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 just wanted to throw out some basic changes that I think would be a good thing, and see what people thought. These'll be simple and small, but I think they'd be really helpful.

Certainty in the Face of Danger - Any d3 VP awards are, instead, 2.

Area Terrain - Remove the 'Citadel spooky Forrest' or whatever, and the other name-brand terrain rules, and implement them generically (Example - Forests provide a 5+ per area terrain rules).

Humanity Divided - IG(/AM) may change their relation to the Imperial faction to CtA to gain AoC status with any one of the following:
-CSM & CD
-Tau
-Orks

Deck of Many Objectives - (this might be too complicated)
Split the Maelstrom options into 3 groups (of twelve).
Assign each a suit.
First player nomimates a set he doesn't like.
Second player nominates a set he doesn't like.
The in unnominated set counts as the fourth suit.
If an ace is drawn, draw two cards, and discard one.
Any other card counts as a specific tactical objective.

I'll probably have more later, but the idea is small and simple, but really helpful, changes. What do you guys think?

(I'll probably do another thread shortly with bigger changes)

Like the first few bits. The deck of many objectives one doesn't suit. What we've been doing is saying that if you can't complete a given objective - say, you can't manifest a psychic power, you must discard it.

Really like you humanity divided rule.

Maelstrom type missions can be really fun, but the options could be better.
First off, placement of objectives is dull. I set up 3 ideally for me, you set up 3 ideal for you. How about this instead.
Both players set up objectives, but the 1st is within 6" of the opponents table edge, the 2nd within 12" of his table edge, and the 3rd on his half of the table. I find it more fun not be able to tailor my half of the table.

Second, mix up how objectives are scored. Try playing objectives where you can only score at the end of your opponents turn. I'm not saying all the time, but some of the time. It does help to balance out the slightly slower armies that take longer to get to objectives.

Third, try a shared pool. 6 cards face up. Both players use the same deck. Each player MUST discard one card at the end of each of their turns, and used/discard cards are replaced at the start of each players turn. It opens up a lot of tactics to be able to move up a scoring unit to contest and opponent on one objective, and discard the other one. Game ends when you've gone through the whole deck (no auto-win for tabling in this mission).

Humanity Divided seems like it should give you some restrictions in terms of units available. Scions and Ministorum Priests probably wouldn't work with any of the given factions, Techpriests wouldn't work with aliens and Commissars wouldn't work with Chaos or Tau (but I seem to recall some old fluff about them being assigned to units working with the Blood Axes to keep them in line).

overstated the card thing. I'll simplify it later, but the idea is to replace the tactical deck with a standard deck. Just cycling aces and the fourth suit would be the simpler option.

The idea isn't to change how they work, its to make it so a standard deck works fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for priests and.commisars, I'm trying to keep it simple, but I hope whoever would use the rule would do an appropriate counts-as in that case (Herald or prophet or merchant or whatever)

I think most of the rare or impossible tactical objectives could be easily fixed:

- instead of "destroy an enemy building or emplacement" use this "destroy an enemy heavy support unit"

- instead of "destroy an enemy flyer" use this "destroy an enemy skimmer, flyer, or fast attack unit"

- instead of "kill an enemy psyker" use this "destroy an enemy HQ unit"

Easy fixes that preserve the diversity of the objectives but are achievable in most games.

What if they don't have any heavy support? you come back to the same issue.

buildings and emplacements at least could be set up as part of the table, so you can assure there HAS to be one involved, one why or another.

As for "flyer", yes he's a problem, but "flyer, skimmer or FA" just renders it even more powerful against skimmer-users such as necron, eldar and tau-and weaker against IG,orks, nids, demons, etc. at least with flyers you got equal standing.

 BoomWolf wrote:
What if they don't have any heavy support? you come back to the same issue.

buildings and emplacements at least could be set up as part of the table, so you can assure there HAS to be one involved, one why or another.

As for "flyer", yes he's a problem, but "flyer, skimmer or FA" just renders it even more powerful against skimmer-users such as necron, eldar and tau-and weaker against IG,orks, nids, demons, etc. at least with flyers you got equal standing.

Are you arguing that buildings and emplacements are more common than heavy support units? And that IG, Orks, Nids, etc don't use fast attack units?

I'm arguing that buildings and emplacements can (and with a wide selection of terrain pieces, should) be in the game regardless of the armies presented, while heavy support still might not appear at all. (rare, but possible)


As for the FA portion, ofc not. but it still means that against the noted armies, nearly every single tank counts, making the target pool far, FAR bigger.
And again, FA might not be taken, leading to the same issue. while not as glaring as the flyer or psyker issue-its still there.
Its just scued against several armies. and as such fixes nothing


When making a "fix", the important thing is to actually take away the problem you were fixing to begin with, not to replace it with another.
You just shifted one unbalanced choice (flyer users are screwed/buildings might not be there) into another one (skimmer armies are screwed/HS still might not be there)

Tactical objective fix:
If you draw a tactical objective, and your opponent doesn't have the unit/target on the card, consider it a success.

If you have no psykers on the table, and I draw the kill a psyker, I score it, as all psykers must have been killed since none are present.

-Matt

I have seen the suggestion for changing the d3 VPs to 2 VPs and really I do not agree with that at all I think the d3 makes it far if you are going to limit the points to 2 VP then you need to lower the requirements too most of the cards that aloe you to score D3 Vps require you to kill 3 or more units in the shooting phase at this point you might aswell throw out the cards and write your own, In my league when we draw a card Is impossible to complete we discard it and draw another for example if I have a card that is manifest 1 psykic power but i have not psykers in my army list then we discard it but if i had a psyker and he was killed then i have to keep the card. If you want to make it more far as far as placing objectives place them before you rule for mission type then deployment zone are unknown.

D3 averages 2. It is neither nerf nor buff. Just a simplification.

But now your telling me I have to do 3 or more actions to only get 2 VP ... That makes scene . and how is that difucult role a d3 when you score. If you are trying to simplify they game don't mess with the cards mess with the missions alow a player to discard 1 card alow tthem to get ride of a nonviable card or ignore mysterious objective.

You also have to keep track of all the d3s. The idea was to have little to no impact. You're doing the same thing for the same average points. Just taking out the record keeping and variability.

ChapertMasterRagnaValick wrote:
But now your telling me I have to do 3 or more actions to only get 2 VP ... That makes scene . and how is that difucult role a d3 when you score.

You can just as easily get 1 VP for doing 3 or more actions, all based on a single roll.

This game revolves around quite a bit of chance already. Adding the luck of drawing the particular +D3 VP tactical cards and then rolling a die on top of that just makes it too erratic in my opinion. I quite like the idea of streamlining it to 2 VP.

DoW