OKorVesah wrote:
Play on a bigger board. At least 1.5 times as big as the weapon with the longest range (movement range + attack range). Better 2 times. Deployment zones are such that nobody can attack during the first turn.
Well, playing on varying table sizes isn't really practical for anyone that has a fixed-size gaming table or limited gaming space. You'd have to play on the floor or push a bunch of tables together or something. There's a discussion to be had about making the game board larger or smaller (or reducing movement and range bands), but playing on an area large enough to make fighting impossible on turn 1 is going to have a lot of undesirable consequences. Armies with long range and high mobility will have a much easier time engaging armies with short range and low mobility. Footslogging armies that already struggle to get into position fast enough will have that problem worsened. I'm trying to avoid talking about "balance" in this post per your request, but you will have to significantly change several aspects of modern
40k in order to avoid crippling certain armies or units.
Rules with identical effects should get identical names. (i.e. Feel no Pain(X+), Deep Strike, ...)
Partly agree. Feel no Pain(x+) and Deepstrike(x inches away) and a handful of other rules can stand to be
USRs. It's probably not all that important to do this with every special rule in the game though. A mandrake's bale blast and a scout marine's sniper rifle both do mortal wounds on to-wound rolls of 6, but for very different reasons. No need to destroy all your levers.
Deep-Strike: Minimum distance to enemy models lowered to 1". Models can deep-strike "into" models that have a maximum wound characteristic a quarter or less than that of the deep-striking model. The player controlling the models must move them so as to accomodate the deep-striking model (keeping 1" distance to it).
Some concerns here. Units could just plop down next to an objective and swipe it out from under their opponent with no counterplay (that you've mentioned). If you're still allowed to charge after deepstriking, this guarantees the deepstriking unit will be able to charge something the turn it arrives. Deepstriking a couple of units would make it pretty easy to charge most/all of an enemy army on turn 2 and basically keep them from shooting for the rest of the game. I'm picturing a couple swarms of hormagaunts just charging over and over leaving a marine gunline to punch inefficiently, fall back, get charged again, etc. while the rest of the 'nid armies claims objectives or moves in for the kill. Deepstriking (presumably more than) 1" away would also allow weapons with a range of 9" or less to be able to shoot things the turn they arrive. You'd be unable to screen a tank from my deepstriking fire dragons (12" guns) unless you had a solid wall of them less than 1" away from your tank and out to 11.1", for example.
Also, forcing your opponent to fidget with a bunch of models because you wanted to knock him off of an objective will slow the game down and doesn't seem to have much counterplay.
Movement: Models can move "through" enemy models with a maximum wound characteristic a quarter or less than that of the moving model, but any distance covered within 1" of enemy models counts double. Your enemy must clear a path with his models for your models, keeping 1" distance to your models.
//This is where I should include some pictures.
I see what you're going for here, but this will also slow the game down quite a bit. Especially if you're actually figuring out how much of a model's movement occurs within 1" down to, say, the closest half inch.
Falling Back: A unit that falls back can decide to ignore their opponent. If it does so, all units in close combat with it, can immediately choose to attack it, as if it were their combat phase, but they cannot pile in or consolidate as part of this. A unit can only attack like this once per phase. The unit falling back can then act freely for the rest of it´s turn, as if it hadn´t been in close combat, but it must end it´s move outside of 1" of all enemy units.
I didn't like the "attacks of opportunity"in the falling back thread, and I don't like it here. Basically, there will almost always be a clear best decision as to whether or not you should fall back. If the unit locked in combat is decent in melee, it will stay put. If not, it will fall back so that it and the rest of the army can shoot at the enemy unit. If your falling back unit gets wiped out while falling back, that's just the cost of doing business. It doesn't really add interesting decisions to the game because there will almost always be a clear best choice. It's just sort of a passive aggressive way of telling your opponent you're not happy that he's falling back.
Combat phase: Pile-in can be done in any direction, but cannot be used to move a unit out of CC. A unit can only consolidate if it completely destroys all units that it was in CC with (no moving after attacking, if there´s still one enemy guy left).
This will make it more difficult to swing with all models in a unit in subsequent fight phases. One of the reasons the consolidate move exists is so that you can effectively get 6" (the consolidate and then your pile in in the next turn) to move models into fighting position. Maybe that's initentional. Just be away of it. Multi-charging several enemy units can suddenly become a not-insignificant liability to your mobility and offense with this rule.
Combat phase: Models can Pile-in "through" models with a maximum wound characteristic a quarter or less than that of the piling-in model (eg. a dreadnought with max.8 wounds can pile-in through models with up to max.2 wounds). The player controlling the models that are being moved through must move them out of the way so as to accomodate the moving model.
Unless you really, really needed to be 3" in another direction with your big, stompy model, this rule seems unlikely to be especially important. it does, however, seem like yet another opportunity to slow down the game by making your opponent move a handful of models again. Remember how annoying it was when you had to roll to run (advance) in the shooting phase because it meant a lot of units basically had to eat up two movement phases worth of time? This is like that. Also, what happens when you move the big stompy model "through" an immobile unit?
Combat phase attack order standartisation: All units have an initiative, by default 1. Units are chosen to fight in the order of their initiative. For units with the same initiative, the players alternate, starting with the player whose turn it is. All rules that allow a units to attack first instead grant +1 initiative. All rules that force a unit to attack last instead cause -1 initiative. The counterattack-stratagem also grants +1 initiative.
Kind of like this, but will it come up often enough to matter? If you have an army that charges a lot or has a lot of "always swing first" rules versus an army that doesn't, then you're usually swinging first as is. Think Slaaneshi daemons versus marines. The daemons will generally be going first in both your system and the arguably simpler 8th edition rules. If the marines decide to do the charging, then both armies will have an initiative of 2 meaning they alternate, just like now. If you have two armies without initiative bonuses other than charging, then the chargers will always go first. Just like now. This doesn't seem like a bad way of doing things, but what does it accomplish that the current system doesn't? I guess you could have a bunch of floating initiative modifers all over the place so that an extra faster army can trump a sorta fast army, but otherwise you're getting the same results with more steps.
Overwatch: Hit rolls for overwatch CAN be modified, but only by rules which explicitely say so (this is merely for streamlining, so that all rules that already improve overwatch can be reformulated to a simple "+1 to hit rolls in overwatch").
Sure. Toss this into the "standardize names for similar rules" section. Although personally I'm not a fan of overwatch as it exists.
Characters: Characters can be targeted. All units can make a "look-out, Sir", when a character within 3" of them with less than 10 wounds is declared as target for an attack (ranged or melee): Roll a D6. On a 3+ the attacks are resolved against the heroic and totally voluntary substitute. Only one unit can try a look-out, Sir for each attack.
I don't think you want this. If you have a character I care about, I'll just point a few big guns at them. A 2 in 3 chance of diving in front of the bullet means that I'll still have a 1 in 3 chance of getting that shot through. Basically, characters won't survive very long if their stats and my weapons look more or less the same as they do now. Also, Look Out Sir is yet another mechanic that bogs the game down. You do you, but these rules seem like they'll result in very long games for the sake of minutia.
Vehicles: Reintroduce shooting angles and checking LoS from the weapons.
Add +1 to the "this will slow the game down" counter as you take time to position your vehicle just so to allow all its guns to fire at optimal targets. Also, you'll run into the same problems as previous editions when it comes to figuring out exactly what the firing arcs of some vehicles are. Plus, this gets complicated when converted vehicles are involved.
Vehicles: Vehicles can only move forward, backward or turn on the spot. When moving backwards, the moved distance is counted double. When turning on the spot, imagine a circle fitted around your vehicle and measure the distance that a point on this circle moves as the vehicle turns. This does not apply to units which move according to the supersonic rule. The Pile-in move in CC follows the same rules, except that piling-in backwards is not counted double.
//For example a vehicle with a movement speed of 12" can move 2" forward, then turn on the spot 4" (as described above) and then move 3" backwards (counted double, as 6").
Slows the game down. A lot. Also, you're picturing a rhino or a chimera or some other rectangular imperial thing when you talk about that circle. That guideline is a lot murkier with asymmetrical or oddly-shaped vehicle. Where is this circle centered on a wave serpent? How far up or down the spine of a raider is it? Do I use the extreme points of the hull to find its center? And if so, do I have to calculate the volume of my Slaaneshi chariot or wave serpent to find it? How far out does the circle's edge extend from my hull? Because most vehicles are vaguely oblong meaning that circle is going to be sticking out an irregular distance from my hull. Plus, the farther the circle's edge extends from its center, greater the distance each degree of rotation represents. If you are the circle's center and it extends out 3 feet from your head, then a 90 degree rotation represents a couple of feet, but if it extends out to the horizon, a 90 degree rotation represents miles. Plus, you'll be measuring fractions of inches every time you pile in or consolidate in anything but a straight forward line.
Is all that really worth the iota of simulationism you get from moving faster forward than at an angle or in reverse? Also, these rules all assume some pretty specific things about the mobility of giant flying xenos pyramids and hovering chaos drop pods.
Passengers: If a vehicle with passengers gets destroyed, place the passengers as close as possible around the vehicle, disregarding distance to enemy units, but obeying the normal movement rules. If some passengers cannot be placed like this, remove the vehicle and use that space, but all these passengers must take another check if they die. If some passengers cannot be placed like that either, your opponent must make space with his models to accomodate your models and your vehicle contained an unreasonable amount of passengers.
Slows the game down. You place models within a more limited area than usual, then pick up the vehicle model, then make a second "do I die" roll, then place your models in a less restrictive area. Also, this is potentially weirdly punishing. Like, if I have a melee unit standing near your wounded vehicle containing a melee unit, then of course I'm going to send my own melee unit in to finish the vehicle off because the alternative is to get charged by your guys in the following turn anyway so I may as well do damage while I can. But then I pop the vehicle, and suddenly I have your incubi or terminators or whatever within an inch of me.
All special rules that trigger on a certain result of a roll (eg. "on a hit roll of 1" or "on a wound roll of 3.5+") are by default triggered before rerolls and modifiers. This includes overcharged plasma.
Yeah, that's probably a good change. Helps with stuff like plasma. Makes buff rerolls less good, but you can balance around that.
In all instances of "reroll failed rolls", remove the "failed". You can simply choose which dice(s) you want to reroll.
Sure. Kind of a weird, situational change, but sure. Oddly enough, you could use this to debuff yourself if you don't want to kill off an enemy unit too quickly in melee or something.
Several instances of the same rule do not stack, unless the rule explicitely states otherwise.
Isn't that already a thing? I feel like that's already a thing. Like, sticking two shadowseers nears my harlequins doesn't impose a -2 on the to-wound roll instead of a -1 does it?
All detachments and the CP they grant are scrapped. CP are instead granted by HQ choices: Each HQ unit grants by default 1CP per 3 power levels, rounded up (this is just a guideline, should be defined on the datasheet).
Mixed feelings. Being able to make some models better commanders than others is an interesting lever. Tying it to power level is probably not a great guideline though. My autarch on foot, the guy who is all about commanding armies, should probably be better at it than the psyker on a bike or the giant leaking statue that makes everyone around him angry. Rage angel Mephiston should probably not be better at leading the army than a cheap, clear-headed captain.
Also, this wouldn't really solve
CP problems so much as it would just shift them onto the
HQ slots. Instead of armies with cheap troops being able to farm
CP cheaply, it will be armies with cheap or efficient
HQs. As Bharring mentions, the "detachments cost
CP" approach is a pretty good way of generating
CP if you're not overhauling
CP and stratagems entirely.
When setting up units, the players can choose to set up several units at once, so the player who finishes setting up is not predetermined by the number of units.
Is the "+1 to the roll to see who goes first" rule an ITC thing? We've just been doing that instead of giving first turn to the guy who deploys first. Works pretty well. Your suggestion isn't bad. It just kind of shifts the advantage to the guy that doesn't mind getting counterdeployed a little.
Stealing the initiative removed.
Seizing the initiative is a mission-specific rule. So that's already accomplished by just not including it in whatever your missions are.
New Stratagem for all: Before rolling off to see who goes first, you can expend X CP to get +X to your roll. If both players want to do this, each player covertly takes a number of dice into one of his hands that equals the number of CP he wants to spend. Then both players show each other those dice. (Or come up with a similar method of your own).
Because you haven't solved the
CP farming thing so much as just changed it, this will always favor whichever player has the pile of spare
CP.
Army-wide bonusses scrapped. Replaced by:
New Stratagem for all "Last-minute Drill": At the start of the game (same time as picking Warlord traits), you can choose any number of your units and have your dudes-in-command give them a last-minute drill: Pick one drill (from the list that is currently used for the army-wide bonusses) for each of those units (doesn´t need to be the same for all) and pay CP accordingly (default 2CP per drill, but each drill should receive it´s own cost, directly written next to it).
What do you mean by "army-wide bonus?" If you mean And They Shall Know No Fear or Ancient Doom or Instinctive Behavior, then you're basically just removing those rules from the game because no one will ever buy them. If you mean chapter tactics, you're basically just punishing anyone who plays a sub-optimal sub-faction for the fluff. If you mean army-defining rules like Synapse or Rising Crescendo, then you're basically just adding a
CP tax to armies to allow them to function.
Objective Markers: Objectives are vertically extended and important objects. Models are not permitted to move over (unless they can fly, or similar) or end any movement on top of an objective marker (treat them as non-traverseable terrain).
Eh? Why? Is every important location in the 41st millenium a fragile piece of porcelain? Often times, objective markers are said indicate that a nearbye piece of terrain is an important strategic position or else are used to broadly measure an army's control of an area. Think the "king of the hill" objectives in a video game. This doesn't break the game. It's just... weird and weirdly limiting to the narratives you can attach to your games. Maybe you'd prefer this be a rule in a specific mission meant to represent armies reclaiming fragile mcguffins or something?
Relics receive point and power-level costs (power-level cost only for the stronger ones).
Absolutely! All those second-string weapon relics no one ever takes will finallly have a chance to shine!
Differentiate between unique and non-unique Relics. Unique Relics cannot be present more than once per army, non-unique relics can.
I mean, a "non-unique" relic just sounds like a normal piece of wargear, but okay.
Taking a second relic costs an additional 20 points. Taking a third relic costs an additional 40 points. Taking a fourth relic costs an additional 60 points and so on.
Ah. No. See, now all those second-string relics I was all excited to take just had a huge premium placed on them so that I'm punished for taking what was probably a fluffy, non-competitive choice in the first place. Also, why limit them to 3? To my knowledge, armies are not breaking the game with relic spam at the moment. I'm not sure letting them take their 4th and 5th least favorite relics would suddenly unlock broken combos.
To-Wound: S equal T: 4+. Each point difference modifies the needed result by 1. Unmodified 6 always wounds, unmodified 1 always fails. Note that, with eg. S4 vs T7 the needed result would be 7+, so while an unmodified 6 would still wound, the modified result still needs to be 7+ in order to wound.
Meh. I wouldn't hate it. I've found that the current formula is a lot easier to teach new players. What's the advantage of doing it this way?
Armor: Can have values (including the one on the datasheet) and be improved past 2+. Note that an unmodified 1 still fails.
Technically already true. I mean, nothing has a 1+ armor save on its profile, but it could. There are a handful of units where this would have a place. Terminators. Phoenix lords. I'm not opposed.
All light vehicles get 2+ armor. All standart vehicles get 1+ armor. All heavy-duty vehicles get 0+ armor.
//This is not to be seen as a set-in-stone rule. It is intended as a catch-all change to vehicles. Definite values are still to be defined on a per-unit basis.[/spoiler]
Feels weird. My venoms and raiders do not seem like they should be as heavily armored as space marines. Also, assuming weapon
AP doesn't change to basically cancel this out, you're increasing the durability of vehicles by quite a lot. Bolters against rhinos, for instance, currently wound on 5s and get saved on a 3+. In your system, they'd wound on 6s and get saved on a 2+ (because 1s always fail). So that implies that vehicles would need to go up in points, and that would mean they'd make up a larger portion of your army's points and that would mean the meta either shifts to be all about the super durable vehicles or else vehicles are perceived as not being worth it and thus get taken less often because they're more expensive.
You mention wanting to make tanks more resistant to small arms fire, but are you sure that's really what you want? You know how it's super frustrating to face imperial knights when you didn't happen to load up on tons of ant-tank? You're sort of creating a lesser version of that problem by lowering the amount of efficient interactivity between vehicles and low-strength/low-
ap/low damage weapons. Currently, bolters can get lucky and plink a couple of wounds off a rhino. In your system, shooting bolters at a rhino will almost never make a real difference. And then you'll look back on your life decades from now, wondering what you could have done with all those wasted years of fishing for 6s. D:
Overall, I get the impression that you want a more simulationist set of rules for your games. I am concerned that the way you've proposed going about that will slow your games down a lot. You're trading conventionally strong design principles for time-consuming nitty gritty stuff. Which is great if that's what you're into, but I suspect many of us would not find the trade-off to be a good deal. Like, you know how some people really enjoy WW2 board games where you roll to see how many of your several thousand soldiers remembered to eat breakfast and then roll to see which ones got the tainted rations and then roll on the Wear and Tear table to see what condition their boots are in all before they even deploy to do the fighting part? It's kind of like that. There's nothing wrong with it if spending an entire day calculating exactly how far your tank can turn before shootinghis left sponson is your jam, but you may find that it has a less wide appeal than the official rules set.
