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.
I have read through your ideas, but IMO they are still open for abuse I'm afraid. For instance using your examples in a 2000 point game you could take the major armoured column and 2 minor ones, meaning for the "tax" of 3 cheap HQ's and 1 troops choice you can run 7 heavy support choices. This allows spamming of units, which is a major thing that the standard CAD org chart limits.
It's also adding more complication into the game, when it's not really needed, as the CAD force org chart works for 90% of armies.
If you want to run a more specialist army then a different chart can be used. So for instance, dark angels deathwing. Could do away with the compulsory troops slots, but at the expense of a reduced unit selection, allowing you to only take HQ's, terminator squads, dreadnoughts and land raiders in the whole army.
it's the quiet ones you have to look out for. Their the ones that change the world, the loud ones just take the credit for it.
As I'm also not a fan of 8th and "stock" 7th, here are some of 7th modifications I play. They may not suit everyone, because I'm not concerned by duration of games.
- save rerolls: any save that get rerolled is rerolled on a -2 basis with a minimum of 6+, so rerollable 2+ is 2+/4+, 3+ is 3+/5+, 4+ is 4+/6+... This way a better base save is always better than lower rellolable and rerolls are generally nerfed.
- vechicles: +1 HP and only the last HP lost due to '6' on the damage chart causes explosion, otherwise '6' cause one more HP lost and another roll on the damage table. So there is still a chance to blow up a full strenght tank by rolling many '6's in a row but vechicles gain necessary survivability.
- run: d6" but with a minimum of Init value, fleet grant +1"
- charge: still 2d6" but with a minimum of Init value, fleet grant +1"; there is no Init penalty for charging through cover, but defender gain cover benefit for duration of the first fight phase; assault grenades counter that. Deep strikers etc can attempt charge after succesfull LD test.
- cover: instead of being an alternative save, cover gives an additional save roll of 6+ on top of a normal save. Stealth/Shrouded on infantry work differently: stealth improves cover save by 1 if there is an actual cover to be improved or model remained stationary, shrouded counts as always being in cover and gives +1 if in actual cover, stealth+shrouded give you 5+ roll everywhere.
- jink is not cover, is jink; I don't play Dark Angels, they may require special case rules on cover interactions.
- psychic phase: generally disciplines rewritten for usability and non-abusability, with something akin to 8th ed keyword system, so that psykers can only buff their own faction (generally Battle Brothers are gone, but I don't play Imperium factions)
- warlord traits: rewritten and I use the system of "roll first, choose table later". I have three tables, one "personal", second "buff auras" and third "tactical and strategic". Some entries have inner choices or grant reroll if effect is useless for some warlords.
- formations: specific formations are gone, instead I use alternative "special use" FOCs to add flavour, like small outflanking/deep striking FOC, command FOC, endless reserves FOC etc. Those are limited in accesibility and size (point percentage and non-repeatability) but universal.
- D strenght: '6' result is just 2d3 wounds dealt on a same basis as 2-5 results. (additionally I.D. rules are also changed, see below)
- Instant Death is just two wounds instead of one, I.D. from double strenght require toughness test for the second wound to be dealt.
- Maelstrom: custom set, combining rulebook version, some faction goals and most importantly suppremacy objectives.
- ObSec is entirely gone.
I won't go into army specific changes, because there are plenty (including full Tyranid rewrite). I also play in a way, that saves are not negated entirely by high AP, but reduced in a same fasion as rerolling works, granting everything up of 5+ a built in inv save. This prolongs gameplay but reduces first turn advantage signiifcantly and reduces rock/paper/scissors nature of the game.
It should be obvious that such deep core rules changes require point ballance overhaul and some units and rules must be adjusted, and because I don't play every faction I don't guarantee that those do not produce some broken results with some units/factions. This "homebrew" has been expanded gradually over more than 70 games, with maybe 20 games with full set of changes and works for me.
Tamereth wrote:I have read through your ideas, but IMO they are still open for abuse I'm afraid. For instance using your examples in a 2000 point game you could take the major armoured column and 2 minor ones, meaning for the "tax" of 3 cheap HQ's and 1 troops choice you can run 7 heavy support choices. This allows spamming of units, which is a major thing that the standard CAD org chart limits.
It's also adding more complication into the game, when it's not really needed, as the CAD force org chart works for 90% of armies.
If you want to run a more specialist army then a different chart can be used. So for instance, dark angels deathwing. Could do away with the compulsory troops slots, but at the expense of a reduced unit selection, allowing you to only take HQ's, terminator squads, dreadnoughts and land raiders in the whole army.
I'm glad you've read them, though I'm not seeing the issue for abuse. Using your own example, that army would be required to field units that are either Vehicles or models with the Massive Special Rule. I can't think of many Heavy Support Vehicles that can be spammed into being broken in 7E, and the few Massive models (Monstrous Creatures) are already slated to be adjusted in the future. Is 7 of such models considered "spam" at 2000 points? The biggest and strongest models will be too expensive to take that many, and 7 Predators/Battlewagons/Fire Prism/etc. just doesn't seem effective enough for many people to consider playing them. Ravagers I guess might be a "spammable" option, but that army would falter against any kind of infantry-heavy list.
Furthermore, there are already armies that lack specific Detachments suited to certain playstyles: Orks have no easy method of a Dread Army, and a Screamer-Killer Tyranid list is similarly difficult without certain Formations. What are they supposed to do? I would much rather have a very general system that allows for different styles of play rather than each faction having their own specific Detachments that become muddled. The CAD does not work for those armies, though the proposed system still heavily favors the CAD as the option to take a multitude of units that you would want.
In the end, I'm not seeing the complexity issue either - the concept really isn't that difficult: pick one Primary, may pick one Secondary per 1000 points. At the end of the day, I'm just not seeing many of your complaints here. The issue of spamming is much more a result of spammable units rather than detachments, and the argument for complexity seems far fetched.
nou wrote:As I'm also not a fan of 8th and "stock" 7th, here are some of 7th modifications I play. They may not suit everyone, because I'm not concerned by duration of games.
All comments are appreciated, so I'll go through your ideas piece by piece.
nou wrote:- save rerolls: any save that get rerolled is rerolled on a -2 basis with a minimum of 6+, so rerollable 2+ is 2+/4+, 3+ is 3+/5+, 4+ is 4+/6+... This way a better base save is always better than lower rellolable and rerolls are generally nerfed.
I did not think that save re-rolls were all that common, and in fact were much more likely to be re-rolls for Cover or Invulnerable saves. In either case, I think I prefer MagicJuggler's system for saves, as it offer less to remember. Would you want this system to apply for all other re-rolls too?
nou wrote:- vechicles: +1 HP and only the last HP lost due to '6' on the damage chart causes explosion, otherwise '6' cause one more HP lost and another roll on the damage table. So there is still a chance to blow up a full strenght tank by rolling many '6's in a row but vechicles gain necessary survivability.
I posted an alternate Vehicle Damage Table above, and am operating under the pretense that most, if not all, vehicles will receive +2 HP. I'd be very glad to hear your comments on the proposed system in the OP.
nou wrote:- run: d6" but with a minimum of Init value, fleet grant +1"
I'd rather Run moves just be the model's own Move value. Since the vast majority of models will have a 6" Move, Run will just be 6" too. Giving up your Shooting shouldn't be penalized with a random move value that may only sometimes feel beneficial. I have also changed Fleet to simply be an alternate Run distance, so a model with Move 6" and Fleet [9"] would therefore Run 9". The flat, non-random movements seem best, in my opinion.
nou wrote:- charge: still 2d6" but with a minimum of Init value, fleet grant +1"; there is no Init penalty for charging through cover, but defender gain cover benefit for duration of the first fight phase; assault grenades counter that. Deep strikers etc can attempt charge after succesfull LD test.
These are all concepts that have been addressed in my proposed changes, so if you glance through those you can see the solutions that I offer.
nou wrote:- cover: instead of being an alternative save, cover gives an additional save roll of 6+ on top of a normal save. Stealth/Shrouded on infantry work differently: stealth improves cover save by 1 if there is an actual cover to be improved or model remained stationary, shrouded counts as always being in cover and gives +1 if in actual cover, stealth+shrouded give you 5+ roll everywhere.
Not sure I like this all that much. I would prefer to keep Cover as the alternate, modifiable system that it is. I did however modify Stealth and remove Shrouded in my proposed rules. They are effectively one and the same now, only scalable.
nou wrote:- jink is not cover, is jink; I don't play Dark Angels, they may require special case rules on cover interactions.
Well, I guess look at the rules? A lot of these things have been addressed.
nou wrote:- psychic phase: generally disciplines rewritten for usability and non-abusability, with something akin to 8th ed keyword system, so that psykers can only buff their own faction (generally Battle Brothers are gone, but I don't play Imperium factions)
Here's something. I dislike the Keywords system because, to me, it "cheapens" the concept of being a part of any one Faction. Yes, I understand that is an awfully vague reason for disliking a system, but there you go. You're right that the generalist Disciplines require some form of re-balancing, with the most egregious powers simply having to go. The mistrust inherent in the Imperium makes the loss of Battle Brothers not that big of a blow - especially if the concept of "mini-Codixes" could be applied to add things such as Chapter Serfs and other secondary forces onto more omnipresent armies.
nou wrote:- warlord traits: rewritten and I use the system of "roll first, choose table later". I have three tables, one "personal", second "buff auras" and third "tactical and strategic". Some entries have inner choices or grant reroll if effect is useless for some warlords.
I had a similar idea originally, but eventually decided that just allowing the player to pick their Warlord trait during army creation was the simplest and fairest decision - so long as eventually we make re-balancing traits a focus as much as re-balancing Psychic Powers.
nou wrote:- formations: specific formations are gone, instead I use alternative "special use" FOCs to add flavour, like small outflanking/deep striking FOC, command FOC, endless reserves FOC etc. Those are limited in accesibility and size (point percentage and non-repeatability) but universal.
Could you post your FOCs? I would be interested in having a look at them. As you may have seen, Formations have been a rather hot topic in the last page.
nou wrote:- D strenght: '6' result is just 2d3 wounds dealt on a same basis as 2-5 results. (additionally I.D. rules are also changed, see below)
- Instant Death is just two wounds instead of one, I.D. from double strenght require toughness test for the second wound to be dealt.
Figured I would address these two together. One thing that I very much dislike is rolls that "fish for 6s" or "hope for no 1s" such as D-weapons and Stomp attacks. Having a small chance to do catastrophic damage/nothing at all seems silly to me. I would much rather attacks be consistent in their strength. Here are the relevant rules that I have used in my proposed system (simplified from their writing in the OP).
High-Caliber [X] - Does X wounds/Hull Points to target.
Destroyer - Automatically Wounds/Penetrates its target if it hits. Successful Invulnerable saves must be re-rolled.
Instant Death is still the same.
So, for example, here is how I would write a Turbo-Laser using these rules:
Double-Barrelled Destructor Turbo Laser: Range 96" / Strength 10 / AP 2 / Heavy 2, Destroyer, High-Caliber [4], 5" Blast
It might not be perfect at the moment, but that's what I'm working with.
nou wrote:- Maelstrom: custom set, combining rulebook version, some faction goals and most importantly suppremacy objectives.
Yeah I like this. If you have any ideas for larger Faction-specific sets that'd be great to see.
nou wrote:- ObSec is entirely gone.
I'm on the fence about this: I like the idea of Vehicles and Massive models losing the ability to capture objectives. Perhaps only Troops will ever receive Objective Secured (and sticking to that)?
nou wrote:I won't go into army specific changes, because there are plenty (including full Tyranid rewrite). I also play in a way, that saves are not negated entirely by high AP, but reduced in a same fasion as rerolling works, granting everything up of 5+ a built in inv save. This prolongs gameplay but reduces first turn advantage signiifcantly and reduces rock/paper/scissors nature of the game.
It should be obvious that such deep core rules changes require point ballance overhaul and some units and rules must be adjusted, and because I don't play every faction I don't guarantee that those do not produce some broken results with some units/factions. This "homebrew" has been expanded gradually over more than 70 games, with maybe 20 games with full set of changes and works for me.
Is there a Thread here on DakkaDakka, or elsewhere, where you have posted this full ruleset? I would like to give it a look, if that's alright.
I've posted this short list of my houserules only as a possible source of inspiration, not alternatives to what you have proposed - if you don't like them then there's nothing else to discuss about them . I don't claim that they are better for you or anyone. I read those 7th ed "proposed rules" threads seeking inspirations myself, as there is no way there will be any "common community 7th" ruleset. It's not "classic 2nd" to have lasting fanbase.
I've never posted my entire BRB rework, mostly because it has been perpetual work-in-progress and because I played 2-4 times a week I never needed to wrote all of those down in a extensive way, shorthands only. But I posted some general directions of my Tyranid rework (those are before I changed core rules further, so should be somewhat applicable to "stock 7th"https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/706837.page#9000684
Now, just some quick notes to what I wrote earlier and your questions: my reroll rules are intended for every defensive roll, armour, inv, cover whatever. What this method offers is that saves are intuitively and quite evenly "sorted" by probability - 2+ > 3+ rerollable > 3+ > 4+ rerollable etc. Personally I don't like your alternative Vechicle Damage Chart because of those "attacker chooses" options, they are strange "narrative wise". Your "On fire" rule is nice, but I prefer my version of alternative "Explode" result - it represents catastrophic but still gradual failure of a vechicle under heavy fire a bit better than just removing HPs faster.
It's a bit hard to follow consequences of your changes because of how huge they are and how there are multiple different instances of those changes in OP, so just a quick feedback on something that strikes me the most. "Flat run" and "6+d6" charges mess things too much. Such massive movement changes require rethinking of many units. Just to give an example - under your first draft rules Eldar Howling Banshees having Acrobatic and Fleet run 12" and charge 13-18". Under second draft rules (assuming movement values from 8th ed and acrobatic giving 3" bonus) Banshees charge 6+8+3=17" flat. Messing with movement is proably the hardest thing to do if you want to leave codices somewhat compatible with any attempt at 7.5 ed. That's why I settled with random rolls modified by Initiative - I run into the same problem of Howling Banshees-like units massive range when I started to work on my changes...
Finally, a note on why I personally dislike ObSec in any form - it takes away so many movement/placement/board controll aspects of the game, that it usually feels like "cheat mode". And has been introduced as a "default formation bonus", so without special formations there is really no reason for it to exist.
I don't think the concept of formations is bad, however the execution of the idea was awful. I like the idea of having alternate ways to bring models together to represent some fluffy styles of armies. What we can't have is loads of free......whether free rules, free models, whatever. Everything that you get when you build an army should be paid for appropriately. I think the Gladius was the worst perpetrator of this - there is no way all of the transports should have been free. It would be hard, but once you have the other rules hammered out, each formation would need to be looked at to see what causes issues with it, either being too good or being utter gak. It would probably be easier to ditch them entirely, though.
nou wrote:I've posted this short list of my houserules only as a possible source of inspiration, not alternatives to what you have proposed - if you don't like them then there's nothing else to discuss about them . I don't claim that they are better for you or anyone. I read those 7th ed "proposed rules" threads seeking inspirations myself, as there is no way there will be any "common community 7th" ruleset. It's not "classic 2nd" to have lasting fanbase.
I've never posted my entire BRB rework, mostly because it has been perpetual work-in-progress and because I played 2-4 times a week I never needed to wrote all of those down in a extensive way, shorthands only. But I posted some general directions of my Tyranid rework (those are before I changed core rules further, so should be somewhat applicable to "stock 7th"https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/706837.page#9000684
Thanks for the links! I will definitely give them a look over the next few days, as I scour them for ideas. As for this rewrite: I don't expect it to ever gain much traction, but if I can make a ruleset that my playgroup can be happy with, then why not try?
nou wrote:Now, just some quick notes to what I wrote earlier and your questions: my reroll rules are intended for every defensive roll, armour, inv, cover whatever. What this method offers is that saves are intuitively and quite evenly "sorted" by probability - 2+ > 3+ rerollable > 3+ > 4+ rerollable etc. Personally I don't like your alternative Vechicle Damage Chart because of those "attacker chooses" options, they are strange "narrative wise". Your "On fire" rule is nice, but I prefer my version of alternative "Explode" result - it represents catastrophic but still gradual failure of a vechicle under heavy fire a bit better than just removing HPs faster.
I'm not sold on your re-rolls just yet, but in principle the idea seems alright. I think my preferred solution would simply be to limit the number of re-rolls available for Armor/Cover/Invulnerable saves. For example, I removed the re-roll to Jink saves in Skilled Rider (and renamed the USR Terrain Master too, so anyone can theoretically have it).
As for the Vehicle Damage Table, the reason those options are the enemy's choice is to represent them targeting specific areas on the vehicle: aiming for their tracks/legs would slow them down, aiming for turrets and gun-ports would hamper their firepower. It gives the attacker some choice in how to approach the destruction to the enemy's vehicles, without completely disrupting the ability of those vehicles to function a la the original 7E.
nou wrote:It's a bit hard to follow consequences of your changes because of how huge they are and how there are multiple different instances of those changes in OP, so just a quick feedback on something that strikes me the most. "Flat run" and "6+d6" charges mess things too much. Such massive movement changes require rethinking of many units. Just to give an example - under your first draft rules Eldar Howling Banshees having Acrobatic and Fleet run 12" and charge 13-18". Under second draft rules (assuming movement values from 8th ed and acrobatic giving 3" bonus) Banshees charge 6+8+3=17" flat. Messing with movement is proably the hardest thing to do if you want to leave codices somewhat compatible with any attempt at 7.5 ed. That's why I settled with random rolls modified by Initiative - I run into the same problem of Howling Banshees-like units massive range when I started to work on my changes...
I will have to look at the Howling Banshees specifically, since I am not terribly familiar with Craftworld Eldar at all. Perhaps simply making Charge = Move as well, closer to 5th edition? Alternately, 2d6 charge with a minimum value = Move. I'm opposed to allowing a single example of the rules not fitting perfectly to prevent a system that works well elsewhere, so I will address this more closely as you have suggested.
Just looking at them form 1d4chan, it seems like under my ruleset they would have Move 6, Fleet [9"], and whatever the Acrobatics rule would do for them. Unless I'm mistaken, they still cannot Run & Charge, which would mitigate their potential slightly. Perhaps Acrobatics would simply treat their Move as 9" for Assault? That gives them quite a far threat range, on a rather fragile body. My immediate thoughts are to leave them as is (I was under the impression they were not very good in 7E), or remove their ability to enter transports, as some immediate thoughts.
nou wrote:Finally, a note on why I personally dislike ObSec in any form - it takes away so many movement/placement/board controll aspects of the game, that it usually feels like "cheat mode". And has been introduced as a "default formation bonus", so without special formations there is really no reason for it to exist.
I agree with you that it removes potential tactical decisions, yet I also like that it can be used to make Troops more meaningful. I think that it will be alright if only Infantry and Infantry-equivalents are able to contest objectives, and Troops alone have Objective Secured. However, on the other hand, at the late stages in the game it can become hard to imagine a unit of Grots retaining control of an objective when staring down an entire Terminator squad. With one more turn, those Grots would be pulverized! Another topic that will need more thought.
Battlesong wrote:I don't think the concept of formations is bad, however the execution of the idea was awful. I like the idea of having alternate ways to bring models together to represent some fluffy styles of armies. What we can't have is loads of free......whether free rules, free models, whatever. Everything that you get when you build an army should be paid for appropriately. I think the Gladius was the worst perpetrator of this - there is no way all of the transports should have been free. It would be hard, but once you have the other rules hammered out, each formation would need to be looked at to see what causes issues with it, either being too good or being utter gak. It would probably be easier to ditch them entirely, though.
I think you, and others who have shared a similar sentiment throughout this Thread are all in the right. Formations are not inherently bad, but have a great deal of potential for abuse with the free Special Rules/Wargear/etc. they provide, especially when their composition can be replicated in a CAD or equivalent detachment with no bonus.
How do the Detachments I listed on the other page seem to you? Tamereth was against them, but his opinion is the only strong one that I've heard so far. Your feedback on them would be great.
A while ago we had a long discussion with Zustiur about his idea of 7th redefined here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/710632.page#9068962 Craftworld Eldar are very, very tricky with any movement-related modifications to core rules, because armywide Fleet (even on Walkers) and Battle Focus. Banshees cannot run&charge, but just move&charge give them 23-24" threat range under flat movement rules. And this is without transports taken into account. But while we are at run&charge, Harlequins can from second turn on. With your flat ranges they move 6, run 9, charge 9+d6 (or 14 under 8th movement values) and have acces to assault transport, giving them nice total of 30+d6" or 37" flat (under 8th values) charge range from second turn - you don't table them turn 1 you die... Under 8th movement values with transport they have 28" flat range (if I understand your 8th movement stat port with flat charges correctly) even without run&charge. Entire army, not a single odd unit choice... Army that can withstand first turn easily with your buffed up transports with Mirage Launchers (4++ for one turn).
To sum up - I don't think, that you have wrong ideas about how core rules should work. Just that changing BRB without changing codices written for random distances cannot be done easily. If your group doesn't include any Eldar factions and you don't aim at widespread "community 7th", then you'll probably be fine.
nou wrote: A while ago we had a long discussion with Zustiur about his idea of 7th redefined here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/710632.page#9068962 Craftworld Eldar are very, very tricky with any movement-related modifications to core rules, because armywide Fleet (even on Walkers) and Battle Focus. Banshees cannot run&charge, but just move&charge give them 23-24" threat range under flat movement rules. And this is without transports taken into account. But while we are at run&charge, Harlequins can from second turn on. With your flat ranges they move 6, run 9, charge 9+d6 (or 14 under 8th movement values) and have acces to assault transport, giving them nice total of 30+d6" or 37" flat (under 8th values) charge range from second turn - you don't table them turn 1 you die... Under 8th movement values with transport they have 28" flat range (if I understand your 8th movement stat port with flat charges correctly) even without run&charge. Entire army, not a single odd unit choice... Army that can withstand first turn easily with your buffed up transports with Mirage Launchers (4++ for one turn).
To sum up - I don't think, that you have wrong ideas about how core rules should work. Just that changing BRB without changing codices written for random distances cannot be done easily. If your group doesn't include any Eldar factions and you don't aim at widespread "community 7th", then you'll probably be fine.
I like an awful lot of Zustiur's ideas, and some of them will be showing up in the next update to my proposed ruleset. As for Eldar, we do have one Eldar player in my group, so it will be tricky.
Tamereth wrote: Amazed that anyone would defend formations. Yakface hit the nail on the head earlier in the thread, a tactical marine should be a tactical marine. One shouldn't be better than another just because he has been fielded as part of a free formation. I should be able to look at the models, see a tactical squad and know what it does. Not wonder what extra special rules it may have.
Are some undercosted units also a problem, sure. But fix that issue by fixing the under costs units. Formations don't fix undercosted units, you said yourself formations let you take more of them!
There were more problems from busted unit costs than formations. A lot more. Because 95% of formations either involved meaningless buffs or overcosted units. Scatterbikes murdered my list regardless of any formations involved.
nou wrote: A while ago we had a long discussion with Zustiur about his idea of 7th redefined here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/710632.page#9068962 Craftworld Eldar are very, very tricky with any movement-related modifications to core rules, because armywide Fleet (even on Walkers) and Battle Focus. Banshees cannot run&charge, but just move&charge give them 23-24" threat range under flat movement rules. And this is without transports taken into account. But while we are at run&charge, Harlequins can from second turn on. With your flat ranges they move 6, run 9, charge 9+d6 (or 14 under 8th movement values) and have acces to assault transport, giving them nice total of 30+d6" or 37" flat (under 8th values) charge range from second turn - you don't table them turn 1 you die... Under 8th movement values with transport they have 28" flat range (if I understand your 8th movement stat port with flat charges correctly) even without run&charge. Entire army, not a single odd unit choice... Army that can withstand first turn easily with your buffed up transports with Mirage Launchers (4++ for one turn).
To sum up - I don't think, that you have wrong ideas about how core rules should work. Just that changing BRB without changing codices written for random distances cannot be done easily. If your group doesn't include any Eldar factions and you don't aim at widespread "community 7th", then you'll probably be fine.
I like an awful lot of Zustiur's ideas, and some of them will be showing up in the next update to my proposed ruleset. As for Eldar, we do have one Eldar player in my group, so it will be tricky.
Then be prepared to do a solid rewrite of every Eldar subfaction used by this player or having to drop flat run/charge distances altogether. I forgot to mention three further Eldar specific problems: shure-shot JSJ tactics with Battle Focus and flat run distance (you won't ever get to shoot Eldar units with LOS blocking terrain on the table), 27" (or 28" under 8th movement values) guaranteed threat range of footslogging Fire Dragons and CC Ynnari becoming absolute speed beasts (Harlequins from previous example get to either move+run+SfD run+charge or charge second unit 14" away after wiping out first unit in CC simply by being taken as Ynnari faction).
Give shuriken cannons -1AP. As they stand right now they don't do anything particularly well and for the points in most cases, another unit or upgrade is more efficient.
I posted my Wrath of Magnus rewrite in another thread. I wrote it when I was less annoyed by formations, and wanted to see if they could actually encourage "fluff builds" rather than "minimize tax, maximize spam." Hopefully the changes can be inspiration. One of the key things I tried doing with the 1k Son formations was:
-Each formation had a "Mainstay" unit. You had to take at least 1 of that mainstay for each other unit in that formation.
-The formation has a bonus for being filled out.
-Most bonuses involve "more decisions"/unit synergies, rather than raw stat boosts. Some Formations are flat sidegrades rather than pure buffs, though ymmv.
Just a heads up, this isn't dead. I've been busy with work lately, and this has been shifted to the backseat temporarily.
MagicJuggler wrote:I posted my Wrath of Magnus rewrite in another thread. I wrote it when I was less annoyed by formations, and wanted to see if they could actually encourage "fluff builds" rather than "minimize tax, maximize spam." Hopefully the changes can be inspiration. One of the key things I tried doing with the 1k Son formations was:
-Each formation had a "Mainstay" unit. You had to take at least 1 of that mainstay for each other unit in that formation.
-The formation has a bonus for being filled out.
-Most bonuses involve "more decisions"/unit synergies, rather than raw stat boosts. Some Formations are flat sidegrades rather than pure buffs, though ymmv.
Thanks for the link, I'll go check that out tonight.
Seerpath wrote:Give shuriken cannons -1AP. As they stand right now they don't do anything particularly well and for the points in most cases, another unit or upgrade is more efficient.
Would that make them AP 4 or 5? Also, don't the cannons already have Bladestorm? I'm more concerned with Eldar movement than anything else at the moment.
nou wrote: A while ago we had a long discussion with Zustiur about his idea of 7th redefined here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/710632.page#9068962 Craftworld Eldar are very, very tricky with any movement-related modifications to core rules, because armywide Fleet (even on Walkers) and Battle Focus. Banshees cannot run&charge, but just move&charge give them 23-24" threat range under flat movement rules. And this is without transports taken into account. But while we are at run&charge, Harlequins can from second turn on. With your flat ranges they move 6, run 9, charge 9+d6 (or 14 under 8th movement values) and have acces to assault transport, giving them nice total of 30+d6" or 37" flat (under 8th values) charge range from second turn - you don't table them turn 1 you die... Under 8th movement values with transport they have 28" flat range (if I understand your 8th movement stat port with flat charges correctly) even without run&charge. Entire army, not a single odd unit choice... Army that can withstand first turn easily with your buffed up transports with Mirage Launchers (4++ for one turn).
To sum up - I don't think, that you have wrong ideas about how core rules should work. Just that changing BRB without changing codices written for random distances cannot be done easily. If your group doesn't include any Eldar factions and you don't aim at widespread "community 7th", then you'll probably be fine.
I like an awful lot of Zustiur's ideas, and some of them will be showing up in the next update to my proposed ruleset. As for Eldar, we do have one Eldar player in my group, so it will be tricky.
Then be prepared to do a solid rewrite of every Eldar subfaction used by this player or having to drop flat run/charge distances altogether. I forgot to mention three further Eldar specific problems: shure-shot JSJ tactics with Battle Focus and flat run distance (you won't ever get to shoot Eldar units with LOS blocking terrain on the table), 27" (or 28" under 8th movement values) guaranteed threat range of footslogging Fire Dragons and CC Ynnari becoming absolute speed beasts (Harlequins from previous example get to either move+run+SfD run+charge or charge second unit 14" away after wiping out first unit in CC simply by being taken as Ynnari faction).
I am more than prepared to do just this! Help will likely be necessary, though.
Hey, I wanted to check in and see how things were going.
Shuriken Cannons do already have Bladestorm. Tbt, that seems more like wishlisting; the more immediate things should be the nerfing of Scatter Lasers, and perhaps tweaking the game so Objectives are scored by "holding" them on a per-turn basis, rather than being a last-minute cap.
Yes, I am still at work with the rules. I've been reviewing Eldar in-depth and thinking of more modifications to the Psychic Phase lately. I'll likely have this stuff written on Monday or Tuesday next week, which is my "weekend" from work.
Morale: I like the 7th edition morale system. But too many people are immune to it.
So, I'd like to make the following suggestions:
ATSKNF provides rerolls on morale tests, and you can always attempt to regroup on your normal leadership, not needing snake eyes.
Daemonic Instability requires a test every time you'd usually take a morale test, not just in combat. But also make the following changes to snake eyes and boxcars:
2-Restore 1d6 wounds to the unit. (So, if you had a Daemon Prince on 2 wounds and rolled a 4, he'd go back to max wounds. If you have a squad of 15 Plaguebearers, you'd add 1d6 to the unit. If you had a unit of Plague Drones that had 1 unwounded and one with one wound on it, then rolled a 5, you'd heal the one wound, add 3 wounds (a new Drone) and add one more wound (a Drone with only one wound left).)
12-Deal an additional 1d6 unsavable wounds to the unit.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
This chart is used whenever two characteristics are being compared, such as Strength versus Toughness, or Weapon Skill versus Weapon Skill in close combat.
How do you deal with these being different relationships? S vs T only matters in one direction, but WS goes both directions. In a situation where a ws 4 model fights a ws6 model, the ws6 model both hits all the time and cannot be hit, before getting to a model with ws6 usually having better A, W, and I. A one point advantage is enormous too.
There are so many different ways of dealing with this. Some game use a seperate defensive ws and offensive ws, some would use a single state with a staggered chart like having a one point advantage gives you a 3+ to hit and two points gives you a 3+ to hit and a 5+ to be hit, then there are other games including GWsLotR game where each player rolls their ws+D6 and the winner is the only of the two that does damage.
I also though that a base CSM would have stats along the lines of: WS 5 / BS 5 / S 4 / T 4 / I 5 / A 2 / Ld. 9 / Sv. 3+ and costing 24 points each. Seem alright?
That marine's shooting is bad and it doesn't deliver what an army needs it to. It's a 24 point model that shoots a bolter, it can't kill what it should for its points. It's a 120 point unit that shoots one, maybe two melta shots. These things would be fine if having bs5 made hits more powerful, but it doesn't. All hits with meltaguns are equally powerful. There is no way that bs5 helps you get a critical hit that does extra damage.
Those things aren't as important as the decreased footprint; if you have to go from fielding three units to two, you may not even have a unit on the part of the board you need it. You won't contest enough space and it is possible the army won't work without cultists. Maybe it shouldn't, but if that's what's going to happen it needs to be deliberate.
JNAProductions wrote:Morale: I like the 7th edition morale system. But too many people are immune to it.
So, I'd like to make the following suggestions:
ATSKNF provides rerolls on morale tests, and you can always attempt to regroup on your normal leadership, not needing snake eyes.
Daemonic Instability requires a test every time you'd usually take a morale test, not just in combat. But also make the following changes to snake eyes and boxcars:
2-Restore 1d6 wounds to the unit. (So, if you had a Daemon Prince on 2 wounds and rolled a 4, he'd go back to max wounds. If you have a squad of 15 Plaguebearers, you'd add 1d6 to the unit. If you had a unit of Plague Drones that had 1 unwounded and one with one wound on it, then rolled a 5, you'd heal the one wound, add 3 wounds (a new Drone) and add one more wound (a Drone with only one wound left).)
12-Deal an additional 1d6 unsavable wounds to the unit.
Yeah, those seem reasonable.
pelicaniforce wrote:
This chart is used whenever two characteristics are being compared, such as Strength versus Toughness, or Weapon Skill versus Weapon Skill in close combat.
How do you deal with these being different relationships? S vs T only matters in one direction, but WS goes both directions. In a situation where a ws 4 model fights a ws6 model, the ws6 model both hits all the time and cannot be hit, before getting to a model with ws6 usually having better A, W, and I. A one point advantage is enormous too.
There are so many different ways of dealing with this. Some game use a seperate defensive ws and offensive ws, some would use a single state with a staggered chart like having a one point advantage gives you a 3+ to hit and two points gives you a 3+ to hit and a 5+ to be hit, then there are other games including GWsLotR game where each player rolls their ws+D6 and the winner is the only of the two that does damage.
I'm not understanding your example: a model with WS 6 hits WS 4 on 2+, while WS 4 hits WS 6 on 6+. Seeings as how (in general) only Characters and Monsters ever have WS above 4, this seems like a non-issue to me. It makes a single character harder to overwhelm in CC, while still being possible.
pelicaniforce wrote:
I also though that a base CSM would have stats along the lines of: WS 5 / BS 5 / S 4 / T 4 / I 5 / A 2 / Ld. 9 / Sv. 3+ and costing 24 points each. Seem alright?
That marine's shooting is bad and it doesn't deliver what an army needs it to. It's a 24 point model that shoots a bolter, it can't kill what it should for its points. It's a 120 point unit that shoots one, maybe two melta shots. These things would be fine if having bs5 made hits more powerful, but it doesn't. All hits with meltaguns are equally powerful. There is no way that bs5 helps you get a critical hit that does extra damage.
Those things aren't as important as the decreased footprint; if you have to go from fielding three units to two, you may not even have a unit on the part of the board you need it. You won't contest enough space and it is possible the army won't work without cultists. Maybe it shouldn't, but if that's what's going to happen it needs to be deliberate.
Did you see the Special Rules that went along with those models? The ability to shoot twice or fight in close combat twice is pretty advantageous, along with the ability to simply choose to succeed or fail Morale checks, and immune to Sweeping Advances. In this case, having two units of CSM is effectively four in actuality, becuase they are double as effective when used properly.
As for cultists, I have some ideas in the works for that but it will have to wait to be released until I can get my notes compiled properly.
Figured I should jump back in with some of the things I've been thinking about, since it has been a week or more since I last posted here. Since this is all still work in progress, discussion regarding the theory/theories would be great:
Psychic Phase So, I wanted to make two distinct changes: an alteration to how Deny the Witch works, and some benefit for successfully manifesting extra Warp Charges.
As it stands in my version, during the Psychic Phase each "casting" Psyker gains double their Mastery Level in charges to attempt their own powers while "denying" Psykers gain only their Mastery Level in charges. "Denying" Psykers may work together to Deny enemy Powers, but must have Line of Sight to attempt this. No longer can every unit on their own attempt to negate powers. To me, that felt too restrictive on a system that already had was a calculated risk to attempt i.e. manifesting Warp Charges.
Adamantium Will [X] then provides a unit with a +X bonus to Deny powers that target that unit, but still require a Psyker to make the Deny rolls. Additionally, Psykers with Adamantium Will [X] receive +X Warp Charges for Deny the Witch attempts. Many Factions would subsequently gain units that, despite not being Psykers, could attempt to Deny enemy powers (for example Crypteks and Canoptek Spyders with Gloom Prisms, Inquisitors, Haemonculus Ancients perhaps, and a new Sisters of Battle HQ idea I had).
I also wanted to add a mechanic called Overcast to replace Primaris Powers. The latter concept seemed unnecessary as Psykers may choose their powers during army-list writing, so the former introduces something much like Warhammer Fantasy Magic bonuses: a successfully manifested power then activates a Discipline-specific ability. Two ideas I had:
Flesh Warp (Biomancy) – Until the next friendly Start of Turn phase, the Psyker gains +1 Strength, Toughness, Initiative, or Attacks. The same choice may not be selected until all the other choices have been selected.
Soul Blaze (Pyromancy) – For every unsaved wound caused by the Overcast Psychic Power, place a Soul Blaze counter next to that unit. At the end of the friendly Psychic Phase, units suffer a Strength 4 AP 5 hit with the Ignores Cover Special Rule for each Soul Blaze counter they have—then roll a die. If the result is greater than the number of Soul Blaze counters on the unit, remove them. A roll of 6 will always remove the counters.
Other than that, each Discipline just needs some re-balancing. I am also tempted to give Orks and Tyranids additional unique Disciplines.
Chaos Space Marines CSM represent a weird design space, since they are not well representative of their fluff at all. Traitor Legions helps with that, but they still seem (to me) as much more of an inadequate copy of their Loyalist equivalents. As I posted earlier in the thread, I would like to make them as ancient veterans, who appear in small numbers yet are each viciously powerful on their own. As it stands making them simply better, but with greater point costs, seems a disfavorable solution. Thus, I propose a new mechanic unique to these ancient chaos-tainted Legions: the wretches!
Wretches are the sycophantic cultists and unfortunate souls who serve the CSM as chattel; whose ritualistic sacrifice is very important to their arrival in the material world. I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the CSM are somehow now linked to the Warp, and that their escape from it is an inherently difficult thing for them to do. As such, their continual existence is fueled by either pragmatic or god-devoted offerings.
I envision two theoretical options: the first would be that every unit of CSM (which would be older and more experienced than their Loyalist brethren) would receive at the beginning of the game some number of attached Wretches, much like a cross between Black Templar Neophytes and Ork Runts & Squigs. These would exist on the board and be expended at the CSM player's discretion to activate special abilities (similar to Acts of Faith) or take additional actions.
The other option would be that CSM could field units of the Wretches, which could be destroyed by the enemy player, but similarly sacrificed by the CSM player for boons. All this is obviously still rather nebulous, but I thought it might fit some middle-ground between what I had written before as well as the theoretical Daemonkin codices while retaining Traitor Legions style army benefits & limitations.
Craftworld Eldar For these fellows, all I have so far are two relatively simple ideas. The first would be to introduce a new HQ unit, the Bonesinger, as a Psychic-techmarine equivalent with its own unique Psychic Power to repair Vehicles and Eldar wraith-bone creatures. The other concept I had was a solution to the Battle Focus conundrum: since I would like Run moves to be a non-random movement, how could Eldar retain their Battle Focus as is?
First I considered removing it, as it was originally introduced in the 6th Edition Codex if memory serves. That seemed unfair to me, though. Furthermore, why do Eldar Jetbikes get an Assault-move when no other Jetbikes do? Surely that could be made simpler...and for that matter why do Eldar Jetbikes have Battle Focus when they cannot make Run moves? So I thought to combine to two:
Battle Focus = Units composed entirely of models with this Special Rule may, instead of charging, make a Run move during the Assault Phase. This special movement is resolved in exactly the same manner as a Run move made during the Shooting Phase.
Sorry again for the great delay and lack of content, I've been busier than I expected I would be recently.
. I don't claim that they are better for you or anyone. I read those 7th ed "proposed rules" threads seeking inspirations myself, as there is no way there will be any "common community 7th" ruleset. It's not "classic 2nd" to have lasting fanbase.
