Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all.

NOTE: This is NOT a proposal for a NEW rules system, rather it is an adaptaion of the current system to allow for a little more in depth play. Although I welcome any rules/house rules people have to contribute - adaptations or otherwise

I have been thinking now for a while about making my own rules set for 40k. The idea initially started as an adaptation of the current 5th ed rules with minor tweaks here and their to some rules which seem to defy all logic. I know it is all fiction but it seems GW want a more 'cinematic' approach - and so do I. However there is so many little things within the current rules that make little sense. In short I started tinkering a while back and have now begun re-writing the rules completely - adding new elements and generally making the game more complicated, but, then again, I think people have memories and can handle basic math .

I'd like to point out I have no problem with playing 5th Ed. It is fun and quick to play - however I crave for the more advanced days of Rogue Trader again and for frenzy, modifiers and Coolness and Willpower! In short the rules I am developing, mainly as I am currently mostly bed ridden with back pain, are becoming a mish-mash of all the previous systems - mixed with a healthy dose of logic and creative thinking which may (or most likely won't) make for a good or 'use-able' set of game mechanics.

While I'm at it I've decided that the current codex's and army-specific rules don't gel totally with my vision of the background fiction or 'fluff' - so all that is going to change - eventually.

Other things I'm introducing are revamped weapon rules and stats (for example - why don't power weapons receive even just a little buff against Vehicle AP?), a more advanced Strategy system, introducing different terrain and extreme weather conditions, some kind of Momentum buff should a side do sufficiently well in a particular turn and some phase specific special actions.

Of course this all means that EVERYTHING will have to be balanced and changed accordingly and I will, hopefully over the next week or so, post a PDF link or similar on Scribd of some rough and ready & untried (other than a few lame imagined scenario test dice rolls) rules. Until then what do you guys think of making a more advanced (therefore complicated) gaming system in general? I'd personally like to see GW have a basic rules section for rough and ready, mass destruction laden games - and an advanced rules update for those of us who crave a bit more personal and dramatic detail in our games. Sorry for the long entry but there's a lot to explain before I receive the inevitable flak...

Thanks for you time...

I think you should explain what you mean by "logic" and "sense". Secondly, you should consider the difference between a simulation and a game. Thirdly, you should consider that even a little extra complication can multiply out as the main cycle of the game iterates, and calculations add up.

You are right in referring me back to these two points in relation to 5th Ed.

By 'Logic' I mean little things like Bikes and Jetbikes not being able to 'HIt and Run'. If I'm riding hell for leather on a bike/jetbike I'm not suddenly going to stop and allow my enemy to surround me, and if they did - to quote Bill Hicks "Just step on the ******g gas man!". I'm going to ride in, take a swipe or a shot and come back around - as my main advantage would be that of speed - my momentum would be enough to carry me through a unit whose natural reaction would be to get out the way, firing their weapons/side arms or taking CC swipes of their own as I pass through (after all no man sized creature is likely to survive getting directly hit by a turbo-boosting Space Marine whose capable of riding through walls). To quote 5th Ed. "...bikes excel at hit & run attacks." Yet don't have the rule?

Other minor things like power weapons not having any additional effect against penetrating vehicle armour - they can cut Terminators and Necrons in half, yet are as much use as a rifle butt or standard sword against vehicle armour? Chainswords are (fluff-wise) capable of cutting through steel bulkheads but receive nothing to represent this, snipers not being able to allocate the wounds to their targets etc...these things (and the rest), to me, make little sense. Of course points would have to be adjusted to take any additional ability into account. This is all IMHO.

In short what this experiment is rapidly becoming is an attempt to push boundaries and expand the game into new grounds of 'realism' which may very well make it a bore, or a long and twisted nightmare to play - I simply don't know yet . I'm well aware that GW has 30+ years of development experience on me and they must have good reasons to make the games like they do.

As for the consideration - I am considering everything - but until I actually begin play testing I will have little to no idea how complex things will become once they begin to overlap. I know such things as orders are represented in the current rules simply by the act of moving/running/shooting & assaulting, but, for me, it's just not enough. Why can't my guy with a meltagun fire it at that big scary battle tank whilst his squad members cover him by targeting Infantry as they know they have no hope of penetrating the vehicles armour? This, to me, makes no sense.

As for the difference between a game and a simulation. My understanding of your point is that a fast, relatively simple game will become a more complex simulation that will take longer to complete and will involve many overlapping elements as it progresses - taking it out of the realms of being a mere 'game'. War games are, for me, a combination of both - they simulate their fictional background and the act of warfare, yet we play them as a game for, primarily, enjoyment as well as a mental exercise. Any war game is both a simulation and a game. The rules I'm proposing/developing will make it more of the former - I hope this explains it.

I know calculations add up and this will affect pace - nothing I'm proposing yet is set in any kind of stone, or even clay for that matter.

I simply want to push the fluff/logic of combat and see how far I can take it within the realms of the game/simulation. In the mean time does anyone crave just a little more detail to their games, or would be up for a ruleset/system that did at least offer the option of using one or more advanced rules/mechanics. Even something as simple as Overwatch or grenades being capable of physical damage?

Do you want to keep 5th eds scope of larger battles, which 5thed by and large covers rather nicely.

Or do you wish for a more in depth Skirmish game( RT/2nd ed)?

I would suggest looking at 2nd ed as a base and possibly stripping back overly complicated rules ,where necessary, to accommodate the larger model counts that the current edition caters to.

maybe add selected 5th ed rules?

I am quite happy with 5th Ed as a game for sheer fun and destruction but I do wish for more in depth skirmish elements - just as a different way of playing and not as a complete change (perhaps my title was wrong as the rules are more of an adaptation of the fundamental elements).

The rules I'm proposing in themselves are not in direct contradiction to 5th Ed, as they are primarily based upon it. I have all the editions and have been picking at them to create somekind of Frankenstein monster-esqe monstrosity.

The proposed spirit of the rules is that player's may choose any number of them to add/change their games - if they want to be able fo split fire on a simple LD test, then they can, if they want to use the alternate cover rules they can etc...It is up to the player's how much they incorporate as an expansion/alteration to 5th Ed - in part or completely) That's the idea anyway...

Ideally I would like the capacity for similar sized armies. Players would decide to use the army lists/rules I make for the current races or use the 5th Ed codex books. The rules will, ideally, fit the current rules simply by adapting them or changing them like one giant Errata. Any new army lists/race specific rules will take advantage of the new rules, and represent the fluff, to the maximium.

Imperial Guard would receive little change points-wise (as they are the basis for any/all modified stats I introduce). The generic orders system (if introduced by the players) would supercede their own, but they would have buffed up lasguns etc (which simply aren't dakka enough for me - so would be Rapid Fire - 2).

For the moment I am just rolling through the rules and making changes as I go and seeing what I come up with. I initially started adapting 5th Ed. with the kind of tweaks noted in my last post. I think I may be attempting the impossible of trying to combine the raw-story telling fiction awesomeness that is 40k with a games system that re-presents it as faithfully as possible.

As for 2nd Ed I liked most parts of it, but the modifiers, uber characters & combat were just silly. Yet I like the kind of detail where flame weapons (for example) were able to set things on fire if they initially survive. For example in the rules 'Flame' would be a weapon type that always counts as an Assault/Template (as normal) however it would have the additional rules (though may not turn out exactly like this):

If models survive the initial blast there is every chance that the volatile chemicals have set them on fire. Remove casualties as normal. Roll a D6 for every surviving model hit by the weapon. On a 4+ they take a Str x hit at AP - , where the strength is equal to that of the Flame weapon. If hit by multiple flame weapons add + 1 to set them on fire for each additional flame weapon. Twin linked Flame weapons count as 2 for this purpose (or else simply roll a 3+/re-roll once)...

A unit which has models set on fire, but are still alive, must take a test for Pinning as they are beating the flames of their comrades out, or the on fire model rolls on the ground to do so. Models with a Sv of 4+ or more ignore this rule, as do any Monstrous Creatures & units who are Fearless. The flames simply cannot penetrate the armour or the model/unit is big enough or insane/brave enough to simply not care for their own or fellows' safety.

If flame carrying models die due to shooting their is a chance that their ammunition will react to the enemy fire. On a roll of 6 their ammo explodes. Place the Blast template centred on the model, any models underneath the template take a S and AP hit equal to the stat of the weapon they are carrying. Naturally the weapon is destoyed by such an event and cannot be reclaimed by the unit.

Vehicles whose Flame weapon is destoyed suffer a Glancing Hit on a D6 roll of 6 (or this may end up being a universal rule)...

Things like Eldar Fire Dragons I may make immune or resistant to flame weapons - I don't know yet...players may simply choose the 'on fire' element of the rule or the 'exploding ammo aspect' or both...so long as both parties agree and are each subject to the rule it's all gravy...

I look forward to seeing the full list of changes!

This, could either be epic win.... Or epic fail.

I await to see which it becomes.

Super Space Marines wouldn't be fun, too strong and defeats the purpose of a huge battle-setting like 40k.

Keep the fluff to skirmish games and the such, as in 40k a single battlecannon could wipe out a "super army".

Thanks guys.

I'm thinking of adding rules, or possibly stealing them from elsewhere, for a more detailed story-driven campaign system. As a player I would like to see more official rules for such things. I like the idea of adding personal missions you or a GM may assign to a particular unit or character (although Battlemissions provides many scenarios as is) - they can either mean additonal Kill Points or count as objectives or simply be used for bragging rights...

Right now I'm just making adjustments to some rules which I feel aren't instinctive to me as a player. This is the reason why they added TLOS to 5th Ed. It was instinctive for us to do so - I played this way, at least at home, for years before they officially introduced it (although I'm aware of the many arguments against it - personally I find there's no argument at all - if you can see it you have a chance of hitting it. Done.)

For the moment it is looking like one giant ERRATA - so I will not be re-writing all the rules completely. I may leave my ideas for Special Actions for the smaller skirmish type battles. As I said before I would like to see more detailed rules as at least an option for the players to decide upon using. For now I am working on concepts such as Momentum (if a side pwns in a single turn by doing x,x,x & x it may receive additional Orders from its Commander - scenting blood, siezing the initiative, and all that...NOT giving it an additional turn, but allowing startegically placed units to gain a slight edge on their opponent - causing for more urgency to react or neutralise the threat).

I look forward to finishing it and the rules asap to see what people think, love, hate, despise, reject, accept, mock or are else competely indifferent to, my attempts.

Thanks again (and sorry for all the long posts!)

Well after much deliberation and fiddling about this is what I've come up with (I've edited some of my previous posts to free you all of the mindless rambling).

I've scrapped my foolish notions of altering stat lines etc....I'll include a brief summary below and should people still be interested they can look at the document itself. To repeat these rules are an adaptation of 5th Edition not a full re-write.

Units: All (and only) Infantry can take objectives. Bikes and Jetbikes now have Hit & Run as standard. Introduction of the Commander as a unit type. A Commander is able to give additional orders to unis or call in more immediate Startegic Reserves.

Characteristics: Willpower & Coolness have been added. Willpower gives charactrs re-rolls and may lead toward a Special Action system. Coolness is like 'wounds' but for psychology/morale purposes - and enables re-rolls of Ld tests.

The Game: A very brief summary of different terrain features and weather conditions. A re-introduction of Strategy Rating & how this affects the Commander, their Reserves and the Orders system. Momentum - if a side does perticualrly well in any of its turns its commander may give further orders, subject to normal restrictions...

Orders System: Infantry units may receive 1 order per turn - giving them an additional ability in any particular phase. Squad Leaders have become Independent Characters that cannot leave their unit and grant a bonus to a Ld roll to receive Orders.

Cover: Cover saves are now taken BEFORE armour saves. High AP weapons debilitate cover as do Sniper Weapons & Orders may increase the cover save.

Reactions: I've included a couple of instinctive Infantry reactions which currently only affect bombardments and being outnumbered in combat.

Weapon rules: A few examples of ranged weapons have been included. A notable change is that any suitable Heavy x weapon may now Rapid Fire (the increase in cover and vehicles help to balence this out).

Assault: A new assault to hit table has been included, fumbles and critical hits added.

Vehicles: All vehicles now have structure points and a weapon's AP now affects vehicle AP and damage. I felt SP's were necessary due to these reasons, as well as to give more scope to the weapons themselves...

Universal Special Rules: Fear and Terror have been added, as has Power of the Machine Spirit and Infiltration has been altered.

That's it for now...if any of you take a look at them please let me know what you like/dislike or think could be changed...if you hate them & think they are the worst idea since facism then simply don't let me know. I'm looking for constructive feedback please...

As for Strategy Rating and Cover and their effect on Infantry etc it's still too early if this could/shouls have an effect on an armies points values etc...

As for said document itself I forgot to spellcheck it etc before I converted/uploaded it last night so there's bound to be typo's and grammatical errors here and there - in fact I've seen plenty already (I've reasoned if the rules are broken who would care for a little broken literacy?)...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38457052/Pirate-40k

All your -'s have disappeared. I assume a Unique character doesn't have 38 WP

Doh! Obviously lost in conversion/translation. No of course they don't have 38?! 3 to 8...no characteristic will break the rule of 10.

Good plan dear boy. I for one have previously contented myself with hitting 5th ed players with a venerable copy of RT on a stick (crozius arcanum) and shouting "It wasn't like this in my day!!!"

Then I started playing 5th (to appear sociable)......... .....and managed to play 5 games over a weekend! In RT you wouldn't even get to turn 5 in a weekend (in big battles).

I like the idea; as large parts of 5th grate at my nerves. I believe you could also use the spearhead rules (more shooty, claiming objectives etc) as additional standard 5th rules (except the ludicrous amounts of armour) and then add from there.

just a few of my complaints of 5th for you to mull over....

1) why can't trained tank crews fire each weapon at a different target?
2) why can't I fire into assaults? If I'm OK with a little friendly fire where's the harm?
3) current wound allocation is b ks. You should choose who shoots at who. Yes its slow but its much better.
4) split fire. Indeedy. More LD tests. Yes please.
5) cover save THEN armour save. I know its radical but if a pansy space elf shot me with a shuriken cannon I'd like to think I wouldn't have to strip off my power armour before diving behind a tree.
6) cc casualty removal and cunning slingshotting. Basically abusing over simplified rules for your benefit.

sorry if I've covered stuff you've already said but your posts were long and my attention span is currently that of a drug addled (prescription) weasel. I laud your intentions and will follow with interest.

just a few of my complaints of 5th for you to mull over....

1) why can't trained tank crews fire each weapon at a different target?
2) why can't I fire into assaults? If I'm OK with a little friendly fire where's the harm?
3) current wound allocation is b ks. You should choose who shoots at who. Yes its slow but its much better.
4) split fire. Indeedy. More LD tests. Yes please.
5) cover save THEN armour save. I know its radical but if a pansy space elf shot me with a shuriken cannon I'd like to think I wouldn't have to strip off my power armour before diving behind a tree.
6) cc casualty removal and cunning slingshotting. Basically abusing over simplified rules for your benefit.

I'm glad there's at least 1 person out there who seemingly agrees with me on a level!

As for your complaints they've mostly been addressed - except firing into combat for the moment. The basics of what I propose is in the link above (although if your attention span is that low I don't know how you'd cope with 35 pages of badly set out, typo-filled, not even play-tested rules - which are more of a sketch really...)

Sadly my attention span is only as it is due the sheer amount of prescription goodness I have in my system. Effectively acting like a suspensor on my whole body (little RT joke there for all us oldies). Even bugs don't bite me anymore as they tend to OD instantaneously

I'm a die hard RT'er so I can cope with complex rules and bits being all over the place, sometimes in different books for no obvious reason. I even own Phoenix command THE best, but most complicated, game system in existence.

Sorry, I wrote my post without actually looking at your works (seems I'd be perfect working in politics) I was just pleased I'd found a kindred gamer and wanted a quick rant before having leave the house and pretend I was a grown up.

When I've finished the commission stuff I'm doing tonight I'll have a look and give some more applicable and useful feedback.

Oh no! I just had a quick skim through and I already love some of your ideas I'll have a proper read and come back to you. Doesn't help that I don't have a facebook account and can't seem to download it. May hack my wife's and use that

HI folks.
I would just like to say that if you want to write a new rule set for 40k.
I might be a good idea to determine EXACTLY what type of game you want...

Unfortunatley the current 40k rule set is has just evovled by adding onto what went before , even though the design goals have changed radically over the last 20 years....
This has resulted in a very abstract and counterintuitive rule set.

RT was a free wheeling strongly narritive driven RPG-skirmish game that was NEVER intended for mass battles ...(Thats what Epic was for. )

As there are loads of excelent skirmish rule sets FREELY available.(GWs Own SGs ,Inquisitor and Necromundia, and some more on freewargamesrules.)

I have drawn up a rough outline for a new rule set using alternative game mechanics and resolution methods that is suitable for modern type warfare simuation.
That is far more straightforwad than 40k current rules.(All units covered by the SAME CORE RULES, no extra rules required!)

If you think a 'modern unit interaction game' is what 40k should be, I can post up my rules outline if you like?

TTFN

Lanrak wrote: RT was a free wheeling strongly narritive driven RPG-skirmish game that was NEVER intended for mass battles ...

That kind of defeatist attitude will never get you anywhere young fella me lad . RT was/is entirely usable for large battles it just requires a level of prep and competency of players/GM unseen nowadays. And a few spare days to play it in.

Sadly the current system is turning into a poor mockery of space marine (or epic for those young uns) and I'm currently awaiting the release of big square five man bases for 28mm (hey they've done it with LOTR)

I think warspawned is trying to adapt a game he loves and not create a new system. I wouldn't want to lose the fluff or feel of the grimdark just try and return a much loved system away from the over simplified, child orientated, cash cow that our beloved 40K has become. If you want a modern warfare game just buy Phoenix Command and disappear into your room for the rest of your life. OK, you'll only have simulated 5 minutes of game time in that period but it will be amazing and very accurate (as accurate as pushing little plastic men around a big green table gets ).

Rant aside........ post up a link to your rules in this thread (if warspawned allows it) or your own and we'll have a look.

Oh and use spell check; as the only thing the British have left is our language. (Having said that he methodically checks his own typing for errors )

Picks up pipe, dons slippers and heads off up the wooden hill to bed-fordshire...............

Dances
(Can you tell how you touched a nerve bemoaning my beloved RT? )

Dances with Squats wrote:

Lanrak wrote: RT was a free wheeling strongly narritive driven RPG-skirmish game that was NEVER intended for mass battles ...

That kind of defeatist attitude will never get you anywhere young fella me lad . RT was/is entirely usable for large battles it just requires a level of prep and competency of players/GM unseen nowadays. And a few spare days to play it in.

Sadly the current system is turning into a poor mockery of space marine (or epic for those young uns) and I'm currently awaiting the release of big square five man bases for 28mm (hey they've done it with LOTR)

I think warspawned is trying to adapt a game he loves and not create a new system. I wouldn't want to lose the fluff or feel of the grimdark just try and return a much loved system away from the over simplified, child orientated, cash cow that our beloved 40K has become. If you want a modern warfare game just buy Phoenix Command and disappear into your room for the rest of your life. OK, you'll only have simulated 5 minutes of game time in that period but it will be amazing and very accurate (as accurate as pushing little plastic men around a big green table gets ).

Rant aside........ post up a link to your rules in this thread (if warspawned allows it) or your own and we'll have a look.

Oh and use spell check; as the only thing the British have left is our language. (Having said that he methodically checks his own typing for errors )

Picks up pipe, dons slippers and heads off up the wooden hill to bed-fordshire...............

Dances
(Can you tell how you touched a nerve bemoaning my beloved RT? )

Hey could you PM me the stats for the RT Assault Cannon and Bolter?

Also if you could somehow send me a link for the Warhammer Siege that included RT stuff that'd be fantastic. (Or if you had it, and could scan it and upload it to scribd)

Thanks bro!

-Vlad

'Coolness' should be called Charisma which is really just leadership.

Amaya wrote:'Coolness' should be called Charisma which is really just leadership.

Well Cool was different from LD 'cause you had to deal with Fear and Confusion and Hatred and Frenzy.

Then again it does make sense that more highly trained troops would be less resistant to Fear or Frenzy. Ah well. Haha

Good skills Vlad,

Although it's true RT did have its faults, akin to all games it's a case of the more complicated = the more possibilities = usually the slower and more boring it gets (unless you can play like a well oiled machine).

All eyes on warspawned to develop further his amazing, working set of deep playable rules. No pressure mate.



Oh and PM sent; hope that helps. Can't obviously scan or send links to electronic version of GW material of any kind (I'm too scared of their stormtroopers to liberate anything....heck I'm a squat player so I'm already pushing it. I suppose you could ask around or use a search engine but it's not a route I've ever had to consider personally ) My mainly original double copies (one to use, one to love) of each book are carefully filed and stored, although I picked up a pristine copy of siege for about 3 quid recently on ebay.

I think warspawned is trying to adapt a game he loves and not create a new system.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do! I scewed up the title completely I'll edit a nice friendly idsclaimer at the top.

All this came about because I simply hate having to imagine everything my little guys are doing! I still love Apocalypse battles though...although I miss Epic. I remember getting Titan Legions as a kid - I wish I still had those Gargant's...sigh...

Thanks for the support guys. I have no problems with this Topic being a vehicle for proposed rules systems, though. In fact I actively encourage such mental endeavour from all Dakka users.

As for the rules I'm slowly going through the motions for Wargear (which will end up like my beloved 2nd Ed book) but all races will be covered separetly with perhaps their own race-specific Special Rules...I'm also working on more detailed psychology - in the form of Universal Special Rules (got to bring back Frenzy) and that should cover most things. Then it's a matter of consolidating and, finally, play-testing! WOOT! I'll leave my current rules sketch as an attachment:

Ah yes 2ed wargear . . . are you going to bring back the Vortex Grenade into 'normal' 40K? The joyous fun of it all . . . and also I must say, I much prefered playing with less models, but just more heroic in their awesome. (Movie Marines anyone?)

Oshova

Mmmmm vortex grenades. My personal favourite moment of RT was when my jump-pack equipped, vortex grenade toting, squat assault squad jumped through the first floor window (well most of them made it...a few bounced off) of a building held by harlequins and preceded to bring down the entire thing killing all the pointy eared space pansies. I even think a couple of my chaps survived. After that my opponent put a reasonable limit on the number of vortex grenades I'm allowed. Spoilsport.

The ability to create infinite variation has always been what enamored me with RT. Bring on the wargear.

I am thinking of bringing back more detailed versions of weapons and will include rules for such things as Vortex grenades and Displacement fields etc...I believe that giving people as many workable options to play their games in as much, or little, detail as they wish can only be a good thing - rather than the current nihilistic approach to simply deny such action with multi-layered abstractions. I'm at not having such options. So all this adaptation is in the spirit of the 'Advanced Gamer' section of RT (as if it weren't complex enough!).

I'm about to start the EPIC work of changing all the wargear to fit within my rules Sketch - many weapons will change and as many won't - the base ranges, strength and AP etc will stay the same - it's just that rules will be added to bring more flavour.

As for statistics and more 'movie style' representations (not just of Marines but everything else) I'll come to all that much, much later...for the time being I'm happy simply adapting what is already given to us. Any change in this regard will result in a more 'fair' version of 2nd Ed. My thoughts on characteristics and statistics can be found here if you haven't read it already:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318951.page

Thanks for the encouragment guys (although to be fair I'd probably do it all anyway)!

If you're planning on more complex weapons, add a damage stat. Short and long ranges are cool but you could easily have it like WHFB. Also, save modifiers. Save modifiers. : )

But yeah. Damage stat. Remove instant death and eternal warrior. That fixes up a lot of problems. Save modifiers are sweet too. Then you can make Terminator armor the balls-tough 3+ on 2d6 again.

Not sure if you are just going for a modernized RT but I would like to see vehicles again with Toughness stats. You could even make it so that the vehicle has 3 different toughness values, ala AV.

So say a Land Raider would be T10/9/9 with say 10 wounds. (Note that weapons like Multi-Meltas would do 2d6 wounds or something to that effect)

Then monstrous creatures could be truly "monstrous" again. Give Carnifexes the T7 and 8 wounds that they used to have.

I would also like to see the return of Beamers and the other crazy weapons that were in RT. : )


[++Note++]
If you would like any help with ideas or writing down rules, feel free to ask me for help. : )

Maybe these rules will give me an inscentive to convert up those True-Scale Movie Marines I've been planning for the past year . . .

Oshova

Vladsimpaler wrote:But yeah. Damage stat. Remove instant death and eternal warrior. That fixes up a lot of problems. Save modifiers are sweet too. Then you can make Terminator armor the balls-tough 3+ on 2d6 again.

2d6 save rolls have the severe disadvantage of being resolved one at a time unless you've got matched colored dice specifically for it. You can't roll 20 six siders to resolve saves against the 20 lasgun shots, you have to roll 2D6 20 times in a row.

So say a Land Raider would be T10/9/9 with say 10 wounds. (Note that weapons like Multi-Meltas would do 2d6 wounds or something to that effect) Then monstrous creatures could be truly "monstrous" again. Give Carnifexes the T7 and 8 wounds that they used to have.

This tends to make MCs too easy to kill with heavy weapons and too resistant to those 1 wound melee attacks. If you used the original 2D12 multimelta damage (2D6 was a lascannon), the carnifex would usually be blown away in one MM hit, but is basically immune to melee attacks. Weirdly, it means two carnifexes take forever to actually kill each other off.

Well yeah but when you were rolling 2d6 saves, you weren't really having to roll 20 saves, as there just wasn't that much going through.

But you don't HAVE to have every unit having 2d6 saves. just for those with better saves. An IG for example could easily be sorted with just having it's normal save etc.

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Well yeah but when you were rolling 2d6 saves, you weren't really having to roll 20 saves, as there just wasn't that much going through.

You can get 20 saves from 2 squads with basic weapons rapid-firing, or from a vanilla marine assault squad with a chaplain charging (30 attacks, rerolled hit). Unless you're moving down even smaller than RT battles, you're going to find that that 2D6 is a real pain to use. It was a time-killer back in 2nd edition.