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.

It's not really off topic, I think it pertains to many game systems, both 40K and WHFB.

If I'm EVIL and I have a unit in hand to hand with another unit, I should be able to shoot into said combat. If I see a benefit to the action, I should not be worried about the morality of the act. Let high elves question the morality of such actions, I'm evil, I'll do anything to win.

Go ahead challenge me, if i think I'll lose, my honor shouldn't make me go to the back rank and keep me from fighting, I'll just side step you and hack up your troops, give me a break I'm fricking Evil. CAN I PLEASE BE EVIL?

Is there and ork out of unit coherency? I'm moving my full movement anyway, if I have to blast my own guy to keep coherency, fine I'll do it. Whatever, let me have some rules for bad guys please.

Basically I want to be able to cheat and get away with it because I am evil....so it shouldn't really be cheating. I don't want to cheat with rolls and stuff like that. But I just feel none of the rule systems really allow my armys to be trully evil.

Any suggestions, comments or thoughts.....examples?

Lets make some new rules.

Can't Skaven do that already? Life is cheap or something like that.

This is why there's a thing called house rules. As long as your opponent agrees to it, go for it.

Generally I agree that an Evil army should be able to target it's own troops. But I am equally certain that somewhere there is a player who would find a huge loophole in that statement and completely misuse it from it's intended purpose.

Evil doesnt require wanton destruction of ones own troops.

That is stupidity.

snurl wrote:Generally I agree that an Evil army should be able to target it's own troops. But I am equally certain that somewhere there is a player who would find a huge loophole in that statement and completely misuse it from it's intended purpose.

Lash of Submission your own troops.

It is sort of counterproductive, but I agree that you should be allowed to do it. However, for every time that you do it, if you are fighting one of the "good" races, they should get some sort of one-time bonus due to righteous indignation. On the other hand, if Dark Eldar are fighting Chaos Space Marines, it should be allowed to be a fully evil festival of ruthless expediency.

It's kind of a pain to get to work, rules-wise.

Yeah, I mean if I'm running chaos, let's say I have a emperors children unit within firing range of combat. It's some of my Khorne berzerkers versus some eldar banshees. I should be able to shoot, I mean first I'm evil, second they are Slannesh it's a bonus for them. My bolters are not going to do too much damage if they hit the berzerkers, but they will hurt the banshees.

Maybe to compensate good sides could get better leadership. 40k there really is no good race though.

For shooting into combat the effects would be kind of situational, so i don't really think you could charge for it. You are taking the chance to kill your own guys. I don't know if it would ever be a super benefit, there are probably better things you could be doing with the firing troops....It's just fluffy.

The only problem with that is that it is advantageous to only those who decide to be evil. Balance (and common sense) overrides authenticity every time. You simply want to be better than the other guy 'just because'. Rulesets really don't work like that.

You also forget that no one race is truly 'evil'; for the most part, every race has it's own brand of neutrality.

The other problem is then good armies should be able to sacrifice themselves to avoid larger loss. Say you hit a squad of IG with a frag missle, one could "fall on it", saving the rest.

Firing into your own troops isn't good or evil.

Polonius wrote:Firing into your own troops isn't good or evil.

Sometimes it happens by accident My dad was at a CP during one of his deployments and a guy called in artillery on an enemy position. About five seconds later, a Major just turned to everyone and said, "Did we just call artillery on ourselves?" Everyone books it out of the building in time to avoid being hit by FF. The guy calling in the strike had accidentally reversed the coordinates

CSM get an apocalypse strategic asset that allows that. I think its called "Indiscriminate Bombardment", I don't remember terribly well

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good id dumb!"

Like I said good armies can have better leadership than their good counterparts. Chaos marines already lose atsknf.

An extra point of leadership (if that's even possible) is nowhere near as advantageous as getting extra shots off.

ATSKNF is broken as hell and should be addressed anyway, but that doesn't mean that 'evil' armies should gain a sweeping advantage.

If you want an excuse to do good or evil, you'd probably be better off doing it in a campaign. After all, in the middle of a life or death battle between armies, with no civilians and no prisoners to be taken, there really isn't much of a difference.

(pssst....if he wants to kill his own troops just let him)

Sure, as long as your troops all take a wound before applying them to my troops.

Also, since you're evil you should make a roll before the battle. On a 1 you lose your top HQ unit due to treachery.
Because your troops are evil, each turn they need to roll to resist looting and pillaging.
Because they are evil they need to resist shooting their own squad leaders in the back.
Any squad that fails a morale test is wiped out, because evil doesn't tolerate failure.
Ad nauseum

A) I think wargaming isn't an RPG with an alignment system, and B) that alignments aren't really a realistic take on how sentient beings think and operate.

There's good and bad guys in the grimdarkness of 40k?

Wut?

they are better thought of as order and disorder

if you want to be evil then play them in an 'evil' way. consider all units expenadable, throow units into battle for the lawls, that kinda thing, don't edit the rules like that or my choas tau will mess you up something bad.

Then when the unit that you shot into wins combat they have to roll to restrain assaulting the unit that shot into them. -1 ld for each shot (doesnt matter if they hit or not) that was fired into combat.

Could be funny.

Now I like that one a lot.

snurl wrote:(pssst....if he wants to kill his own troops just let him)

Totally.

A commander who shoots into his own troops isn't going to in command very long. In the case of evil armies his demotion will likely be of the permanent six-feet-under variety and carried out by his subordinates rather than his superiors.

Ironically the only army in 40k I could see pulling that off would be guard despite the fact that they aren't an "evil" army per se.

You can always fire danger-close with your Leman Russ and hope for a scatter.

Chrysaor686 wrote:The only problem with that is that it is advantageous to only those who decide to be evil. Balance (and common sense) overrides authenticity every time. You simply want to be better than the other guy 'just because'. Rulesets really don't work like that.

You also forget that no one race is truly 'evil'; for the most part, every race has it's own brand of neutrality.

Yeah, the ruleset actually screws the "evil" characters already so it would be balancing things back out. The "randomness = evil!!!11" factor is a good example. The entire Daemon codex can not even hit the board, with you having little to say about it. Chaos Dreads... yeah. The "good" guys get ATSKNF, whereas the baddies run away if below half despite having the same training. They also get cheaper/more weapon options. But they get +1 attack and forget what god they worship if one guy dies... whatever :p </whinefest> I believe the evil races have some strong negatives against them already and this might help to balance things personally. And before anyone says "it's hard to make rules for it" again, it's hard to make rules for wargames in general. They've been doing a half-ass job so far, no need to stop them now

Okay, guys.

Do we really need to get into how CSM are balanced against loyalists? Again?

Also this doesnt really belong in the off-topic forum since its about wargames....

Should be in dakka discussion

Monster Rain wrote:Okay, guys.

Do we really need to get into how CSM are balanced against loyalists? Again?

"Were" balanced is more of what I would use, but then no one is really balanced against units that can split fire, or an entire army of FNP combat monsters.

And I would take LD10 and a reroll over ATSKNF anyday of the week.

Well, I was referring more to C:SM.

SW and BA are fething cheese; no argument here!