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.

Theres four ways to go about it IMO

~Band-aid Method; as mentioned above, we go "riptide is undercosted, helldrake is too powerful, 2+ rerollable is nonsense, here is how we fix those issues" and then go on our way, leaving the core elements untouched

~Rewrite; A few things could be changed such as going from IGOUGO to alternative unit activations, or cover becomes a BS modifier instead of a save, etc etc. However the vast majority of the core rules remain the same

~Scratch Build; Write an entire game from scratch that uses 40k models and fluff.

~Refit; Take the rules from another game, and create a 40k variation/expansion/etc for it.

First seems like the most appropriate for a "40k 6.5". If you were going for the rewrite... why keep any of the rules at all? The game is a mixture of mediocre and downright terrible stuff! A scratch build is beyond the capabilities of this thread imo. My personal favourite for going beyond the bandaid would be the last option - use rules that already work and have been professionally designed and tested, then just fit our preferred universe into it.

@Dakkamite.
I agree with you in principal , but think there is basically only 3 options worth considering.

1)House rules to counter the worst excesses in the GW rule set.

2)Converting another game rules to use 40k minis in.

3)Re-writing the game from scratch.

Most people are happy to attempt 1 and 2.
However, house rules often run to several pages , which can add further complication to the rules.

And conversions generally only work well for 'skirmish rule sets' , as battle game rule sets tend to use smaller scale minatures on bases.(So need far more conversion work)

So the only way to get a *good battle game rule set for 40k ,(that is recognizable as 40k,) would be a complete re-write. IMO.
(*In terms of clarity brevity and elegance.)

 StarTrotter wrote:

Murrdox wrote:
Between your proposal to allow Infiltrating and Outflanking units to Assault the turn they arrive, AND giving Assaulting units 6" +D6, you're going way too far. Outflanking Assaulters would be too powerful.

I'd keep Assault at 2D6 as it is now. Allow Outflankers to Assault the turn they arrive, but they halve the charge distance rolled.

Also, allowing a unit to move its charge distance, even if failed is a bit crazy. That means I could declare an Assault against a unit that can't Overwatch me, such as some Genestealers. Then I could use my failed charge movement to move AWAY from the Genestealers.

Here's my two cents:

Vehicles
If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a glancing hit, treat it as a Penetrating Hit and add +1 to the Vehicle Damage Table. If a Vehicle with no hull points suffers a penetrating hit, add +2 to the Damage Table result.
Keep Vehicle Damage table as it exists in 6th Edition. However, change result 6 to "Wrecked". Whenever a vehicle is "Wrecked", roll a D6. On a result of 1 or 2, the Vehicle Explodes!
In Assault, an Immobile Vehicle is hit automatically. A Moving Vehicle is treated as WS1. A Fast Vehicle adds 3 to the WS. A Skimmer adds 3 to the WS. (Thus a Skimmer is WS4, a Fast Skimmer is WS7). If a Vehicle moved Flat Out, add 2 to its WS.

Monstrous Creatures
Smash - Smash attacks happen at I1 and AP3. Monsters aren't able to make full use of their arrange of weaponry when using their bulk to try and crush a target.

I have other ideas but that's all I have time to write right now.

Just a rude question about the MC rules. First of all, why AP3? That means they are weaker when smashing then hitting. Along with that, the I1 is variable. On Khorne (who is one of the more crummy MCs), it really isn't helpful as it makes him weaker and crippled him from his I9. Slaanesh also loses I10. Then you have Tervigons and even riptides where a nerf from their initiative... isn't really worth a slight note. Finally, from what I gather, the MCs that are really dooming others isn't really the CC ones but more of the shooy ones. The problem with MC seems to primarily be that they are not only good at CC, but are also tanky, mobile, and extremely good shooting platforms. For the riptide, being able to kill things is the icing on the top. But that's not what you get the riptide for. YOu get it for devestating firepower and extreme survivability as well as above average mobility.

Why AP3? Basically because Smash, especially when combined with the new to-hit rules against Vehicles, is too powerful. Even with the halving of the Attacks Characteristic, your Monstrous Creatures are bringing many S10 AP2 close combat attacks your way.

Making the Smash AP3 and I1 accomplishes several things.

First of all, it gives Monstrous Creatures more incentive to buy and use close combat upgrades. For many monstrous creatures, the only CC upgrade they care about is the upgrade that gives them more attacks, so that they can Smash more. There's really no way to improve on S10 AP2 attacks other than to get more of them.

Secondly, it makes Smashing more of a risk in CC with other characters. Do you use Smash, going for an Instant Death kill, risking that you'll go at the same time as the enemy Power Fist? Or do you use your regular AP2 attacks at higher initiative? Most of the time, a Monstrous Creature in close combat with Infantry would choose to use their Close Combat weapons, especially against 2+ armor.

Third, this makes Smash mostly an anti-vehicle tool, which is pretty much what I believe was the whole point of adding the rule in 6th edition... to give MC a good tool to break open Land Raiders. But now at AP3 it has a trade-off. It's harder to make the vehicle Explode! with a Smash attack. If you want a better chance to Explode the vehicle, use your normal Close Combat weapons instead. Considering how easy 6th Edition rules made attacking Vehicles in close combat, I think this is a good trade off.

These ideas pretty much come from our group's play-testing. When 6th Edition came out, Monstrous Creatures just became ridiculous. Anytime they assaulted a vehicle, it was almost guaranteed that the vehicle would explode. We never see ANY wrecks from a Monstrous Creature in CC with a vehicle. We pretty much all agree that a Monstrous Creature SHOULD be strong against a vehicle in close combat, but the Smash rules go way too far. It especially hurts Dreadnaughts in close combat with Monstrous Creatures. Dreadnaughts have several OTHER problems in 6th edition, but one of them is that they absolutely SUCK in close combat against even the weakest Monstrous Creature now, all because of Smash. Even Dreadnaughts built for close combat have no chance.

Most people are happy to attempt 1 and 2.
However, house rules often run to several pages , which can add further complication to the rules.

And conversions generally only work well for 'skirmish rule sets' , as battle game rule sets tend to use smaller scale minatures on bases.(So need far more conversion work)

So the only way to get a *good battle game rule set for 40k ,(that is recognizable as 40k,) would be a complete re-write. IMO.
(*In terms of clarity brevity and elegance.)

I'd just re-work Warpath myself. The game is like 40k sans the clutter, definitely got potential there.

If you were to create a ruleset from scratch it'd need a lot of playtesting, marketing etc. Piggybacking off of established rules bypasses a lot of that.

 elzadar wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Well an additional fix would be no FB on Dedicated transports (or certain types)

as it seems to be one of those complaints.

FB?

small update: a challengee can decline a challenge without penalties if he has a higher leadership value than the challenger

The idea behind the penalty for declining challenges is not leadership based. When a a 7 foot tall space marine charges you yelling insults you have 2 options, stand and fight, or throw someone else in the way.

A better way to impement I think would be to allow an Init check to disengage from a challenge. (takeable at the start of every combat phase). And a leadership check to allow the closest model to the challenged to accept instead, char or non char.
Also overkill from challenges should not kill extra models, but should count towards assault result. (its very demoralising to watch to champion get splattered in a gruesome way)

So you can throw a guardsman in the way of a warboss but you will take a big hit in assault results as he is messily killed.

 Mythantor wrote:
Also overkill from challenges should not kill extra models, but should count towards assault result. (its very demoralising to watch to champion get splattered in a gruesome way)

So you can throw a guardsman in the way of a warboss but you will take a big hit in assault results as he is messily killed.

This idea I like. Will try it out

There also needs to be some sort of rule to deter players from making sacrificial challenges. For example the Sacrificial Sergeant who challenges the Hive Tyrant, so that the Hive Tyrant only does 1 wound to the squad instead of wiping it out completely.

This is one of my biggest issues with the Challenge rules, that you can issue a challenge you know that you're going to lose, but yet you come out on top tactically. The player who is challenged in this case (Hive Tyrant) has no choice but to accept.

There should be some sort of rule that if you issue a challenge AND you lose the challenge, your unit needs to take LD check as if they'd lost combat by the amount of wounds the challenger lost in combat. Even if your squad WON combat otherwise. But that'd get weird, you could have instances where both squads lost combat, blah blah.

Honestly I wish they'd simply remove the challenge mechanic from the game.

Murrdox wrote:
Honestly I wish they'd simply remove the challenge mechanic from the game.

The thing is if you do that then characters that rely on challenges to use their special rules will become unplayable

Best way is to have excess wounds carry over on the squad. A Bloodthirster smacking down an IG sergeant wouldn't even notice the puny human in his frenzy.

 Shandara wrote:
Best way is to have excess wounds carry over on the squad. A Bloodthirster smacking down an IG sergeant wouldn't even notice the puny human in his frenzy.

This. It's already how it works in Fantasy, so I don't see why they didn't let it carry over to 40k.

One potential issue with that, though, is that it switches the power around completely; if a Bloodthirster challenges a Sergeant, for example, the player controlling the Sergeant's squad will have to choose between either swinging with the Sergeant (and thus not getting to attack with the rest of the unit) or swing with the unit (and thus missing out on what is often the only Power Weapon or similar in the squad).

Id change AP in this way: If the AP beats your armor, you reroll successful armor saves.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Best way is to have excess wounds carry over on the squad. A Bloodthirster smacking down an IG sergeant wouldn't even notice the puny human in his frenzy.

This. It's already how it works in Fantasy, so I don't see why they didn't let it carry over to 40k.

One potential issue with that, though, is that it switches the power around completely; if a Bloodthirster challenges a Sergeant, for example, the player controlling the Sergeant's squad will have to choose between either swinging with the Sergeant (and thus not getting to attack with the rest of the unit) or swing with the unit (and thus missing out on what is often the only Power Weapon or similar in the squad).

This is why I hate challenges with my Orks. I always go last no matter what. So anyone can challenge my Nob, and as long as they have a Power Weapon, they have a pretty good chance of killing him outright before he can attack. There's NEVER really a good time to challenge or accept a challenge. More times than not, it's more worthwhile to refuse the challenge in order to keep my Nob alive so I'll keep my Bosspole. He never gets to attack.

Then there's my Warboss. He can stomp face. But he falls victim to sacrificial challenges. His 5 attacks on the charge are wasted killing a Sergeant.

Either way, challenges just suck across the board for my Orks. They're not FUN. They make me want to essentially not waste ANY points on ANY of my HQs, because thanks to Challenges, they never get to do anything. So now I run Nobs as cheap as I can, only for the Bosspole, and I don't run Warbosses at all anymore except maybe sometimes using the Bikerboss.

When a rule makes your models pointless and boring, I view it as a bad rule. Other codexes might have more fun with challenges, but I don't like them. Even when I run my Eldar I don't like them. Sadly I probably have to wait until 7th edition in a couple of years to either fix them or get rid of them.

What about for assault ranges do 2/3 movement distance +d6
It would represent that how far you normally move matters, but it keeps a random element involved

 lazarian wrote:
Id change AP in this way: If the AP beats your armor, you reroll successful armor saves.

I like that idea. You could also do something like if the AP is 1(2?) better, they still ignore (heavy bolters will still completely ignore ork armour for example).

Personally as far as challenges go, I'd personally like rules along these lines:

You Are Not Worthy: Independent Characters may choose to ignore challenges from non-Independent Characters with no penalties.

Honour or Glory!: Models with this rule are not subject to YANW. Models that would get this rule would include Company Champions, Aspiring Champions, etc.

@Dakkamite.
Warpath is a good 'large skirmish' rule set.
However, to cover larger 40k battles it would need a serious amount of conversion work.(Not enough refinement in the interaction IMO.)

I enjoy rules writing as part of my hobby.(So working on a new rule set is fun for me, even if it no one outside my group plays it. )

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 lazarian wrote:
Id change AP in this way: If the AP beats your armor, you reroll successful armor saves.

I like that idea. You could also do something like if the AP is 1(2?) better, they still ignore (heavy bolters will still completely ignore ork armour for example).

I wouldn't go anymore than reroll armor saves, I want to see armor be useful in the world of plasma and other ap2.

I prefer armor modifiers to straight ignoring or re-rolls.

If you keep the modifiers moderate (or even introduce positive modiferes for low powered weaponry) it can give weapons penetrating power without being the all-or-nothing we have now.

 lazarian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 lazarian wrote:
Id change AP in this way: If the AP beats your armor, you reroll successful armor saves.

I like that idea. You could also do something like if the AP is 1(2?) better, they still ignore (heavy bolters will still completely ignore ork armour for example).

I wouldn't go anymore than reroll armor saves, I want to see armor be useful in the world of plasma and other ap2.

I guess that makes sense, I just was thingking that something like AP1 should completely ignore 6+ (although forcing 6+ to re-rall is practicly ignoring it already).

nobody wrote:
Personally as far as challenges go, I'd personally like rules along these lines:

You Are Not Worthy: Independent Characters may choose to ignore challenges from non-Independent Characters with no penalties.

Honour or Glory!: Models with this rule are not subject to YANW. Models that would get this rule would include Company Champions, Aspiring Champions, etc.

That is actually a very interesting idea! That'd be worth play-testing to see how it worked out.

One of my ideas was to allow a character to refuse a challenge with no penalty by making a successful leadership test. The refusal test would be modified based on the difference in leadership between the two units.

So if a Space Marine Sergeant (ld 9) challenges a Nob (ld 7), the Nob would need to succeed a leadership test at -5 (roll a 5 or lower) in order to refuse the challenge with no penalty. Then you'd just need to add in a little rule that no matter what, a roll above 10 always fails, and a roll of snake eyes always succeeds.

Whether you'd make this Leadership a "Morale" save and thus subject to Mob Rule and other specials rules that affect Morale would be something else to consider, but I think straight Leadership would probably work well.

It's possible that you could also use the "strengths in numbers" rule for modifiers to the rule.

For example, a Hive Tyrant challenges my Ork mob. I've got 12 Boyz with a Nob. Normally I'd need to pass a Leadership at -3 modifier. However, I have 10 models with me, which would give me +2 to that roll, so I'd be at a -1 to refuse the challenge, and have the Nob AND the whole mob of Boyz beat up on the Hive Tyrant.