Switch Theme:

M41 - alternative rules for battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in at
Privateer




Austria

A year ago me some friends tried to improve the 40k rules.
But because most people were happy with the GW rules we paused our work and played other games.

Now that there is the shadow of AoS upon 40k I started to translate the rules into English and improve them.

The main goal is to write a new rule book with new codex rules to be completely independent from 40k and its development.
Also to have something ready if the game really get the same treatment like Warhammer did.

Therefore the rules also have all the basic rules a game needs and names are changed to avoid copyright problems.



M41 - Edition 7.5 - Rulebook

WIP Army Lists:

Imperial Knights
Imperial Army
Hivemind



The main differences to 40k are:

- less randomness (fixed warlord traits, psi-powers, reserve etc)
- clear and streamlined rules (clear wording)
- flyer/air units get their own phase
- improved reaction system (instead of overwatch)
- overhauled armour, vehicle and cover system
- improved close combat and transporters



PS:
possible new fraction names:
Spoiler:

Imperial Army & Navy = Militarum Tempestus and Astra Militarum
Red Planet Industries = Mechanicum
Knightly Orders & Sisters of Battle = Adeptus Astrates and Adeptus Sororitas
Neon Knights = Imperial Knights
Forces of Destruction & Space Pirates = Chaos Space Marines and Lost & Damned

Corsairs, Nomad Worlds & Laughing Ones = Elder Corsairs, Craftworld and Harlequin
The Eternal City = Dark Elder
The Hegemony = Tau Empire
Insectoids = Tyranids
Orcs = Orks
The Unfading Empire = Necrons
Masters of the Forge = Squats
Ratkin = Hrud

Inquisition & Demon Hunters = Inquisition and Grey Knights
Demons = Chaosdamons


PPS:
Homepage: http://www.tabletopwelt.de/index.php?/topic/151595-lrb-projekt

This message was edited 14 times. Last update was at 2016/03/24 08:33:03


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 kodos wrote:
A year ago me some friends tried to improve the 40k rules.
But because most people were happy with the GW rules we paused our work and played other games.

Now that there is the shadow of AoS upon 40k I started to translate the rules into English and improve them.

The main goal is to write a new rule book with new codex rules to be completely independent from 40k and its development.
Also to have something ready if the game really get the same treatment like Warhammer did.

Therefore the rules also have all the basic rules a game needs and names are changed to avoid copyright problems.



M41 - Edition 7.5


The main differences to 40k are:

- less randomness (fixed warlord traits, powers, reserve etc)
- clear and streamlined rules
- flyer get their own phase
- improved reaction system
- overhauled armour, tank armour and cover system


The translation is not finished yet but I want to share what I already have to get some input.
At the moment I have 2 different version of the rules.
The basics are the same but one system has the same phase system like 40k, while the other one has a per unit activation with 2 actions per unit.
Because most people want the rules to be close to the original I lately only worked on the phase system and tried to improve it.

My idea is to give the player more flexibility how they let their units act during a turn (and because good units already ignore the restrictions of the phases and there are very few unit that move only in the movement phase).

2 Main Action-Phase with the Shooting Phase being between.
Every unit can be activated once per phase and perform an action (move, psi-power, charge, run etc) but every action only once per turn (just to keep it close to 40k).
Special Units can perform some actions twice per turn (fast units can move twice, units with fleet can charge twice etc).
So a player can chose that one unit can move, shoot and charge, while another one, charge and move.

I am not sure if 40k really need a new phase system, but the player should have the possibility to chose in which order his units perform their action.

PS: This is the first Version of the translation. I did my best but there are still some typos and Google auto correct mistakes.
I correct them as soon as possible


I like it. I'm working on something similar myself. But a couple things:

1) the 'Flinch' mechanic seems neat. I wonder how that idea evolved; I've certainly never seen anything like it anywhere.

2) Cover modifies armor saves in your game. What brought you to that decision? Are ignores cover and the like intended to be folded into penetration?

3) most homebrew rulesets I've seen want to merge vehicles and other units in the same system, so vehicles have a Toughness/ save combo instead of and AV equivalent, but you seem to like AV as a mechanic. Is this on the system's own merit or because a Toughness/ save combo on large models has some exploitable characteristics you don't like?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/02 01:56:31


I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Irongut




This is pretty fascinating. Aren't there rules for deployment or reserves?
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Rules for deployment and reserve are not translated yet
I can add the german texts if it would help to figure out how things changed.

 Powerfisting wrote:

1) the 'Flinch' mechanic seems neat. I wonder how that idea evolved; I've certainly never seen anything like it anywhere.


Inspired by Starship Troopers and some strange situations on the table that needed a tweak.

 Powerfisting wrote:

2) Cover modifies armor saves in your game. What brought you to that decision? Are ignores cover and the like intended to be folded into penetration?


The decision was easy. 40k has an all or nothing system, making weapons without AP3 or very high rate of fire useless. So back to the origin and add cover as a bonus to avoid of having just another ward save.
Marines and other good armoured units don't benefit as much from cover as bad armoured models do. So playing Marines will change.

Not sure about ignore cover rules at the moment. There is the possibility to just add a flat "models hit never get a cover bonus" or "reduce cover bonus with x" or both

 Powerfisting wrote:

3) most homebrew rulesets I've seen want to merge vehicles and other units in the same system, so vehicles have a Toughness/ save combo instead of and AV equivalent, but you seem to like AV as a mechanic. Is this on the system's own merit or because a Toughness/ save combo on large models has some exploitable characteristics you don't like?


Of course using the same to wound system for everything would be the best.
But one thing that is typical for 40k is that vehicles or non-living things use something different.

So changing it to a system that is equal but still different is a logic step and adds the possibility to change infantry models as well (Necrons are an army of machines and with this system it is possible to give them the appropriate rules and replace toughness and armour save, with an AV equivalent).
A Melter still has 50% chance "to wound" a Land Raider but with this system Tank Armour can have values below 10 which gives greater variety than merging it into the toughness/save combo (


 Powerfisting wrote:

I like it. I'm working on something similar myself.


Interested in a cooperation?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/02 10:40:23


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 kodos wrote:
 Powerfisting wrote:

1) the 'Flinch' mechanic seems neat. I wonder how that idea evolved; I've certainly never seen anything like it anywhere.


Inspired by Starship Troopers and some strange situations on the table that needed a tweak.


Oh, a lot of people have been citing Starship troopers lately. I will have to find myself a copy of those rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 Powerfisting wrote:

2) Cover modifies armor saves in your game. What brought you to that decision? Are ignores cover and the like intended to be folded into penetration?


The decision was easy. 40k has an all or nothing system, making weapons without AP3 or very high rate of fire useless. So back to the origin and add cover as a bonus to avoid of having just another ward save.
Marines and other good armoured units don't benefit as much from cover as bad armoured models do. So playing Marines will change.

Not sure about ignore cover rules at the moment. There is the possibility to just add a flat "models hit never get a cover bonus" or "reduce cover bonus with x" or both


What had meant by that comment was that most cover- modifier systems would either penalize BS a la WFB or already involve a separate evasion stat that would get a modifier. How had you decided to modify armor rather than some other stat?

Albeit, the explanation you gave me about its affects on the game sound interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 Powerfisting wrote:

I like it. I'm working on something similar myself.

Interested in a cooperation?


I would, but I have so many things going on now I don't know if I would be reliable

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/02 18:23:26


I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge




What's left of Cadia

I like what you've done here. Nice work

TheEyeOfNight- I swear, this thread is 70% smack talk, 20% RP organization, and 10% butt jokes
TheEyeOfNight- "Ordo Xenos reports that the Necrons have attained democracy, kamikaze tendencies, and nuclear fission. It's all tits up, sir."
Space Marine flyers are shaped for the greatest possible air resistance so that the air may never defeat the SPACE MARINES!
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum
 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

 Powerfisting wrote:

What had meant by that comment was that most cover- modifier systems would either penalize BS a la WFB or already involve a separate evasion stat that would get a modifier. How had you decided to modify armor rather than some other stat?

We got through all this options a while ago and improving the armour save was the one that fit the 40k play style best in our opinion.
A BS modifier is a good option but then the wrong fractions get a workaround for it (it would have no effect for army’s that are good at shooting but makes shooting worthless for those that already hit bad)
Blast weapons with good AP would be the best weapon in the game becaue they are not really affected by a BS modifier and ignore armour

improving the armour save is for all fractions and weapons the same

It is also a simple way to add a cover bonus in melee to represent defenders behind a wall without getting a too big advantage.

 Powerfisting wrote:

I would, but I have so many things going on now I don't know if I would be reliable

Some native speaker to debug the English version of the rule help me a lot


 Powerfisting wrote:

Oh, a lot of people have been citing Starship troopers lately. I will have to find myself a copy of those rules.


send me a pm with your mail
We once worked on a 40k Mod fpr SST and I know the guy who made the Fan-bases 2nd Edition

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/02 19:20:56


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker





I like where you're going with this so far. If you need help with individual armies I'd be happy to get started on tyranids.

World Eaters ~a bunch now
Khorne Daemons
Imperial Knights ~4k  
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Help is always welcome.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






I'm not sure about the 'Flinch' rule.

On the one hand, its a possible way to represent the stress taken under overwhelming firepower.

On the other hand, it opens up huge penalties for most units in the game where they can be (repeatedly?) pushed away from the enemy. This makes most 1W assault models useless. It also means you could be permanently pushed back away from advantageous locations simply by the enemy directing a couple of inconsequential shots your way.

Opponents with lots of shooting would be able to effectively control their opponent. Enemy snipers moved up for a clear shot? Can't have that: flinch them down!. Assault unit going to get you next turn? 3 units shooting (regardless of casualties) gives you time to breathe. Enemy ensconced in some cover and will be tough to root out? Flinch them out in to the open and then unleash hell!

IMO this rule would be gamebreaking to huge number of unit types and playstyles.

I'm curious - what is this rule intended to represent that rules akin to 40k's 'Fear' or 'Pinning' don't represent in a more playable manner?
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Got point and I noticed that I missed something.
Models in or touching terrain should never flinch if the Player don't want them to. I change that.

First of all you Need to wound a target to cause flinch.
Therefore, a single melee unit moving up for a charge next turn that can be shot by 3 units is dead anyway (and in 7th edi 40k it is pure luck to reach them anyway).

To have the possibility to push models away is the indention of the rule.
First for big Models while moving and in melee, than for ranged weapons on targets that are hard to kill.

like a situation we had a week ago were a Necron troop standing in the open just refused to die while the whole army was shooting them and they blocked sucessfully the way to the objective.

40k's Fear or Pinning is a nice System, but those units were it would matter are not affected by it and it would need a complete rework too (to something like the pinning or suppression System from BoltAction or Warpath)


IMO this rule would be game breaking to huge number of unit types and playstyles


The new rules will all have a huge Impact to the game play. The Reaction System change acting on the table completely and moving in the open next to the enemy without getting killed is nearly impossible

Of course everything need prober testing and maybe 2" are too much, or it should need more damage to cause flinch (3+ armour saves)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







From what I'm seeing, with the addition of tunneling and jumping, as well as changing squad coherency to be based off "within Leadership range of the squad leader", I'm noting some items coming from Warmahordes.

I would probably see "Flinch" as a special rule for some weapons (Shotguns, etc) rather than as a universal ability. What happens if a model that Flinches moves base-to-base with a second model? Like, if I were to put my Necron Warriors base-to-base with each other, would the frontmost Warriors be immune to being pushed?
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

The rules are mainly inspired by SST and 40k 3rd - 5th.
And of course by all other games I play (WM/H. X-Wing, etc)

@flinch
"Other models in the way are ignored and moved to the side to place the flinching model."

So you can use flinch to push models closer together if they are on open space.

Split to rule into a basic rule and a weapon trait would be an idea.
This will at least make scout shotguns a nice option.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 MagicJuggler wrote:
From what I'm seeing, with the addition of tunneling and jumping, as well as changing squad coherency to be based off "within Leadership range of the squad leader", I'm noting some items coming from Warmahordes.


That's not really bad thing, if tat's what you are getting at. The models are a turn off and the lore lacks character (IMO) but the rules are coherent and air- tight.

I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Powerfisting wrote:
 MagicJuggler wrote:
From what I'm seeing, with the addition of tunneling and jumping, as well as changing squad coherency to be based off "within Leadership range of the squad leader", I'm noting some items coming from Warmahordes.


That's not really bad thing, if tat's what you are getting at. The models are a turn off and the lore lacks character (IMO) but the rules are coherent and air- tight.


I'm mostly with you on that; Warmachine does have the occasional oddity ("Black Spot with Drag Attacks"), but there's generally more options per unit anyway. I've used some of its rules in the past for earlier homebrew attempts, but then threw out the idea of vehicle damage grids as insane.

That said, I'm leery about squad command radius, versus using 40k's squad coherency method. Mostly because in WMH, squad sizes don't have anywhere the same level of variance of 40k, mostly because engagements are overall smaller in scale. While in 40k, you can have squad sizes ranging from anywhere from 3 models to 300 (stupid Green Tide), no squad in WMH has more than 15 models (and barring the WGDS, you don't *see* squads with that many models as a rule). Add that WMH usually comes with incentives for models to stay together anyway (ease of CRAs, defensive lines, shield walls, etc) and the usual cases where the whole squad size versus squad coherency would actually *matter* tend to be for support units (Choirs, Beast Handlers, etc), suiciding models in piece-trades (Doom Reavers/Nihilators sending the solo guy out), or "kill the leader and promote" shenanigans (like the eGaspy Excarnation trick).

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/11/04 20:51:00


 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

I finished the rules for air units today.
They are now treated different than other models.

While the game is I go, you go with reactions, air units have alternate activation and 2 actions during the air phase (first one has to be a move action)

This because there are not many flying units in the game those should not just be antigrav units on a bigger base.

I am also thinking about to change some units to air units.
Like Land Speeders or Tyranid Gargoyles


A small Problem I have at the moment are the ranged weapon types.
It make no sense to give flat restrictions because a heavy bolter carried by a human weapon team is something different than carried by a Marine or mounted on a tank.

Assault Weapons are clear, they stay the same and have restrictions for reactions (reload)

Heavy Weapons cannot react and this should only be for very heavy ones, like the battle cannon of a Leman Russ or similar weapons.

Guard/Elder Weapon Teams are covered with Support Weapon Platform, which can be placed and than shot and react as long as it does not have to move (thinking of the machine guns on tripod)

Rapid Fire is still the same


A possible solution would be to change the "reload" restriction to be general rule for all ranged weapons reaction.

Than Assault would be the standard with no special rules.

Heavy could be split into 2 types,
heavy infantry weapon (BFG): cannot move and shot, cannot charge
heavy tank weapon (BFTG): cannot shot as reaction

That said, I'm leery about squad command radius, versus using 40k's squad coherency method


I am using both, the 40k squad coherency for squads and squad leader and the command radius for independent models.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






 kodos wrote:
Got point and I noticed that I missed something.
Models in or touching terrain should never flinch if the Player don't want them to. I change that.

First of all you Need to wound a target to cause flinch.
Therefore, a single melee unit moving up for a charge next turn that can be shot by 3 units is dead anyway (and in 7th edi 40k it is pure luck to reach them anyway).

To have the possibility to push models away is the indention of the rule.
First for big Models while moving and in melee, than for ranged weapons on targets that are hard to kill.

like a situation we had a week ago were a Necron troop standing in the open just refused to die while the whole army was shooting them and they blocked sucessfully the way to the objective.


Sure, single-wound melee units aren't great in normal 40k as it is... but you've just made it literally impossible for them to ever make it in to combat, ever.
I would think that instead of saying 'X is bad, so there's no problem in making it worse', you should say 'X is bad, why is that and how can we make it better?'

I'm thinking of units like Assault Marines or (especially) assault Terminators. Terminators are going to be making loads of armor saves, so the opponent has to do is target a bolter or two per turn at an assault terminator unit to flinch it out of the way and completely shut it down for the entire game. The best tactics for dealing with Terminators would be to spam them with high rate of fire weapons like Burst Cannons and push them off the board, rather than attempting to kill them at all.

If you're taking so many ideas from warmachine. Look how powerful abilities to move enemy models are in Warmachine. Top level players consider Telekinesis to be one of the most powerful spells in the game. Imagine if EVERY model in Warmachine had pushback 2" on their ranged weapons.

Just from that one rule, I'm seeing a metagame which revolves around models camping in terrain and trading shots for the whole game, unless they're some kind of 2W+ cavalry or Monstrous Creature. Which makes a certain kind of sense from a 'realism' point of view... but 40k was never about realism, its about smashing heretics with your hammer.

Possibly you could make models flinch in the direction that the owning player chooses. don't shoot at berserkers unless you want them coming at you even faster!!!

40k's Fear or Pinning is a nice System, but those units were it would matter are not affected by it and it would need a complete rework too (to something like the pinning or suppression System from BoltAction or Warpath)


I completely agree that 40k's leadership system is way off from where it needs to be, but fear/pinning could be good rules if leadership was 2-3 points lower across the board and ATSKNF wasn't on half the models in the game...
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Trasvi wrote:
Possibly you could make models flinch in the direction that the owning player chooses. don't shoot at berserkers unless you want them coming at you even faster!!!


I could see this being granted to melee units that would be punished too much by Flinch. Maybe berzerkers and other 'Homicidal Maniac' type units.

But on another note, with close combat being where it is this edition, it could be totally possible to leave this be and gear the rest of the game to be even more shooting centric by design and have CC handled by specialized units. People complain about CC being weak but only because 40k has transitioned awkwardly from a game where shooting and CC were equally viable (as a result of WFB in space) into a meta where CC is situational and inefficient but still regarded as a core tenet of the game. CC is in the place it is in right now by accident, basically. We could continue to make CC more difficult and situational but point cost everything and design rules with that in mind and CC heavy armies would be balanced and reasonably viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote:
Just from that one rule, I'm seeing a metagame which revolves around models camping in terrain and trading shots for the whole game, unless they're some kind of 2W+ cavalry or Monstrous Creature. Which makes a certain kind of sense from a 'realism' point of view... but 40k was never about realism, its about smashing heretics with your hammer.


Well that's just one part of the ethos. 40k is also WFB in space and also WWII in the far future and also vietnam sometimes but also there are space vikings who ride wolves the size of horses. Did I mention the piratical Tolkein space elves with BDSM and the green cockney football hooligans?

Since the game itself is used to represent the battles in this tumultuous era, I like to focus on the WWII in the far future aspect. the battle of Stalingrad was some of the most intense urban warfare in the entire 20th century. Single buildings were fought over for days so one side or another could gain 20 feet on the other side. Now take that, and give everyone lazers. But wait. the space vikings came to save the day on their canine cavalry. that's awesome and while it isn't totally realistic, it started somewhere that was and that is part of why its so awesome. We can have the hammers and we can crush heretics with them, but some of the more mundane stuff can be cool too if you are willing to let the game change.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/05 04:11:20


I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






 Powerfisting wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Possibly you could make models flinch in the direction that the owning player chooses. don't shoot at berserkers unless you want them coming at you even faster!!!


I could see this being granted to melee units that would be punished too much by Flinch. Maybe berzerkers and other 'Homicidal Maniac' type units.

But on another note, with close combat being where it is this edition, it could be totally possible to leave this be and gear the rest of the game to be even more shooting centric by design and have CC handled by specialized units. People complain about CC being weak but only because 40k has transitioned awkwardly from a game where shooting and CC were equally viable (as a result of WFB in space) into a meta where CC is situational and inefficient but still regarded as a core tenet of the game. CC is in the place it is in right now by accident, basically. We could continue to make CC more difficult and situational but point cost everything and design rules with that in mind and CC heavy armies would be balanced and reasonably viable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote:
Just from that one rule, I'm seeing a metagame which revolves around models camping in terrain and trading shots for the whole game, unless they're some kind of 2W+ cavalry or Monstrous Creature. Which makes a certain kind of sense from a 'realism' point of view... but 40k was never about realism, its about smashing heretics with your hammer.


Well that's just one part of the ethos. 40k is also WFB in space and also WWII in the far future and also vietnam sometimes but also there are space vikings who ride wolves the size of horses. Did I mention the piratical Tolkein space elves with BDSM and the green cockney football hooligans?

Since the game itself is used to represent the battles in this tumultuous era, I like to focus on the WWII in the far future aspect. the battle of Stalingrad was some of the most intense urban warfare in the entire 20th century. Single buildings were fought over for days so one side or another could gain 20 feet on the other side. Now take that, and give everyone lazers. But wait. the space vikings came to save the day on their canine cavalry. that's awesome and while it isn't totally realistic, it started somewhere that was and that is part of why its so awesome. We can have the hammers and we can crush heretics with them, but some of the more mundane stuff can be cool too if you are willing to let the game change.



Sure, I can see it working like that. But in that case, what purpose does the Flinch rule serve?
Shooty units are going to be in terrain and thus immune to flinch.
Assaulty units are going to have special rules (ie, Immune to Flinch) baked in to their points cost to make them special and viable.
Anything big has immune to flinch.
There are entire armies that lack any real shooting to speak of (Daemons), or their fluff specifically eschews it in favour of combat (Blood Angels, Space Wolves). I'm all for having a game built around 'normal' units with less of the big stompy robots, but 'normal' is a bit of a weird description that can cover a whole range of different unit types, many of which are chainsword-wielding jetpack-equipped space vampires.

I guess I'm just dubious of a game mechanic that gives you widespread, easy access to reliably control the position of your opponent's models without significant risk to yourself. It seems time consuming, and it seems that in 95% of cases units will either be immune (in terrain / 2W models) or need to be given special rules to be made immune (berskerers and terminators). It also creates this weird dichotomy where a single wound 2+ Save model can be effectively dealt with the entire game using lasguns, but a 2 wound 2+ save model requires you to actually bring heavy weaponry to bear.
Eg, Assault Terminators? Pin them permanently with Lasguns. Assault Paladins? Oh **** where is the plasma!? Yet they are supposed to be roughly equivalent units, right?
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

The funny part of this is, in a german forum everyone was afraid of the reaction system because of too much shooting.

No one ever had a problem with the flinch rule.


The main problem here is that of course the the armys need to be reworked.

Melee units are garbage now. A unit of 10 Khorne Berserker get reduced to 3 Marines before it reaches close combat. Those Marines should still be able to kill every pure ranged unit in the game (not other marines of course).

The other thing is that I personally would Change Marines to have a profile of 5 with 2 wounds as standard to make them more like the should be.

Trasvi wrote:

If you're taking so many ideas from warmachine. Look how powerful abilities to move enemy models are in Warmachine.

I did not take something from warmachine directly (most similar rules were written before I start playing it) but I am a Rhulic player so with Gorten I know what it mean to push others around.

Trasvi wrote:

The best tactics for dealing with Terminators would be to spam them with high rate of fire weapons like Burst Cannons and push them off the board, rather than attempting to kill them at all.


And the best tactic for Terminators is to stay out of LOS until you can charge.
I have never seen someone moving with Assault Terminators across the board and make it to the enemy without a lot of LOS blocking terrain on the table.
They either shock and hope to survive long enough to charge or use a Land Raider and charge straight in.

In both situations flinch won’t make a difference for the Terminators.

But like I wrote above, split flinch up into a general rule affecting movement of big models and a weapon trait for shotguns and similar weapons is an idea.


On the other hand fast units are able to charge 18 inch across the table (12” double move, 6” charge) so there is not much time too shoot them anyway.
And the amount (and type) of terrain will make a big difference between how big the influence really is.


PS: For the rules I have mainly the Battle of Macragge in my head that I want to bring on the table.
There is the situation of the last battle of the first company which inspired the reaction system. So that Terminators can shoot at every advancing unit as a reaction instead of just shooting once and then get killed from the mass of attacks in close combat.
The other one is main battle on the surface having a clear attacker and defender situation with a close combat horde trying to win against a defending shooting army behind hard cover.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Translation and final changes of the basic rules are done.
Next a psionic powers and scenarios.

If someone would be so kind to give me a short review if everything is understandable or if there are some bad translation mistakes.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Update:

Fixed some mistakes within the core rules
delayed the work to for the advanced rules (psionics and fortifications) and instead put all scenarios into the rulebook (and write them first)

For the scenarios there will be 3 different deployment types and 3 different strategies.

the table is chosen randomly and the strategy by the player.

primary missions will be random and depends on what army a player has (there will be a tier list and the harder a list is the more difficult the primary mission becomes)
and secondary will be maelstrom missions cards.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Finished the Scenario/Mission System.

Next are Psionic Powers

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Psionic Powers and Warlord Traits are done now.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

How many weapons should a model can fire?

There are different opinions around and I am not sure how to rule this.

The existing rule is that a model can fire all weapons as long it did not make a double move (except fast models)

Additional models can fire the numbers of weapons equal their size, or equal their remaining health points divided by 2 (round up)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Tying size to the number of weapons they can fire is a neat idea. That would bear testing, but I think it could be neat. We would see more ironclad dreadnaughts and maybe more HK missiles under that ruling.

I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

And now for something completely different

Is it viable to write rule terms capitalized?
like use "Flinch" or "Slow" every time I write about the trait or is it better to write in small letters and cursive?

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





That's more personal preference with regard to formatting. It just needs to be consistent. using Italics gets old when you want to type stuff, though, which is why I try to capitalize key terms.

I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
Made in at
Privateer




Austria

Thanks
So it won't look like bad English if I capitalize, good to know.

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 kodos wrote:
Thanks
So it won't look like bad English if I capitalize, good to know.


I only had one semester of German, so I could be wrong, but all nouns are capitalized in German and not just proper nouns, IIRC. In English, proper nouns like names for specific places, specific people and brand names are always capitalized. My argument for capitalizing rules terms is always that the terms used specifically in the context of a game are proper nouns in a way because they refer to a specific rule with a specific definition within a specific context.

Also, overusing bold and italics looks tacky and underlining things in a final draft always felt really "middle school -ish." None of those things are "proper" in the sense that there is a textbook anywhere on formatting game rules so my solution could be looked at as the lesser of a few evils. I like the capitalized approach because it draws attention to things in a way that doesn't impede on the normal flow of the text when you read it.

I went to Hershey Park in central PA this year, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed. I fully expected the entire theme park to be make entirely of chocolate, but no. Here in America, we have "building codes," and some other nonsense about chocolate melting if don't store it someplace kept below room temperature. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: