank round, I would put my money on the weapon being useless. This game on s predicated on the idea that highly effective weapons of the modern age are almost garbage compared to the weapons available in this timeline. Considering the fact that boltguns will rip right through a Kevlar and steel flakk jacket with every round, and that the marine will be firing on full auto most of the time, the idea that the gun you are holding in front of your center of mass won't be completely obliterated is a bit comical.
Your point is then made irrelevant by the game/fluff also executing the in game fact that an effective counter to such mad powerful turn you to squish weaponry is charging at it, with a sword....
My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog
2015/11/03 18:01:09
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
megatrons2nd wrote: Wasn't there an edition where wounds were divided by model? Every model had to take a save, but the defender chose which of a particular set of models died when multiple models of the same type were present. Example; A 5 man squad with 2 special models took 7 wounds, each special would have to make 1 save each, and the 3 regular guys would have to take the remaining 5 saves. If there was 10 wounds every model would have to make 2 saves each. Maybe it was a different game, but this is what I would consider a good method of wound distribution. Maybe it was axed for taking to long? Closest model really is the simplest way to do it, though not the best way.
Yes, not sure if it was 3rd or 4th? But definitely happened, and I think it was a reasonable way of distributing hits. Had it's problems though (took a while, and I think there might have been issues about wounds not overflowing so the shooting player killed less sometimes than they should).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/03 19:11:31
2015/11/03 20:38:47
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Sorry, but making stuff up that defies reality doesn't work for me. The rule should be minimize saves, maximize casualties, but let the owner choose the survivors.
Making stuff up that defies reality?
Have you ever seen the results of a High power AP round through Kevlar, and the results on the pack said soldier was wearing on his back?
Have you ever tried to use an M-16 7.62mm round in an M-60?
How about using a 50 caliber round in an M-16?
Shotgun shells don't work particularly well in an M-16 either.
Now try to undo the web gear of a fallen comrade, while under fire, and live....Not a very likely situation.
Try mounting a MK-19 while being shot at, bet it's pretty hard.
Now imagine that the weapons pack is bolted to said comrades armor, see the difficulty? I understand the smaller gear, a melta gun, and any hand carried weapons, but the large stuff like the Heavy Bolter, Power fist, Lascannon and such, not so much.
Not every Sergeants second will be capable of taking his role upon the Sergeants demise. I was taught to target leadership as early as possible.
Yes, not every weapon will be destroyed/rendered inoperative when a squad mate becomes a casualty, but that falls into a far greater range of circumstances than most, if any, games could account for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/03 21:36:51
All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
2015/11/03 21:50:43
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
Do you even look at the models? All of the Specials are self-contained. All of the Heavies have one person with the weapon, the other with the ammo. If dead Flamer guy, it's easy enough to pick it up and use it. Dead Mortar / ML guy? Not a big deal, someone else grabs the tube. Dead loader, someone else grabs the ammo bag.
And in the real world, you can use a NATO 81mm round in any 82mm Soviet mortar tube.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/03 21:52:07
JohnHwangDD wrote: Do you even look at the models? All of the Specials are self-contained. All of the Heavies have one person with the weapon, the other with the ammo. If dead Flamer guy, it's easy enough to pick it up and use it. Dead Mortar / ML guy? Not a big deal, someone else grabs the tube. Dead loader, someone else grabs the ammo bag.
And in the real world, you can use a NATO 81mm round in any 82mm Soviet mortar tube.
I see our disconnect. I am looking at the Marine Models, a guy with a huge power pack mounted to his armor, and you are looking at an Imperial Guardsman model. Big difference in model types there.
My point, though, is that it is impossible to truly reconcile every possible interaction of combat and weapons damage per casualty rate.
In the real world, there are hundreds of weapons, and ammunition types available. Some will be....somewhat compatible, but the overall effect is that most are not. An AK-47 can fire an M-16 round, but the M-16 could not fire the AK-47 rounds. At least not when I was in. However, you had to completely unload the one clip, and reload another to do it, as the clips did not work on both weapons. Jus because it is possible, does not mean it is suggested either. The AK-47 lost a lot of it's accuracy in doing this, though to be fair it was somewhat inferior in accuracy to begin with, but it also had a different design philosophy as well.
All the worlds a joke and the people merely punchlines
2015/11/03 22:48:36
Subject: The "best" house rules for 40k to make it work.
IRL, there was a clear Soviet design philosophy - be able to use NATO ammo, but don't let them use ours... Pretty smart to be able to scavenge that way. Sure, it's not as accurate, but better to be a little inaccurate than SOL with nothing to fire.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
