Switch Theme:

Summary execution rewording proposal  [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
Regular Dakkanaut





I figured I'd have my own go at a revised Summary execution.

I think most guard players were okay with the idea of toning done the conscript and Commissar relationship. What really ticked of a lot of guard players was how how GW went about it.

There were two big problems with the FAQ solution.

1. It was a very sloppy rule that basically made it so no one wants to use the commissar on anything but conscripts. (pretty ironic that nerfing the commissar conscript relationship ended up driving them closer together.)

2. GW didn't actually remove the "fearless" conscripts from the game. The soup players (who I think were the biggest problem in the first place) could, for instance, just take Pietrov's MK 45 and get the same result as before. (I'll mention this pistol later). This kind of thing ultimately hurts the pure guard player worse than the soup players.


What I would like to accomplish is to primarily bring the commissar back into the mix as a useful buff to any infantry without reintroducing the old synergy with conscripts that started this mess in the first place. I'm also open to closing some of the gaps that GW left in the faq.


The core rule that I would like to propose is a rewrite to summary execution. I've basically taken the faq wording and changed it to this:


When a unit fails a moral test, during the Moral phase while within 6 inches of any friendly COMMISSARS, one model of your choice is slain and another roll is taken. You may choose either roll as the result of the moral test. (do not include this slain model when re rolling the moral test). The slain model will count towards the total lost due to moral.

(obviously the general language format is not completely right)


This rule changes a couple of important things. While a failed moral test will always result in an execution, it turns the mandatory re roll into a roll 2D6 pick the lowest situation. This change, in combination with counting the slain model as a part of the total lost to battle shock, would make it so people will want to use them around their non conscript units again, while also keeping conscripts vulnerable in the moral phase. ( This change would cause you to lose an average of 1 -1.5 fewer than current)


While that is the primary rule change, I've got a couple secondary ones involving guard moral

There are a few ways of getting around the faq with relics, warlord traits and stratagems. I not entirely sure the traits and stratagems need to be tweaked right now, but I think the relic pistol that has the old commissar rules was the easiest to abuse. I would simply give it the new version of summary execution from above. Since that is a flat nerf, I'd probably give the pistol itself a bit of a buff in return. Don't really know what right now maybe + 1 Strength or something. That isn't really the important part of this post. If there are any another abilities that I'm forgetting that ever become overbearing I'm open to a similar change.

Next I would make a small change to the regimental standard ( and platoon standard as well ). Currently there is a debate on whether or not the banners +1 leadership bubble stacks with the Commissars Leadership bubble. I'm not here to argue about the finer points of the English language to decide if it does. I'm just going to sidestep it by making it affect the <Regiment> and OFFICIO PREFECTUS keywords to remove all doubt. Personally I think it would be extremely fluffy to require the full guard command structure to get the most out of all of your troops.


Thanks for reading.



   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




I think that makes the rule a little bit better, but I would change it to make it a decision and rewrite to this:

Summary Execution: Any Astra Militarum unit that must take a Morale test within 6" of this unit may elect to execute one model instead of rolling a D6. The executed model counts as a casualty for the purposes of determining battle shock.

Effectively you kill a guy to guarantee rolling a 1. If you take casualties in excess of your leadership (including the model you executed) you lose the difference. It keeps infantry squads around but won't save a conscript unit that took a lot of casualties. It also creates a decision on whether to guarantee killing one model to keep the unit around or to take a chance with the D6 and try not to lose anyone. It also makes the commissar interaction a little darker as he may execute a guy that wasn't actually going to run, but the commissar thought he might.
   
Made in ca
Storm Trooper with Maglight




I like it. Its a much, much needed improvement over GW's sloppily rushed alternative to the rule.

123ply: Dataslate- 4/4/3/3/1/3/1/8/6+
Autopistol, Steel Extendo, Puma Hoodie
USRs: "Preferred Enemy: Xenos"
"Hatred: Xenos"
"Racist and Proud of it" - Gains fleshbane, rending, rage, counter-attack, and X2 strength and toughness when locked in combat with units not in the "Imperium of Man" faction.

Collection:
AM/IG - 122nd Terrax Guard: 2094/3000pts
Skitarii/Cult Mech: 1380/2000pts
Khorne Daemonkin - Host of the Nervous Knife: 1701/2000pts
Orks - Rampage Axez: 1753/2000pts 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut




When a unit within 6" of a commisar makes a morale test you can roll two dice and pick the lower result.

This is essentially a rewording of your rule, isn't it?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





pismakron wrote:
When a unit within 6" of a commisar makes a morale test you can roll two dice and pick the lower result.

This is essentially a rewording of your rule, isn't it?


Not quite. You don't roll the second dice until you fail the first one ( that's when one guys dies). I didn't wan't to lower the chances of Summary execution occurring, just fixing what happens when it does.

Also the guy killed by the commissar count towards the end result of the moral test.

I know the wording is a bit weird here. I kept the official wording from the faq saying that he doesn't count towards the result of the second test. But added my own part to make him a causallty of the test.

I guess it would be best to make an example to to clear it up.


You have a unit of conscripts that take 8 causalities going into the moral phase.

You roll a 5 for the moral test. Conscripts with a commissar are leadership 8 so test is failed by 5

1 guy is executed and you roll another dice, it's a 3

You now are retaking the test against 8 causalities as normal, but you get to choose the 3 (my rule makes it so that it you had rolled, say a 6, you could still use the 5)

This will result in 3 units lost to the moral phase including the one shot by the commissar. ( old rule would have meant 4 lost)
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Chris521 wrote:
pismakron wrote:
When a unit within 6" of a commisar makes a morale test you can roll two dice and pick the lower result.

This is essentially a rewording of your rule, isn't it?


Not quite. You don't roll the second dice until you fail the first one ( that's when one guys dies). I didn't wan't to lower the chances of Summary execution occurring, just fixing what happens when it does.

Also the guy killed by the commissar count towards the end result of the moral test.

I know the wording is a bit weird here. I kept the official wording from the faq saying that he doesn't count towards the result of the second test. But added my own part to make him a causallty of the test.

I guess it would be best to make an example to to clear it up.


You have a unit of conscripts that take 8 causalities going into the moral phase.

You roll a 5 for the moral test. Conscripts with a commissar are leadership 8 so test is failed by 5

1 guy is executed and you roll another dice, it's a 3

You now are retaking the test against 8 causalities as normal, but you get to choose the 3 (my rule makes it so that it you had rolled, say a 6, you could still use the 5)

This will result in 3 units lost to the moral phase including the one shot by the commissar. ( old rule would have meant 4 lost)


But how is this different from rolling two dice (5 and 3) and pick the lower result (3)?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





pismakron wrote:
 Chris521 wrote:
pismakron wrote:
When a unit within 6" of a commisar makes a morale test you can roll two dice and pick the lower result.

This is essentially a rewording of your rule, isn't it?


Not quite. You don't roll the second dice until you fail the first one ( that's when one guys dies). I didn't wan't to lower the chances of Summary execution occurring, just fixing what happens when it does.

Also the guy killed by the commissar count towards the end result of the moral test.

I know the wording is a bit weird here. I kept the official wording from the faq saying that he doesn't count towards the result of the second test. But added my own part to make him a causallty of the test.

I guess it would be best to make an example to to clear it up.


You have a unit of conscripts that take 8 causalities going into the moral phase.

You roll a 5 for the moral test. Conscripts with a commissar are leadership 8 so test is failed by 5

1 guy is executed and you roll another dice, it's a 3

You now are retaking the test against 8 causalities as normal, but you get to choose the 3 (my rule makes it so that it you had rolled, say a 6, you could still use the 5)

This will result in 3 units lost to the moral phase including the one shot by the commissar. ( old rule would have meant 4 lost)


But how is this different from rolling two dice (5 and 3) and pick the lower result (3)?


At its root, yes, this system is meant to build "2D6 pick the lowest" into the summary execution rule. But it isn't completely the same. Say, in another scenario, the unit above took 6 casualties and rolled a 2 in it's original moral test. The summary execution rule is never triggered in the first place and it's only a roll D6 in this case.

2D6 pick the lowest by itself doesn't provide enough detail to give a good mechanism to trigger the summary execution rule. There are other ways to do what I'm trying to accomplish, but I chose the way that I think both best fixes the problem from a rules perspective and illustrates what the rule is trying to represent (by making a squad have to fail a moral test before a 2D6 system is used).
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Chris521 wrote:

At its root, yes, this system is meant to build "2D6 pick the lowest" into the summary execution rule. But it isn't completely the same. Say, in another scenario, the unit above took 6 casualties and rolled a 2 in it's original moral test. The summary execution rule is never triggered in the first place and it's only a roll D6 in this case.

2D6 pick the lowest by itself doesn't provide enough detail to give a good mechanism to trigger the summary execution rule. There are other ways to do what I'm trying to accomplish, but I chose the way that I think both best fixes the problem from a rules perspective and illustrates what the rule is trying to represent (by making a squad have to fail a moral test before a 2D6 system is used).


So, if you were to roll two dice, one of them being a two, and then proceed to pick the lowest dice, wouldn't the result still be the same? I don't see any scenario where the outcome will be changed by rolling both dice immediately.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






pismakron wrote:
 Chris521 wrote:

At its root, yes, this system is meant to build "2D6 pick the lowest" into the summary execution rule. But it isn't completely the same. Say, in another scenario, the unit above took 6 casualties and rolled a 2 in it's original moral test. The summary execution rule is never triggered in the first place and it's only a roll D6 in this case.

2D6 pick the lowest by itself doesn't provide enough detail to give a good mechanism to trigger the summary execution rule. There are other ways to do what I'm trying to accomplish, but I chose the way that I think both best fixes the problem from a rules perspective and illustrates what the rule is trying to represent (by making a squad have to fail a moral test before a 2D6 system is used).


So, if you were to roll two dice, one of them being a two, and then proceed to pick the lowest dice, wouldn't the result still be the same? I don't see any scenario where the outcome will be changed by rolling both dice immediately.


I've already explained the rule and given examples showing the difference. I'm not devoting anymore time to this line of questioning.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/08 17:09:05


 
   
Made in us
Slippery Scout Biker




Vegas

The best/easiest fix I've heard is to just limit Summary Execution to units of 10 models or less.

Autocorrect is for light slapping nun shoes! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: