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.

There are some bits of 40K that just annoy me. Whether it be a game rule or the realism of the game. Here is a few examples of stuff that should happen in 40K, but don't.

Melta Guns and Lascannons: They are basically heat rays, and I can imagine that they would plough through more than one (infantry) model rather than stopping after killing an unfortunate peon. Surely they should continue to fire upto their maximum range in a straight line, hitting any model they come into contact with (like the Blood Lance Psychic Power in the BA Codex or the Jaws of the World Wolf Psychic Power in the SW Codex)? OK, if the weapon hits a monstrous creature or vehicle, I can see it stopping but surely weapons that are desinged to pierce right through Land Raiders and the like should be capable of killing more than 1 model. I reckon anything S7 and above should hit anything in a straight line going as far as it's range, until it hits a Monstrous Creature or Vehicle.

Balisitic Skill: Picture this. You are 2" away from the opponents model. You need a 3+ to hit with your boltgun. You miss. Next turn, you fire at a target 24" away and you still need the same 3+ to hit. Surely it is easier to hit the model 2" away, is it not?. Why not give balistic skill increases if a model is within a certain percentage of the guns range, and vice versa if the enemy model is above a certain percentage of the guns range.

Deep Striking: I have decided to Deep Strike my Land Raider. It scatters 7" onto a single fleeing Grot. I roll on the mishap and my Land Raider is destroyed. HOW!!!???!!! Enough said I feel on thsi matter. There should be different types of Deep Strike (such as flying, teleporting, burrowing etc...) imo and different rules depending on the size of the unit Deep Striking and and size of the terrain/unit it lands on, no matter how complicated.


Heroic Acts: Why can your brave, fearless Space Marine not even harm that darn Wraithlord at all. I reckon that, during and Assault, one Space Marine or equivalent, may be allowed to make an act of true bravery, diving on the Wraithlord in an attempt to lodge the Krak grenade into a weak point in the armour. On a roll of 11+ on 2D6, this act succeeds and a wound is dealt to the Wraithlord. Or something along those lines, if you get what I mean.

Please comment your opinions on my ideas and add your own ideas you think should be in the 40K rulebook.

The Proposed rules forum is ---------------------------> That way

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/16.page

DeathReaper wrote:The Proposed rules forum is ---------------------------> That way

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/16.page

I was kinda stuck as to where to post this. Some of these rules are edited ("You Make Da Call") and some are new ("Proposed Rules") so I didn't really know where to post this. It'll just be moved if this is the wrong forum. Sorry :(

If you're talking about modifying the rules of the game, then Proposed Rules is the way to go.

YMDC is for discussing how the rules actually work.

insaniak wrote:If you're talking about modifying the rules of the game, then Proposed Rules is the way to go.

YMDC is for discussing how the rules actually work.

OK. Thanks for moving it then

Back to the OP's questions:

Lascannons/Melta weapons killing multiple models in a straight line would make them too powerful imo.

The Ballistic Skill increase idea isn't bad, but remember it's the users skill with all aspects of the weapon, not just sighting it. This takes into account reloading, aiming, jamming, etc... all while ducking and moving in a dynamic combat environment. Shooting something 20 feet away might seem easy, but it's a lot harder when the target is trying to shoot you back!

The deep striking rules are for balance, that's all. It adds a tactical aspect to the game and I think it would be hard to balance it out with multiple types of rules and special cases. Anything's possible though and it never hurts to try.

The Heroic Acts I like. 1 attempt per unit, per assault phase against a Walker or MC. After wounds on both sides are resolved, but before combat resolution, make a Ld check. If passed, roll 2D6 on the following table:

-- "Against all odds, the hero's gamble is completely successful." Causes an automatic penetrating hit or wound with no armour save allowed.
11 -- "The desperate act pays off, but only slightly." Causes an automatic glancing hit or normal wound.
3-10 -- "The brave attempt is thwarted and the hero's sacrifice is for nothing." The attacking model is removed as a casualty.
-- "The plan backfires spectacularly. Then again, they say a hero is just someone who gets people killed..." The attacking model, plus D3 models from the attacking unit are removed as casualties.

Gives tarpitted units a small chance of causing some damage, even if it's a long shot.

DoW

The closer you are the easier to shoot is only true if the enemy is unaware of your presence. If they are, then typically your closer vantage point is compromised by the more you must remain covered/moving and thus the few shots you have to time and time to take them.

I do think that perhaps a "volley" rule could be added where the defender when being charged will fire 1 last volley into the charging enemy, but doing so will count as their "defenders act", however the volley will hit on a 2+ since the defender wait until the enemy is so close the chance of missing is nearly 0.

Concentrated Fire: Units with this rule may re-roll ones to hit die in shooting, so long as at the unit fires ten or more shots.

Give this to Tau Fire Warriors, Sternguard Vets, other shooty armies with Rapid Fire weapons.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:Concentrated Fire: Units with this rule may re-roll ones to hit die in shooting, so long as at the unit fires ten or more shots.

Give this to Tau Fire Warriors, Sternguard Vets, other shooty armies with Rapid Fire weapons.

I like this idea, however I reckon that you should only get it if the Unit is BS3 or below. If Marines could do it, for example with their BS4, they would just be too good but I do like the idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:Back to the OP's questions:

Lascannons/Melta weapons killing multiple models in a straight line would make them too powerful imo.

The Ballistic Skill increase idea isn't bad, but remember it's the users skill with all aspects of the weapon, not just sighting it. This takes into account reloading, aiming, jamming, etc... all while ducking and moving in a dynamic combat environment. Shooting something 20 feet away might seem easy, but it's a lot harder when the target is trying to shoot you back!

The deep striking rules are for balance, that's all. It adds a tactical aspect to the game and I think it would be hard to balance it out with multiple types of rules and special cases. Anything's possible though and it never hurts to try.

The Heroic Acts I like. 1 attempt per unit, per assault phase against a Walker or MC. After wounds on both sides are resolved, but before combat resolution, make a Ld check. If passed, roll 2D6 on the following table:

-- "Against all odds, the hero's gamble is completely successful." Causes an automatic penetrating hit or wound with no armour save allowed.
11 -- "The desperate act pays off, but only slightly." Causes an automatic glancing hit or normal wound.
3-10 -- "The brave attempt is thwarted and the hero's sacrifice is for nothing." The attacking model is removed as a casualty.
-- "The plan backfires spectacularly. Then again, they say a hero is just someone who gets people killed..." The attacking model, plus D3 models from the attacking unit are removed as casualties.

Gives tarpitted units a small chance of causing some damage, even if it's a long shot.

DoW

That is just what I was thinking for the Heroic Acts rule. I would really love to see this rule in 6th Ed. I am going to use it as a house rule!!!

We once had a similar houserule that if a unit of 10+ was reduced to a single model, that model gained fleet and +1S, to encourage last-ditch dramatic charges.

reidy1113 wrote:There are some bits of 40K that just annoy me. Whether it be a game rule or the realism of the game. Here is a few examples of stuff that should happen in 40K, but don't.

Melta Guns and Lascannons: They are basically heat rays, and I can imagine that they would plough through more than one (infantry) model rather than stopping after killing an unfortunate peon. Surely they should continue to fire upto their maximum range in a straight line, hitting any model they come into contact with (like the Blood Lance Psychic Power in the BA Codex or the Jaws of the World Wolf Psychic Power in the SW Codex)? OK, if the weapon hits a monstrous creature or vehicle, I can see it stopping but surely weapons that are desinged to pierce right through Land Raiders and the like should be capable of killing more than 1 model. I reckon anything S7 and above should hit anything in a straight line going as far as it's range, until it hits a Monstrous Creature or Vehicle.

Balisitic Skill: Picture this. You are 2" away from the opponents model. You need a 3+ to hit with your boltgun. You miss. Next turn, you fire at a target 24" away and you still need the same 3+ to hit. Surely it is easier to hit the model 2" away, is it not?. Why not give balistic skill increases if a model is within a certain percentage of the guns range, and vice versa if the enemy model is above a certain percentage of the guns range.

Deep Striking: I have decided to Deep Strike my Land Raider. It scatters 7" onto a single fleeing Grot. I roll on the mishap and my Land Raider is destroyed. HOW!!!???!!! Enough said I feel on thsi matter. There should be different types of Deep Strike (such as flying, teleporting, burrowing etc...) imo and different rules depending on the size of the unit Deep Striking and and size of the terrain/unit it lands on, no matter how complicated.


Heroic Acts: Why can your brave, fearless Space Marine not even harm that darn Wraithlord at all. I reckon that, during and Assault, one Space Marine or equivalent, may be allowed to make an act of true bravery, diving on the Wraithlord in an attempt to lodge the Krak grenade into a weak point in the armour. On a roll of 11+ on 2D6, this act succeeds and a wound is dealt to the Wraithlord. Or something along those lines, if you get what I mean.

Lascannons are lasers, it is incredibly easy to stop a laser with just about anything in its path which is currently why they make such ineffective weapons. Note the difference a thin sheet of paper can provide against the sun. Shade is incredibly effective and that is just a sheet of paper. Image a body in your way.

Ballistic skill use to have modifiers, it was really complicated and very frustrating.

Deep striking. While I would like to see more types of deep strike, with different rules and such you need to realize that when things are dropped from the air they have to slow down when they approach the ground or everything inside will die and the vehicle will be destroyed. When coming in low at low speed tehy are extremely vunerable. Just about anything nearby could shoot at them with devistating effect, on the bottom armor which is usually the thinnest. Instead of giving things nearby a free shot at deep strking units we have mishaps. If you land on a grot, instead of crushing it, very liekly the grot used his grot blaster to do some real damage and you mishap.
Teleporting is something we obviously dont understand, but assuming it takes a few seconds like star trek you would be vulnerable to attack. even if it was instant, it would be very disorienting and if there was an enemy too close they could probably do a lot of damage in a few seconds it took to realize where you were.

I would like to see more types of deep stirke with more rules. Burrowing should scatter more, but perhaps have less chance to mishap terribly. Maybe only delay them if they come into another model or impassable terrain. Teleporting should have the lowest scatter but the highest number of things that could go wrong. you teleport in 1 foot to low and your feet are bound to the earth!

Currently SM going after a dreadnaught need a 6 to hit and then a 6 to glance with krak grenades. A glance cannot destroy a dreadnaught. Against an ironclad dread tehy have no chance at all to even glance. wraith lords are Eldar dreadnaughts, they should be aproximately equal in power and have approximately the same survivability. Take a powerfist in the unit if wraithlords scare you; hidden fists destroy wraithlords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:The Heroic Acts I like. 1 attempt per unit, per assault phase against a Walker or MC. After wounds on both sides are resolved, but before combat resolution, make a Ld check. If passed, roll 2D6 on the following table:

-- "Against all odds, the hero's gamble is completely successful." Causes an automatic penetrating hit or wound with no armour save allowed.
11 -- "The desperate act pays off, but only slightly." Causes an automatic glancing hit or normal wound.
3-10 -- "The brave attempt is thwarted and the hero's sacrifice is for nothing." The attacking model is removed as a casualty.
-- "The plan backfires spectacularly. Then again, they say a hero is just someone who gets people killed..." The attacking model, plus D3 models from the attacking unit are removed as casualties.

Gives tarpitted units a small chance of causing some damage, even if it's a long shot.

as an option i like it. you wouldnt have to make a heroic attempt if you dont want to.

Another rule that I find strange/unrealistic is the order of Rolling to Hit, then Wound, then Armour Saves. Why does wounding come before Armour Saves? Surely the bullet hits the armour before wounding, does it not? I think the order should be Roll to Hit, the Armour Saves, and then Roll to Wound to try and kill the models. What do you all think?

reidy1113 wrote:Another rule that I find strange/unrealistic is the order of Rolling to Hit, then Wound, then Armour Saves. Why does wounding come before Armour Saves? Surely the bullet hits the armour before wounding, does it not? I think the order should be Roll to Hit, the Armour Saves, and then Roll to Wound to try and kill the models. What do you all think?

from the point of view of realism I think its not a bad idea but the armour save is the last ditch roll for the player on the receiving end of the shooting. I think the drama of the armour roll and the pressure of it should come last rather than giving the last roll to the attacking player. Makes for better game play.

geordie09 is correct. Statistically it is irrelevant which order these rolls are completed in.

The order they are in now, provides for added suspense, and enhances the flow of game play

for instance,

attacker rolling, defender rolling, attacker rolling
v
attacker rolling, attacker rolling, defender rolling

you can imagine the order any way you like, after all the rules are just an approximation of how these things would go down.

EDIT: also you don't really need to have the heroic acts rule... I mean if you want your heroic Space Marines to be able to hurt a wraithlord, or instant kill a chaos lord, you have the option to take a power fist for a reason...

If you're being heroic would that mean you have a chance to die when attacking (whatever) just as it is in tank shock.
ie if you don't manage to wound you suffer 1 strength 4 ap- hit as if the model being attacked kicked you off them as you were messing around trying to get a krak grenade to stick.
And would you make it off before the krak grenade blew up or would you just ultimately be a sacrifice.

for me its flamers and sniper weapons

All template weapons should cause an auto morale check after taking casualties

all sniper weapons reduce the enemy LD by 1 after casualties (yes thats for the rest of the turn)

Hi all.
Just a quick commentary on the 40k rule set.
It is an abstract rule set for a game used inspire short term purchases.
It is therfore very subjective, as it has to be to allow GW plc to manipulate it to promote the latest minature releases.

If you want a more 'realistic rules ' as in modern simple simulation type wargame.WHY are you using GWs 40k rules that are purley based on 'the rule of cool'?

So many players seem to want the 40k rules to 'make sense.'But they are in such a nonsensical frame work it is too difficult to agree on what actualy makes sense!

If you use more apropriate game mechanics, you can arrive at far more gameplay with far fewer pages of rules.

Also you have to define what the 40k rule set is supposed to be , before you can asses what rules should be , but are not.
And as it is so abstract and diffuse ,opinion is very divided on this too!

TTFN

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Just a quick commentary on the 40k rule set.
It is an abstract rule set for a game used inspire short term purchases.
It is therfore very subjective, as it has to be to allow GW plc to manipulate it to promote the latest minature releases.

If you want a more 'realistic rules ' as in modern simple simulation type wargame.WHY are you using GWs 40k rules that are purley based on 'the rule of cool'?

So many players seem to want the 40k rules to 'make sense.'But they are in such a nonsensical frame work it is too difficult to agree on what actualy makes sense!

If you use more apropriate game mechanics, you can arrive at far more gameplay with far fewer pages of rules.

Also you have to define what the 40k rule set is supposed to be , before you can asses what rules should be , but are not.
And as it is so abstract and diffuse ,opinion is very divided on this too!

TTFN

That's the craziest thing I ever heard of... asses...

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Just a quick commentary on the 40k rule set.
It is an abstract rule set for a game used inspire short term purchases.
It is therfore very subjective, as it has to be to allow GW plc to manipulate it to promote the latest minature releases.

If you want a more 'realistic rules ' as in modern simple simulation type wargame.WHY are you using GWs 40k rules that are purley based on 'the rule of cool'?

So many players seem to want the 40k rules to 'make sense.'But they are in such a nonsensical frame work it is too difficult to agree on what actualy makes sense!

If you use more apropriate game mechanics, you can arrive at far more gameplay with far fewer pages of rules.

Also you have to define what the 40k rule set is supposed to be , before you can asses what rules should be , but are not.
And as it is so abstract and diffuse ,opinion is very divided on this too!

TTFN

nonsense, people will always strive to make things better, no matter how pointless.

It's a fun, well paced ruleset that can be played competitively but does not actively encourage beardiness, or for fun without getting too complicated. There are plenty of things we can nit-pick about but ultimately they detract from the fun of the game. It isn't a simulation - and for many the game isn't half as important as the hobby!

I'll risk Mod-wrath by declaring that I believe Lanrak's extremely biased post on what has always been foremost a 40K forum is pretty lame.

I've always wanted suppression to be a larger factor in games of Warhammer 40k, so I've always thought it would be neat if 25% casualties in the shooting phase cause a pinning test, and 50% casualties force the standard morale tests.

Of course certain units or armies would be immune to this rule, but I think it should be applied to squads of Guardsmen, Guardians, Space Marine Scouts and the like.

Scinadier wrote:I've always wanted suppression to be a larger factor in games of Warhammer 40k, so I've always thought it would be neat if 25% casualties in the shooting phase cause a pinning test, and 50% casualties force the standard morale tests.

This is one of several rules changes that I think should be made, although I would omit the "50% causes standard morale". Coming under heavy fire should always cause pinning. Watching your little men get broken and escorted off the board is no fun, and therefore (IMO) violates the 'rule of cool'.

Similar changes would include:
Making Deep Strike safer and more reliable (losing a unit before it gets on the table is not 'cool')
Allowing units to Deep Strike into assault, or at least damage units they land on similar to a Mawloc (this is in every cinematic and story about assault marines, and it's 'cool')
Enabling the use of krak and melta grenades against monstrous creatures (stuffing a grenade into a giant monster's mouth is 'cool')
Fixing the Fearless USR and No Retreat! wounds so that being Fearless is an advantage rather than a liability (fearlessly charging into assault is 'cool')

Sadly, I think the 'rule of cool' is applied nowhere near enough in the 40k rules. I would say the design mainly relies on the 'rule of perpetuating dumb legacy gak from older editions'.

DaNewBoy wrote:The closer you are the easier to shoot is only true if the enemy is unaware of your presence. If they are, then typically your closer vantage point is compromised by the more you must remain covered/moving and thus the few shots you have to time and time to take them.

I do think that perhaps a "volley" rule could be added where the defender when being charged will fire 1 last volley into the charging enemy, but doing so will count as their "defenders act", however the volley will hit on a 2+ since the defender wait until the enemy is so close the chance of missing is nearly 0.

I love this idea, but i dont think orks would do that i think it would have to be army specific, IG,tau-volly, orks,NIDS-countercharge?.

As for the rest of the armies i cant think of anything they could do but the volly idea for IG and tau is great.

One I think should be added is something like another game mode, like a siege type thing ala planet strike, but on a smaller scale. I think there should be more mission variety.

Asgeirr Darkwolf wrote:One I think should be added is something like another game mode, like a siege type thing ala planet strike, but on a smaller scale. I think there should be more mission variety.

I for one definitely agree with you there. Only having 3 main game types is a bit boring, especially considering 2 of them are objective based games. I think there should be 6 game types (one for each possible dice roll). The 3 we have now, a seige type match ala planet strike like you said and 2 others. If anyone has any ideas for two others then please post them.

Hi all,
As some people appear to take offence at my last post.
What I meant to say was 40k is a 'jack of all trades and master of none'.

So to establish what 'rules should be that are not'.
It would be better to divide them into the various play styles that the poster prefers.

As some people prefer to play a more detailed skirmish, some prefer massive battles, some want more of a simple simulation , other want AWSOMKEWL rules for anything and everthing!

So for the people that want more of a simple simulation supression is something that is sorely missing from 40k.(Along with most command and control )

Where as some one who prefers a more detailed skirmish might like more variance in the stats , or more special rules.

Just for the record , I like ALL the asthetics of 40k, its just the rules are so abstract and diffuse.(Compared to rules written for game play.)


TTFN

I've always wondered why a weapon such as a melta gun or a lascanon hits something and doesnt wound it all becuase you rolled a 1, i think something that strong couldnt wound something it hit, also how can a building protect you from something meant to go through a building?

kadeton wrote:

Scinadier wrote:I've always wanted suppression to be a larger factor in games of Warhammer 40k, so I've always thought it would be neat if 25% casualties in the shooting phase cause a pinning test, and 50% casualties force the standard morale tests.

This is one of several rules changes that I think should be made, although I would omit the "50% causes standard morale". Coming under heavy fire should always cause pinning. Watching your little men get broken and escorted off the board is no fun, and therefore (IMO) violates the 'rule of cool'.

Similar changes would include:
Making Deep Strike safer and more reliable (losing a unit before it gets on the table is not 'cool')
Allowing units to Deep Strike into assault, or at least damage units they land on similar to a Mawloc (this is in every cinematic and story about assault marines, and it's 'cool')
Enabling the use of krak and melta grenades against monstrous creatures (stuffing a grenade into a giant monster's mouth is 'cool')
Fixing the Fearless USR and No Retreat! wounds so that being Fearless is an advantage rather than a liability (fearlessly charging into assault is 'cool')

Sadly, I think the 'rule of cool' is applied nowhere near enough in the 40k rules. I would say the design mainly relies on the 'rule of perpetuating dumb legacy gak from older editions'.

I think that lasguns should make the entire enemy army explode when I fire at them, cause that's "cool"

These type of rules work much better is a smaller, skirmish type of game. Others have said it, but its true. These types of rules are very 2nd ed and slowwww the game down. Even though it may make the game much more realistic it tends to make the game much less streamlined.

I think I should stop the OP right there, can you imagine the chaos by Melta weapons then? On my GK henchmen I can take them cheap, masss them stick them in a Razorback spread them out on a line and shoot making them anti everything. No thanks, your just letting the 12 Year old Ultramarine player get what he wants.