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.

So me and my brother in an attempt to make Assault Marines/other melee units not utter garabage have house ruled the old +1 attack on the charge from 7th, and are considering something like an extra attack at S User AP 0(like hammer of wrath)/an additional attack for having any combination of 2 CC weapon/pistol equipped. This has me wondering what things have y’all house ruled to make the game better or smoother?

That's not going to make them much better. They need an overall better statline or something that only they can do that goes beyond, "moves fast gud".

 andysonic1 wrote:
That's not going to make them much better. They need an overall better statline or something that only they can do that goes beyond, "moves fast gud".

Well we just started toying with the idea. Honestly if bolters and chainswords were AP -1 it would solve some issues but I’m not interested in modifying the game that heavily. We were also considering other things like across the board 5+ invul/-1 to hit/+1 to saving throws to make first turn shooting a little less destructive.

As long as everyone is okay with it you’re good to go.

I think a simpler way to make close-combat a bit more dangerous is introduce one of the many suggested penalties for leaving close-combat. Falling back for free is arguably more dangerous than the lack of attacks that, say, a Space Marine has.

Personally I'd be fine with each model (within close-combat range) rolls a dice when an opposing unit chooses to fall back. On a roll of '6', the falling back unit suffers a mortal wound. Something simple and quick like that.

I think the main issue for some close-combat units (all the Eldar ones, and the basic Space Marines etc.) is that odd-ball units exist in the game, which, through a series of buffs become incredibly overpowered to what they should be - Ork boyz etc.

I'm fine with things like Genestealers being amazing, and I enjoy Berzerkers being really nasty, but some units which get buffed to those levels and shouldn't kinda makes real genuine assault units redundant.

From my experience it isn’t the lack of attacks it is the easy can break away easily from combat, is what makes certain CC focused units on the weakside.

You could house rule something like an opposing Movement Characteristic test to break away. Fast units like Assault Marines could then keep most enemies locked in close combat. It would also allow most vehicles a good chance to break away from combat as well.

 Elbows wrote:

Personally I'd be fine with each model (within close-combat range) rolls a dice when an opposing unit chooses to fall back. On a roll of '6', the falling back unit suffers a mortal wound. Something simple and quick like that.

That favours cheap hordes massively.

 Crimson wrote:

 Elbows wrote:

Personally I'd be fine with each model (within close-combat range) rolls a dice when an opposing unit chooses to fall back. On a roll of '6', the falling back unit suffers a mortal wound. Something simple and quick like that.

That favours cheap hordes massively.

Probably. If you do MOV/2+d6 the high edge case of Eldar jetbikes which have 16M.

16M
min: 9
avg: 11.5
max: 14

12M
min: 7
avg: 9.5
max: 12

6M
min: 4
avg: 6.5
max: 9

Problem is this is trying to derive initiative from movement.

Could also do a modifier break away modifier on movement intervals
<6 = -1
6 = 0
>6 & <12 = +1
>=12 = +2

Melee armies are much better when there is a lot of LoS blocking terrain. Maybe try using more of that?

Stux wrote:
Melee armies are much better when there is a lot of LoS blocking terrain. Maybe try using more of that?

It helps get them into combat, but doesn’t help when the other unit falls back and the assault unit gets shredded. The rule was mainly a bandaid for things like assault marines, striking scorpions, banshees etc that are “dedicated assault units” but have low actual output and usefulness. In 7th this was forgiven because falling back wasn’t so easy or safe, but now it’s easy and safe.

In 7th falling back didnt exist.

The only house rule my group plays is more forgiving cover. If you’re partially obscured but not in cover, you’re getting a +1 save. For vehicles I think we err around 50% obscured for the +1. Similar to 5th?

The rest of my response is things I’d like to change, which is off topic.

I would definitely like to change the charge and fallback rules to cause movement to be more deterministic. E.g. I find totally unpredictable charge range a little frustrating. Maybe movement/2+d6 charge range?
That means you predictably succeed on short charges, whereas long charges remain a risk.

Similar with fallback. I’d prefer if it was a contested movement+d6 (or as above movement/2+d6). I have never liked that melee is static. If redesigning it, I’d say the controlling player can fall back at the end of movement like they can now. Then, the other player can choose to pursue with some sort of test. This makes melee a bit more dynamic, as it will move around the board.

Anoyone have house rules for vehicles? I prefer the idea of having firing arcs and weaker armour in the side/rear of a tank, it just seems a little bit more realistic. I was thinking a -1 to their save or maybe their toughness when shooting at a tank from behind. Also I think vehicles should get a cover save if they are 50%obscured even if not in terrain. These rules for the most part make vehicles less effective(not the cover one which would help them) so I'm not sure how you would balance that out so they keep most of their usefulness. I think having the ability to pivot as much as you want while firing would be fine. What do you guys think?

Sorcererbob wrote:
The only house rule my group plays is more forgiving cover. If you’re partially obscured but not in cover, you’re getting a +1 save. For vehicles I think we err around 50% obscured for the +1. Similar to 5th?

The rest of my response is things I’d like to change, which is off topic.

I would definitely like to change the charge and fallback rules to cause movement to be more deterministic. E.g. I find totally unpredictable charge range a little frustrating. Maybe movement/2+d6 charge range?
That means you predictably succeed on short charges, whereas long charges remain a risk.

Similar with fallback. I’d prefer if it was a contested movement+d6 (or as above movement/2+d6). I have never liked that melee is static. If redesigning it, I’d say the controlling player can fall back at the end of movement like they can now. Then, the other player can choose to pursue with some sort of test. This makes melee a bit more dynamic, as it will move around the board.

Including the movement stat into the charge range would have a lot of unwanted consequences, but if you made the charge roll D6+6 it would already be enough. If you came from reserves that turn though you still roll 2d6.

Other than that, not playing at 2000 points is the best thing you can do. At 1750 lists already have a lot less firepower.