Switch Theme:

Theorycrafting: Let's make up some terrible rules suggestions  [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 us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Something that I like to do for fun is to think of a core mechanic to 40k, completely break it, and then theorycraft about how it would change the game - Better? Worse? Complete garbage? It doesn't matter!

Just for a few examples - What would happen if you halved the range of every single ranged weapon? It'd obviously buff Melee weapons, but by how much? Certain weapons of the 'Ludicrously high maximum range' would suddenly see a jump in value, as well, as the number of weapons that can actually reach across the board suddenly shrinks to zero.
Even for shooty units, the model's 'Move' value would effectively become its range in a lot of cases. In the same way that, for example, Seraphim with Fusion Pistols basically have to be practically in Close Combat to shoot, the same would become true of Rapid Fire, which would be reduced to 6" for a lot of units.

Tanklines would take a huge hit, obviously, though they'd also get a bump in durability against non-assault armies, since most anti-tank weapons would also have to move forward in order to hit anything.

'Sit in your deployment zone and shoot' armies would become practically useless, forcing players to go for more table control. This'd obviously be better for armies that are actually capable of fast movement - Biker Marines, Eldar, maybe Speed Freak Orks.

It wouldn't be a better game, but it'd sure be interesting to try and build a list for that and see how it goes.



So how would you break the game?
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

I thought the range of ranged weapons was halved? Given that the average 'modern' rifle with a scope can hit something about a kilometre away, and the 40k equivalent can hit something within 24" (about 4-5 turns worth of movement) (or depending on how you rate a game turn, about 1 minute at most worth of 'running').

 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





I've thought about halving ranges before, and I think it might actually make the game better. It'd need some further adjustments, of course, to make some things still work as intended. I tried a game with a friend where we played with nothing but models with range 12" or less (including psychic powers), and it felt both more dynamic and less oppressive for the poor sod who goes second. We're going to do that more.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

 Cream Tea wrote:
I've thought about halving ranges before, and I think it might actually make the game better. It'd need some further adjustments, of course, to make some things still work as intended. I tried a game with a friend where we played with nothing but models with range 12" or less (including psychic powers), and it felt both more dynamic and less oppressive for the poor sod who goes second. We're going to do that more.


Well, you're describing alpha strike. That's its own set of problems with the game.

 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

One trouble with the game is that the table feels too small.
Soi like the idea of shorter weapons ranges, slower movement and so on. Together, ranged weapons would still have their effectiveness while the game would become more tactical IMHO.

   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





I've played on a 6' by 8' consisting of two standard 40k boards. In many ways it was better, range played more of a part and you had to move around more. It was much harder to move models near the middle of the table though, especially with a lot of ruins in the way. Shorter people would have it worse.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




That's a thought - What would happen if you played a game of about 2-3 thousand points, but on a Cities of Death board of 100+ square feet? (For reference a normal board is 24 square feet.)
Obviously, a concession would have to be made to increase turn limits, but otherwise I think this could actually be really cool - If you had the time, space, and terrain to do so.

It would make a lot of unnecessary gear a lot more useful. Ridiculously-long-range tanks with barrage abilities? Great. Being able to deep strike? Also great.
Terminators with Teleport Homers would become a lot more relevant, since they'd be able to drop into one area, hit hard, and then pull out to another area somewhere entirely different on the board.

Grey Knights would certainly get a bump, since they all have access to Gate of Infinity. Weirdboyz with Da Jump would prove to be similarly even better than they already are.

Rather than being an army-vs-army match, this would consist of a lot more small skirmishes. One buff model (Say, Guilliman) couldn't just provide support to your entire army - You'd need to pick and choose who gets the benefits, since you're going to have to be so spread out.
Screening units, similarly, would take a big hit, since the amount of board that would need to be covered gets much larger without more points to buy them.
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

Advancing apcs would get mercilessly cut down by anti-tank fire long before they reached their target. Drop-pods would be the way to go.

 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




 Torga_DW wrote:
Advancing apcs would get mercilessly cut down by anti-tank fire long before they reached their target. Drop-pods would be the way to go.

Even in a cities of death scenario, with terrain so dense that drawing Line of Sight past a couple feet is impossible?
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

No you're right, that would make a difference. I guess it depends on where the battle takes place - defenders in a city vs invaders coming from the outskirts, or both combatants in the actual city.

edit: i would really hate to be trying to take dug-in defenders from the outskirts of a city.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/10 07:44:31


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Awhile ago, for the "what if" factor of it, I wrote a system for vehicles to have a "Damage Grid" not much unlike Warmahordes.

-Weapons had a Save modifier (ala 8th), but certain pieces of armor had a "Reinforcement" modifier which could ignore X points of save mods. This way you could differentiate between "heavy yet crude" (like Ard Boy Eavy Armor), versus "light yet advanced" (like Fire Warrior nanocrystalline armor).

At the time, vehicles had AV akin to 3rd-7th. Strength + 1d6 (or 2d6 if armorbane) minus the vehicle's AV determined how much damage you did to a vehicle. I alternated between giving vehicles an armor save, adding (AP-reinforcement) to the damage roll, etc. However, what remained consistent was that rather than HP or a vehicle damage table, vehicles had a "damage grid" akin to Warjacks in Warmachine, with a few twists. The grid was simply a "top down" view of the vehicle's interior, with multiple rows&columns. A vehicle subcomponent (crew, a sponson, the engine block, etc) would have its own HP value, and could take up multiple grid cells. But most importantly, depending on the facing you shot from, you would "rotate" the damage grid to determine where you allocated damage. Thus, if you shot a vehicle from its right flank, you were more likely to blow up its rightmost sponson instead of its left sponson.

And I had fun modding other rules to adapt to this new system. Gauss Weapons became far fluffier than before, since rather than "blowing through" a column, they would each do one damage point, row-by-row (perpendicular to the armor facing), literally stripping away at the vehicle hull. Likewise, a vehicle's Engine Block would have to roll above the amount of HP damage it took from a single attack, or else explode! (Versus Doombolt, it was roll 2d6 drop highest due to Detonate!).

Although it was a system that would work for the scale that 40k is normally played at, I felt such a system would be cool for a "sidegame" where both players each control 1-3 tanks and that's it. Think Gorkamorka meets World of Tanks. It did solve the earlier dilemma 40k had where multishot midstrength weapons (Scatter Lasers, Hi-Yield Missile Pods, Autocannons, etc) were far more effective at anti-tank than the weapons that were nominally supposed to be specialized for the job! (Lascannons, Railguns, etc)
   
Made in us
Charing Cold One Knight





Sticksville, Texas

Ohh, I got one. Models can only move without penalty when moving inside their front 45 degree arc. There is a movment penalty of 2" for moving outside your arc of vision.

A model can also only pivot either before or after it's movement.

A model can only fire Overwatch (shoot with a -1 penalty to hit), against models that charge it in it's front 45 degree arc.

When a model is charged in it's rear arc, it cannot fight back in close combat, but may pivot for free at the end of combat to face it's attacker.

It would be pretty terrible in a game that requires as many models as 40k, but one thing that has always bugged me a bit is that 40k is a game that does not care about model facing whatsoever (except vehicles in past editions).

It would be neat in smaller games though, and really force you to think about how you place your models on the table during movement and combat. It would also force you to have a couple models out of the unit facing other directions to serve as "lookouts" for the unit or act as a rearguard.
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Make shooting distances random like charge ranges.
   
Made in us
Charing Cold One Knight





Sticksville, Texas

 koooaei wrote:
Make shooting distances random like charge ranges.


That would be frustratingly fun.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Any model can throw grenades, even the entire squad-but each model only gets one grenade. Track them carefully.

Even worse?

Track ammo. A Space Marine, for instance, has 10 Bolter shots on them. Each shot reduces the count by one, so you can only have 5 Rapid Fire shots total throughout the game. Track this on a model-to-model basis.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 koooaei wrote:
Make shooting distances random like charge ranges.

That reminds me of using Grey Knights in 4th edition. I had so much fun with that. Not the same thing but the memory was arisen.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




You know... Combining JNA's suggestion with NH Gunsmith's, assuming decent balance, would actually make for a pretty kickass killteam setup. That kind of tracking, while nightmarish in big games, could be a lot of fun and strategic in small, 3-500pt exchanges.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Waaaghpower wrote:
You know... Combining JNA's suggestion with NH Gunsmith's, assuming decent balance, would actually make for a pretty kickass killteam setup. That kind of tracking, while nightmarish in big games, could be a lot of fun and strategic in small, 3-500pt exchanges.


I don't think it'd work well in a 28mm game. In a larger scale game, it could work better, since the models are more distinct and easier to track. But in a small sized game... Too easy to confuse the models.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Built-in range penalties. Every full 18" of distance is a cumulative -1 penalty to the to-hit roll (0"-17": no penalty, 18"-35": -1, etc.).

Ork shooting stops functioning at 18", Guard artillery becomes wildly inaccurate, Vindicares can't reliably reach out and poke you with impunity from across the table, and everyone is forced into much closer-ranged slugfests.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:
You know... Combining JNA's suggestion with NH Gunsmith's, assuming decent balance, would actually make for a pretty kickass killteam setup. That kind of tracking, while nightmarish in big games, could be a lot of fun and strategic in small, 3-500pt exchanges.


I don't think it'd work well in a 28mm game. In a larger scale game, it could work better, since the models are more distinct and easier to track. But in a small sized game... Too easy to confuse the models.


It's a thing you could do in a 28mm game if it were closer to Mordheim scale (sort of 8-12 models range) and people were doing more conversions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/12 19:16:57


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

This one would probably make most people puke:

Your army deploys with only troop choices and a HQ. Each time you complete an objective (hold an objective, drop an enemy unit below 50%, get linebreaker, etc.) you can bring in an Elite, FA, Heavy support, unique character or Lord of War of X points.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Stormonu wrote:
This one would probably make most people puke:

Your army deploys with only troop choices and a HQ. Each time you complete an objective (hold an objective, drop an enemy unit below 50%, get linebreaker, etc.) you can bring in an Elite, FA, Heavy support, unique character or Lord of War of X points.


See, that's WAY TOO PUNISHING for, say, Eldar, who have poop for troops, but barely matters at all to, say, Harlequins, which have baller troops.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Funny Mordheim should be mentioned, as I had been working awhile ago on expanded mount and carriage rules, in essence "wagon VDR" for Mordheim. I didn't get around to properly costing or implementing a lot of the options, but the intent was for a unified (if not inherently 100% balanced) system that could build a chariot, Steam Tank, siege tower, etc. Were I to revisit it, the system would also have rules for building ships and fortifications.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fFwI0z3MSReaxICilkBJchooYPNavwlCgX283SKX-8A/edit?usp=drivesdk
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Release Codex Astra Militartum
   
Made in au
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine




Oz

 JNAProductions wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:
This one would probably make most people puke:

Your army deploys with only troop choices and a HQ. Each time you complete an objective (hold an objective, drop an enemy unit below 50%, get linebreaker, etc.) you can bring in an Elite, FA, Heavy support, unique character or Lord of War of X points.


See, that's WAY TOO PUNISHING for, say, Eldar, who have poop for troops, but barely matters at all to, say, Harlequins, which have baller troops.


What if the FOC as we knew it didn't exist, and/or was tailored specifically to individual armies/subgroups. So eldar had a different version of 'troops' compared to say the imperium?

 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

 Torga_DW wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:
This one would probably make most people puke:

Your army deploys with only troop choices and a HQ. Each time you complete an objective (hold an objective, drop an enemy unit below 50%, get linebreaker, etc.) you can bring in an Elite, FA, Heavy support, unique character or Lord of War of X points.


See, that's WAY TOO PUNISHING for, say, Eldar, who have poop for troops, but barely matters at all to, say, Harlequins, which have baller troops.


What if the FOC as we knew it didn't exist, and/or was tailored specifically to individual armies/subgroups. So eldar had a different version of 'troops' compared to say the imperium?


Then it just comes down to who, under the modified system, has the best troops and HQs.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Built-in range penalties. Every full 18" of distance is a cumulative -1 penalty to the to-hit roll (0"-17": no penalty, 18"-35": -1, etc.).

Ork shooting stops functioning at 18"


It allready doesn't function, so no big loss there.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: