Switch Theme:

What have been your favorite rules in 40k History  [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 ca
Kroot Carnivore





40k has had a lot of editions over the years and the game is nothing like what it started out as. Some recent conversations got me thinking about my favorite things in the game, what I think works and what doesn't vs what others do. So I wanted to know, what are your favorite rules from 40k's long history, list as many as you like (and what editions they are from if you recall).

I played only occasionally in the older editions, so my memory may be a little hazy, but as a casual player this is what I remember liking:

3rd: While it had been dialed back from previous editions that I never played, it felt very customizable in your leaders. They could take all kinds of different gear in whatever way shape or form you liked and really make them unique.

5th:? I'm not sure exactly when this came out, as 4th-6th saw me play very infrequently in any store based rules relevant capacity, but (as pretty much only playing SM's back then) I liked how the chapters started to get unique rules. Not the crazy mountains of stuff there are now, but simple things like Fists are better with bolters, White Scars are better with bikes ect... Simple, but flavorful. Also, whenever the Battle Missions book came out. Those games were so much fun, and I still adapt them to the current rules to this day.

7th: To me, as a casual player, it felt like there was a rule for everything you could think of and I liked that at the time. Looking back at it with what I know now, I understand how clunky it actually was, but still being youngish at the time and mostly playing with friends where time constrains and balance weren't a concern, we quite liked that.

8th: I was really skeptical about this at first, but I'm a big fan now of more multi wound models and damage profiles. I feel like it's a great way to tweak balance and avoids a lot of the feel bads about characters easily getting one shotted, or tough squads going down fast to bad rolls. I'm still salty about a game in 3rd ed I played where a small number (I forget exactly how many) of Guardsmen gunned down 5 of my terminators with Lasguns because I rolled 5/7 1's. Also, shooting pistols in close combat.

9th: Crusade. It's not a perfect system, but I still really enjoy it. Lots of creative things you can do, especially if you just build off the bones of it. Does not feel bad to bring less optimal units as you can tweak and change them to make them better. This is how I play about 90% of my games now. I can also finally wield all the random special weapons and gear I put on a bunch of my sergeants way back in 3rd without feeling like I'm hamstringing myself.

Lastly, try to keep it civil please. There will be people who don't like the things you do and vise versa. It's all just an opinion.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Jink and Go To Ground-the ability to trade offense later for defense now was a good option in the system. Admittedly, I abused the CRAP out of it with Winged Daemon Princes of Nurgle, for a 2+ Cover for basically no cost (no guns anyway) but hey. The concept is good-execution might've been lacking.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Red terror popping out of deep strike and eating things

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot




Columbus, Ohio

This really is more about what is your fav edition rather than what is your favorite rule.

As for the editions. My 2 favorites are 3rd and 5th. I have a much longer post in the General Discussion forum as to my opinion of editions after 5th, and while 5th still had its problems, it was one of the easiest to get into and enjoy.


Proudly howling at 40k games since 1996.
Adepticon Team Arrogant Bastards
6000 point Space Wolves army
2500 point 13th Company Space Wolves army
3000 point Imperial Fists army
5000 point Dwarfs army
3500 point Bretonnian army
2000 point Beastmen army 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Jink and Go To Ground-the ability to trade offense later for defense now was a good option in the system. Admittedly, I abused the CRAP out of it with Winged Daemon Princes of Nurgle, for a 2+ Cover for basically no cost (no guns anyway) but hey. The concept is good-execution might've been lacking.

Seconded. I'll also add in:

* The 5th edition Power From Pain rules for Dark Eldar. The rules for redistributing tokens when characters join/leave squads were a little clunky, but the mechanic was viscerally satisfying in a way that the 7th/8th/9th edition versions just aren't.

* The old version of wraith sight; the one that was a drawback that made your unit lock up if you didn't keep a psyker nearby. It could be a little frustrating when it bit you, but it really made wraith armies feel like a distinct playstyle from other Eldar armies.

* The 3rd (4th?) edition version of Kill Team from the main rulebook where one player made his squad of badasses and the other player got to create a moustache twirling miniboss complete with evil lair and army of mooks. I really want to do a quick and dirty rules update for that game.

* 4th edition codex Warlock psychic powers. They were always active rather than requiring a psychic test. It made warlocks feel like they really were masters of safely utilizing the warp. Which in turn made farseers feel even more badass because their powers were so good you couldn't use them safely the way warlocks could.

* The old Raptors chapter tactics that let you treat your bolter like a pseudo sniper rifle if you held still. It wasn't all that powerful of a rule, but it was really flavorful and gave the non-special weapon guys a lot of utility in an edition where they couldn't splitfire. I keep hoping they'll ditch some of the more complicated lethality boosting marine rules they've introduced for something as flavorful, simple, and playstyle-changing as this.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







3e Guard Doctrines/4e SM Chapter Tactics, and to a certain extent custom sub-factions from today. They've never been balanced particularly well, but I like the idea that I can mix and match and make my own force instead of having to pick off a menu of GW's armies.

The Corsair power in the 7e Mymeara book that let you put an enemy unit back into Reserves. Stupid? Yes. Abuseable? Definitely. Hilarious? Check!

Rites of War in 30k. GW's never been very good at doing alternate detachments/force org because they're really cautious about giving them downsides, so they end up just giving you free stuff; the Rites of War system is the first time they've tried to get serious about it and they ended up making a lot of interesting, fluffy, and reasonably well-balanced things. You want Flyer DTs (in a system where you only ever get your one detachment) and Strafing Run (+1 to hit ground targets) on all your planes? Sure! You just can't have any units in your army that aren't planes, jetbikes, jump troops, or people who deploy inside your planes. No tanks, no Dreadnaughts, no Drop Pods...

30k Ruinstorm Daemons. Daemons have never felt very Chaos-y to me; they're four little sub-armies that don't interact with each other, with really rigid single-function datasheets you can't do anything to. The Ruinstorm list has one "Lesser Daemons" datasheet and then lets you pick three things off a menu of upgrades to create something strange and nonsensical. They also come into play from warp portal markers (like the 4e book's all-deep-strike but easier to use), and their Toughness starts high and goes down over the course of the game ("tides of the warp!"), and they have their own Primary Objective they're playing while the other team's trying to play the actual mission; they feel much, much more wild and strange than the tame 40k Daemons.

30k Knights. Unlike 40k Knights they're not all Lords of War, they use the org chart like normal people. Any Knight can be in any slot; what determines which slot it's actually in is the pilot, who can give the Knight extra rules.

4e Morale. If you lost combat you ran away and had a chance of getting chased and cut down (like you did in 5th-7th), only very little was immune to it so it actually mattered, and if you were immune you took extra casualties from being overwhelmed even as you stood your ground.

Scatter on Deep Strike. Yes, it feels bad if your whole unit gets lost in the Warp and dies because of a bad roll, but I like the risk/reward gameplay of it a lot better than the bubble-wrapping your whole army you need to do in 8th/9th.

Apocalypse Stratagems. Like the Stratagems of today, but you either picked them before the game or had to spend points to get access to them, and the resource you used to turn them on was your victory point pool.

Armour facings. The system in general wasn't great (too many things had the same front and side armour, GW never had the courage to say "no, the armour facings are going to be exactly 90 degrees and that's an end of it", the math didn't work out in vehicles' favor having no saves when hull points came into the picture), but it let you make a vehicle impervious from a distance and killable up close, and rewarded mobility in a way that GW has yet to figure out how to replace (the point of the Vyper in days of yore was that it could get side shots on things that the War Walker couldn't; now it's just a squishier and worse gun platform that's faster for no reason).

No splitting fire. This is going to be controversial, I can feel it; but I don't think making everything on the table do 100% of its firepower every turn is good for the game; it de-emphasizes maneuver/positioning and makes the more efficient army win. I felt like I had to work at playing the game in older editions; in 8th/9th I feel like I have no decisions to make and I just get killed because my minis are worse.

30k's distribution of faction-specific content. Not everyone has as much unique stuff as everyone else, but of eighteen Legions you don't get a few that are special enough to have their own books and unique units and a few that aren't, everyone gets at least a Primarch, three named characters, two Rites, and two unique units.

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 gb
Executing Exarch





Flickerjump, the most eldar rule that ever eldared

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

The Armoury system, how you had a huge variety of equipment that didn't necessarily do much, but was either thematic or a neat way to spend a couple of leftover points. Now we just have weapon upgrades or increasingly boring Relics.

   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I liked Old Zogwort special power in the 4th edition ork codex. He was a terrible and overcosted character but he could turn an enemy character, even the most powerful dude in the universe, into a squig!! Rules also said that the ork player needed to provide the squig model to the opponent .


 
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





 AnomanderRake wrote:

Rites of War in 30k. GW's never been very good at doing alternate detachments/force org because they're really cautious about giving them downsides, so they end up just giving you free stuff; the Rites of War system is the first time they've tried to get serious about it and they ended up making a lot of interesting, fluffy, and reasonably well-balanced things. You want Flyer DTs (in a system where you only ever get your one detachment) and Strafing Run (+1 to hit ground targets) on all your planes? Sure! You just can't have any units in your army that aren't planes, jetbikes, jump troops, or people who deploy inside your planes. No tanks, no Dreadnaughts, no Drop Pods...

30k Ruinstorm Daemons. Daemons have never felt very Chaos-y to me; they're four little sub-armies that don't interact with each other, with really rigid single-function datasheets you can't do anything to. The Ruinstorm list has one "Lesser Daemons" datasheet and then lets you pick three things off a menu of upgrades to create something strange and nonsensical. They also come into play from warp portal markers (like the 4e book's all-deep-strike but easier to use), and their Toughness starts high and goes down over the course of the game ("tides of the warp!"), and they have their own Primary Objective they're playing while the other team's trying to play the actual mission; they feel much, much more wild and strange than the tame 40k Daemons.

4e Morale. If you lost combat you ran away and had a chance of getting chased and cut down (like you did in 5th-7th), only very little was immune to it so it actually mattered, and if you were immune you took extra casualties from being overwhelmed even as you stood your ground.

Scatter on Deep Strike. Yes, it feels bad if your whole unit gets lost in the Warp and dies because of a bad roll, but I like the risk/reward gameplay of it a lot better than the bubble-wrapping your whole army you need to do in 8th/9th.

Armour facings. The system in general wasn't great (too many things had the same front and side armour, GW never had the courage to say "no, the armour facings are going to be exactly 90 degrees and that's an end of it", the math didn't work out in vehicles' favor having no saves when hull points came into the picture), but it let you make a vehicle impervious from a distance and killable up close, and rewarded mobility in a way that GW has yet to figure out how to replace (the point of the Vyper in days of yore was that it could get side shots on things that the War Walker couldn't; now it's just a squishier and worse gun platform that's faster for no reason).

No splitting fire. This is going to be controversial, I can feel it; but I don't think making everything on the table do 100% of its firepower every turn is good for the game; it de-emphasizes maneuver/positioning and makes the more efficient army win. I felt like I had to work at playing the game in older editions; in 8th/9th I feel like I have no decisions to make and I just get killed because my minis are worse.



I don't get why they are so paranoid that people won't take things if there are negatives. If you balance it out with the right positives, it's still strong and plenty more fun. I think the closest thing we see now is stuff like "Black Templar can't use Psykers." Ohhh, huge restriction. (Need an ork smiliy rolling his eyes XD)

Haven't played 30k, but that sounds super fun and flavourful. Kinda reminds me of mutants in RT.

Yeah, I miss 4e morale, now that you mention it.

I think that there's a happy medium to be had here on the next three:

I miss old scatter, but yeah, materializing all your terminators into a wall basically meant you lost the game and should just scoop up your models, which was not fun. I think bringing back scatter for DS, but having to deploy them in a way in which they couldn't die, or maybe only one model died if you hit terrain or another unit makes sense. (And of course bring back, can't charge to prevent that from being an issue.)

I'm not a terribly big fan of either system on it's own, but I think they could work well together, kinda like how vehicles used to have structure points for a brief time. Or maybe, a less throwback change would be that they just have different toughness for each facing? Not as dramatic a change, but still feels like positioning could matter, could be too situational though.

I think split fire is a bit too everywhere, but it also feels weird for you to fire a lascannon into a mob of boys when a killa kan is also running at you. Maybe splitfire by weapon group only? All bolters have to fire at the same thing, all missiles at another, ect...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 14:46:46


15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




I miss the old Phase Out and We'll Be Back rules, for Necrons. The former might not work so well, nowadays, but they gave a real sense of this relentless, unstoppable force that had to be staved off and sabotaged rather than crushed outright.

I also miss the pre-bolt rifle, pre-plasma exterminator, pre-supercharge days, when there was a clear continuum of Imperium -> Tau/Eldar -> Necrons in terms of individual firepower. The difference between Imperial and Eldar/Tau plasma, in particular, was a telling one.

 Tawnis wrote:
I don't get why they are so paranoid that people won't take things if there are negatives. If you balance it out with the right positives, it's still strong and plenty more fun. I think the closest thing we see now is stuff like "Black Templar can't use Psykers." Ohhh, huge restriction. (Need an ork smiliy rolling his eyes XD)
The key issue with "negative abilities" is that they need to be very broad (or otherwise forced into relevance).

Negative abilities are generally put in place as a counter to excessive power elsewhere. It's a downside, intended to reduce the overall strength of another bonus. Instead of getting a +1 to something, you get a +2 to something and a -1 to something else, right?

The pitfall that a lot of rules like this (regardless of the game) fall into is making those downsides something you can just ignore or avoid. For example, let's say that the new Thousand Sons codex comes with an option that gives all your Rubric Marines a big bonus, but in exchange, you can't summon Daemons. This doesn't actually "balance" that bonus, it just rewards people who didn't like daemons in the first place and wouldn't have included them in their army anyway. An Adeptus Mechanicus Dogma that buffs galvanic weapons and nerfs radium weapons doesn't deserve to be any stronger than a Dogma that just buffs galvanic weapons – either way, you're probably not bothering with Skitarii Vanguard, so why does it deserve a reward?

Black Templars are actually a good example, because their "downside" – no Librarians – is purely lore-based. It's removing an option that a "real" Black Templars player wouldn't pick anyway, like using Tactical Marines for an Ultima Founding Chapter. In exchange, they get an extra set of litanies for their Chaplains to choose from – which is an option, not a straightforward buff, and acts as a direct parallel to the option they lost out on (Librarian powers and a Chapter-exclusive Discipline).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 15:59:54


 
   
Made in ca
Kroot Carnivore





Black Templar are a good example Lore wise, but not balance wise. To your point about making the restrictions relevant, back when SM's would take positive buffs for their army if they also took negative ones, I always took the no psykers one because I didn't like running psykers at the time. No downside, all upside.

But yeah, you hit the nail on the head, there has to be some way to make sure whatever negative used are actual negatives. Could be something that effects stats? Something like this subfaction gets +2" to move, but -1 to armor saves. Pretty basic, but you get the idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 16:23:52


15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Tawnis wrote:
Black Templar are a good example Lore wise, but not balance wise. To your point about making the restrictions relevant, back when SM's would take positive buffs for their army if they also took negative ones, I always took the no psykers one because I didn't like running psykers at the time. No downside, all upside.
That's why it's a good example, though. Black Templars can't take Librarians – which they wouldn't do anyway, for lore reasons. The practical downside is that Black Templars can't access psychic powers, which are a flexible, somewhat unreliable source of buffs, debuffs, and other esoteric effects.

In exchange, they get an extra set of Chaplain litanies, which are... a flexible, somewhat unreliable source of buffs, debuffs, and other esoteric effects. It compensates directly for what was "lost", both in terms of what it gives you and in terms of how you get it – you don't get a free Chaplain or a better Chaplain because you can't take Librarians, you just get a wider range of options for the Chaplains you do take.
   
Made in ca
Excited Doom Diver






I miss rolling on tables for Warlord traits and psychic powers, I also miss all the universal psychic lore we used to have. I liked the concept of those things.

I also really liked the idea of the super formations in 7th edition (like the Necron Decurion), I thought it was a really cool army building system and brought out a lot of units you never really saw.

Both systems, although very cool, had their flaws, but it was a cool time.

Space Wolves 4k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Gauss. I really hoped it would make a return in some way in 9th :(
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Tawnis wrote:
...I miss old scatter, but yeah, materializing all your terminators into a wall basically meant you lost the game and should just scoop up your models, which was not fun. I think bringing back scatter for DS, but having to deploy them in a way in which they couldn't die, or maybe only one model died if you hit terrain or another unit makes sense. (And of course bring back, can't charge to prevent that from being an issue.)...


By 7th the rule was that you rolled on the table if you hit impassible terrain, models, or a table edge, and you just took a Dangerous Terrain test for everyone if you landed in any other sort of terrain. It did a good job of being punishing without the "nope, deathstar dead, game over now" issue, and the armies with the most deathstar-y deep strikers did have teleport homers so you could get them up the table more safely.

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 gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I hated all the randomness at the start of a game of 7th.
Firstly, it was a faff to go through.
Secondly, it mostly boiled down to "did I roll one of the two warlord traits that are useful or did I get nothing this game?".

This was only exemplified when it came to the absolutely horrendous psychic rules.

Part of the problem with deepstrike is it was crazy risky. It scattered 2/3 of the time and it did so 2D6". That's a huge radius, rarely would a table have somewhere that would be safe without impassable terrain somewhere within ~7", and rarer still would deepstriking there have much purpose. Almost the only time I saw deepstrikes was if some way of doing it safely was present, be that Droppods (I'll land where I want right on top of you) or teleport homers or whatever.
Which was another problem with disparities created between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

I can appreciate the appeal of a random scatter, but I can't help but feel there's a better way of doing it. Perhaps a guaranteed D6" scatter would be best, or maybe if you hit terrain you just lose a model and scatter again from the original location.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 08:28:35


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




At the risk of derailing the thread, I feel like scatter could maybe be better handled by doing something like...

* Controlling player places the first model anywhere more than 6" from enemy units.
* Controlling player rolls 3d6.
* Opponent can move the model a number of inches up to the sum of the 3d6. So if the controlling player rolls a 10 on 3d6, his opponent gets to relocate that first model 10", but can't place the model off the table on on/in impassible terrain. .
* Controlling player then circles up the remaining models of the unit around the first model.

That would need some tweaking, but basically your opponent gets to throw off your pin-point deepstriek attempt by 3d6", potentially setting you up for a nasty auspex scan, putting you behind terrain, etc.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Wyldhunt wrote:
At the risk of derailing the thread, I feel like scatter could maybe be better handled by doing something like...

* Controlling player places the first model anywhere more than 6" from enemy units.
* Controlling player rolls 3d6.
* Opponent can move the model a number of inches up to the sum of the 3d6. So if the controlling player rolls a 10 on 3d6, his opponent gets to relocate that first model 10", but can't place the model off the table on on/in impassible terrain. .
* Controlling player then circles up the remaining models of the unit around the first model.

That would need some tweaking, but basically your opponent gets to throw off your pin-point deepstriek attempt by 3d6", potentially setting you up for a nasty auspex scan, putting you behind terrain, etc.
I'd say any "random direction" mechanics are best handled by giving your opponent control, yeah; even if whether they get control is itself random. It makes for a more dramatic turnaround if your teleport scatters on a 4+, for example, allowing your opponent to re-deploy the first model in the unit anywhere within X". e.g.

Teleport Strike
During deployment, if every model in this unit has this ability, then you can set up this unit in a teleportarium chamber instead of setting it up on the battlefield. If you do, then in the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models. Set up the first model in this unit, then roll a D6; on a 4+, your opponent can move that model up to 6" (the model cannot be moved within Engagement Range of enemy units, or to another position it could not normally occupy). Once they have done so (or not), continue to set up the rest of the unit.
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




Every army had just one FOC.

This was preventing from abusing heavy support, head quarters, character or other choices.

Seeing an army with 6 HQ is sick.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




The Deer Hunter wrote:
Every army had just one FOC.

This was preventing from abusing heavy support, head quarters, character or other choices.

Seeing an army with 6 HQ is sick.
That's never really been true, though, has it? Even back in 3e, practically every army had 2-4-1 slots, or "can take in a different slot" options, or "counts as Troops" options, or "free" slots, or squadrons of tanks/monsters, or...
   
Made in it
Regular Dakkanaut




RevlidRas wrote:
The Deer Hunter wrote:
Every army had just one FOC.

This was preventing from abusing heavy support, head quarters, character or other choices.

Seeing an army with 6 HQ is sick.
That's never really been true, though, has it? Even back in 3e, practically every army had 2-4-1 slots, or "can take in a different slot" options, or "counts as Troops" options, or "free" slots, or squadrons of tanks/monsters, or...


Back in 4th ed. I remember only Iron Warriors can have 4 heavy support slot. Now you can have 6 or more very easily
   
Made in gr
Storm Trooper with Maglight




Tank Shock. It was great to force infantry out of the way.
Also a vote for the old Deep Strike. It really was great risk great reward.


You shouldn't be worried about the one bullet with your name on it, Boldric. You should be worried about the ones labelled "to whom it may concern"-from Blackadder goes Forth!
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!






1st edition: Infantry could hide behind walls and hedges and not be targeted, or hit the ground and get counted as in cover.

I have a blog on the Warhammer Tournaments website:

There Will Always be Chainswords

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







RevlidRas wrote:
The Deer Hunter wrote:
Every army had just one FOC.

This was preventing from abusing heavy support, head quarters, character or other choices.

Seeing an army with 6 HQ is sick.
That's never really been true, though, has it? Even back in 3e, practically every army had 2-4-1 slots, or "can take in a different slot" options, or "counts as Troops" options, or "free" slots, or squadrons of tanks/monsters, or...


Sort of? There were a few famous abuseable ones (e.g. Biel-Tan's Dark Reapers in Troops in 3e) but for the most part they were fairly disciplined with them and didn't let you go mad. Bikes or Assault Marines in Troops rather than Veterans or Dreadnaughts in Troops, for instance. (I'm aware 5e Crowe was an issue, and by 7e they'd thrown any idea of doing it sensibly out of the window and done Crisis teams and Chosen in Troops, but if you go back to 3e-5e they were mostly pretty good about using the FOC to control spam.)

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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Blackie wrote:
I liked Old Zogwort special power in the 4th edition ork codex. He was a terrible and overcosted character but he could turn an enemy character, even the most powerful dude in the universe, into a squig!! Rules also said that the ork player needed to provide the squig model to the opponent .


yes. My favorite 40k story to this day was showing up at a gamestore in my old hometown where id never played 40k, ending up in a game with the one guy who didnt have an opponent who turned out to be an absolute TFG, and just before he tabled me turning Draigo into a squig, which he responded to by throwing a giant tantrum and demanding that I supply him with a squig model or else I wasn't allowed to use the power.

The game store owner looked over my shoulder at who I was playing against and gave me the WHFB squig herd I was buying for free. I wound up painting all the squigs from that blister as various super pumped up marine characters in squig form, in the chapter color scheme with the chapter symbol on the haunch like a my little ponie symbol. I think i've got draigosquig, calgarsquig and vulkansquig.

RIP in absolute pepperonis to a real one. The return of the squig gaze power as a pathetic mortal wound power is a sad, sad remembrance to one of the best powers in the game. The fact that it gave you a full statline and it specified that you absolutely DID NOT get the points for slaying the warlord unless you managed to get to that squig, as the squig would continue to fight for your enemy's army as best it could in its new body and its soldiers would continue to try and follow its commands in the heat of battle...just...so fething good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
konst80hummel wrote:
Tank Shock. It was great to force infantry out of the way.
Also a vote for the old Deep Strike. It really was great risk great reward.



my first full scale game of 40k was with my space wolves allied with my friend's IG. I still remember him deep striking a unit of stormtroopers in, them scattering wildly but ending up PERFECTLY placed next to an enemy tank's rear armor, them not quite killing it with their melta guns and him firing a battlecannon shot to finish it off, which also scattered onto the Stormtroopers, killing them and the tank at the same time.

...god damn i gotta play some oldhammer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/05 15:19:08


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight






New Hampshire

I truly miss the old scatter deep-strike. The current system has completely removed the risk-reward that forced players to really think about throwing their death-stars down haphazardly. Double with the not being able to charge out of deep-strike. It made players have to really think about when and where they wanted to try and land, and if they wanted to risk it instead of having them walk/drive.

"Elysians: For when you absolutely, positively, must have 100% casualties" 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




I miss the old templates and scatter rules for blast weapons. I still feel like my Guard tanks got more hits with them compared to what they get now.

I don't miss the arguments about how many models are under the template, or exactly which direction the template scatter to.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

As far as blast weapons go, I think 5th-7th edition just set them up to cause arguments.
The 2D6-BS always scatter meant things almost always scattered a little bit. That means arguments as it'll still hit the unit if scattering 2-3" and the large, powerful, blasts mean that you're likely to kill most of what's under there so the stakes are pretty high.

2nd ed (I think) and modern Necromunda handle blasts better. In those, you roll to hit as normal. So a lot of the time you just hit and don't have to bother with scatter.
If you miss, then you scatter and you scatter the full distance. That means you often just totally miss. There's no arguments because it's readily apparent it's not important.
   
Made in us
Yellin' Yoof




Kansas

5th edition was sublime until they dropped a Grey Knight bomb on it.
I credit Alessio Cavatore with making 5th edition (pre grey knights) the most balanced ruleset to date. I honestly wonder what 40K would look like today had he been retained, and his vision for the game fully realized.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/12 16:33:20


Check out my blog at www.theundermind.com for lots od ORKY goodness... 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: