Switch Theme:

40k 37th edition (combining my preferred bits of 3-7 with some new things)  [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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut





The oldhammer post in general got me thinking about the different versions of the 3rd ed rules and which had the best 'bones'.

IMO this is 4th ed, as its LD test for targeting enemy units further away was a great tactical effect, the real world LOS (real in the sense that it assumes models are trying to hide, and not be static) also meant that models interacted with terrain and each other far better. USRs made things clearer, assuming there was always a master rule version so everyone knew exactly what it meant.

However I know there were some issues with transports and skimmers and other things.

My biggest issue with the 3rd era was AP and the all or nothing system (which they've since dropped), but I've come to think that there might be a compromise between the two.

And I was always annoyed by the different ways WS and BS were resolved - BS imo should also be an opposed value.


So here are some tweaks to the core mechanics of 4th ed that I think will make it a great game:

Attacks:

When using WS or BS, compare the value to the target's Initiative score to determine if you get a hit using the following table:

< 5+
= 4+
> 3+
2x 2+

(note there's no 6+ as that's a really hard thing to balance)


Melee attacks are made simultaneously, chargers gain +1A as normal. Initiative now only determines how easily you are hit.


AP: Models make saves depending on the AP value of the attacker

AP< no save
AP= -1 to Save
AP> normal save

ie, 4+ armour is 5+ against AP4, - against AP3 or less, and 4+ against AP5


I would apply AP values to melee weapons as well (like 7th did) to better balance.

Instant Death: Attacks Strength at 2x Toughness inflict 1d3 wounds instead of 1.


Any suggestions on the skimmers/transports issues?









 Filename 40k 37th Edition 1.2.pdf [Disk] Download
 Description
 File size 361 Kbytes

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/12/08 02:02:58


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Disclaimer: I didn't start actually playing until 5th edition, so my knowledge of prior editions is spotty.

 Hellebore wrote:

Attacks:

When using WS or BS, compare the value to the target's Initiative score to determine if you get a hit using the following table:

< 5+
= 4+
> 3+
2x 2+

(note there's no 6+ as that's a really hard thing to balance)


Melee attacks are made simultaneously, chargers gain +1A as normal. Initiative now only determines how easily you are hit.

I feel like you might be better off comparing BS to Initiative and WS to WS. I'm picturing orks vs eldar. Orks seem like they have enough fighting instinct and kunnin' to be hitting eldar on something better than a 5+, and orks being hit by WS4 armies on a 2+. You could probably make this approach work with the right point values, but it seems prone to feeling really bad for low initiative armies.

Also, note that your table is going to make high initiative a lot more valuable than high WS used to be. Back in the day, a guardsman (WS3) was still hitting a WS5 target on a 4+. It was pretty rare to hit a target on a 5+ in melee. Again, could work, but you're going to have matchups where one guy is getting hit way more often than the other.


AP: Models make saves depending on the AP value of the attacker

AP< no save
AP= -1 to Save
AP> normal save

ie, 4+ armour is 5+ against AP4, - against AP3 or less, and 4+ against AP5

Not sure how I feel about this one. Seems like it has a lot of the same problems as the unmodified version of the 4th edition system but with more complication and risk of making weapons bad at their job? Like, dark reapers in 4th edition had S5 AP3 guns, and they were pretty clearly meant to shoot up units with marine statlines. If you leave them at AP3, then a Sv 3+ marine is going to be as well off as if he were standing in cover and will suffer a relatively minor (25%) decrease to his number of successful saves. Assuming you make power swords AP3, then howling banshees would be similarly unimpressive at killing marines.

Meanwhile, heavy bolters will be significantly worse than before at killing my Sv4+ dire avengers even though avengers should probably be the perfect target for a heavy bolter. And then you've got guardsmen who will go from a 5+ armor save to a 6+ save against AP5 bolters, which is a bad enough chance of saving on a cheap enough model that you'd almost rather just not have to roll in the first place.

Is there any particular reason you don't want to use the 9th edition AP system?


Instant Death: Attacks Strength at 2x Toughness inflict 1d3 wounds instead of 1.

Think I like this. It was nice to feel rewarded for smacking someone with a sufficiently high-strength or special weapon, but being guaranteed to instantly lose your (non-Eternal Warrior) characters could feel kind of bad. Making it a d3 roll makes the one-shot-kills feel more "earned." This does make some weapons worse at countering multi-wound models and slow down dice rolling though. For instance, krak missiles used to be great for removing T4 W3 tyranid warriors. With this rule, you have a 2/3rds chance of needing 2 unsaved krak missile wounds to kill a warrior and a 1/9th chance of needing three.

Any particular reason to not just give weapons a flat Damage stat?


Any suggestions on the skimmers/transports issues?

Assuming you're determined to keep AV, maybe bring back a variation on the 7th edition Jink rule? Something like...

JINK:
When a unit with this rule is declared as the target of an attack, you may declare that it will Jink. Until the end of the controlling player's next turn, a unit that Jinks receives a 4+ cover save against ranged attacks, a 4+ invulnerable save against melee attacks, and may not shoot.


Cover save in the shooting phase so that cover ignoring rules work against it. Invul save in the Assault phase because iirc cover saves didn't normally work in the Assault phase. Basically lets you trade some offense for some defense. A 4+ invul save is probably less frustrating for your opponent than hitting on 6s in melee, and giving up your shooting should let your opponent feel like they still accomplished something even if the vehicle survives. As an eldar player, jink always felt good to use. You felt like you were making a meaningful decision and thus had some control over whether or not your units survived.

You might also consider stealing Hull Points (basically wounds) from 6th edition. People didn't care for them much at the time because they made vehicles too fragile, but I've found that semi-unkillable vehicles are an even bigger frustration. So maybe take everyone's 6th edition HP and multiply it by 1.5 or something.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






slight point of order - power weapons in older editions had no AP value, they just flatly ignored armor. So banshees giving MEQ 4+ sv is not an issue.

Personally I like these tweaks. A lot. I think if you also got rid of the silly piling into combat thing, 4th would be solid bones for a comprehensive edition, now ive read thru it

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 the_scotsman wrote:
slight point of order - power weapons in older editions had no AP value, they just flatly ignored armor. So banshees giving MEQ 4+ sv is not an issue.

Well, they said they intended to give power weapons an AP value. So if you make that AP value 3 like it is now, you end up nerfing some anti-marine options. If you make all the anti-marine weapons AP2 or better, then it makes me wonder if having the "AP = -1 to Save" thing is worth it at all. (Also, would AP2 give power swords a bonus to the vehicle damage chart? Not sure how that worked in 4th.)

Also, a thing I forgot to mention earlier:

Melee attacks are made simultaneously, chargers gain +1A as normal. Initiative now only determines how easily you are hit.


Not sure I like this. While part of me feels like two similarly skilled factions wading into combat against each other should both come out of it banged up, I worry that always attacking simultaneously might be too rough on glasshammer units. For example, 4th edition harlequins had a 5+ invulnerable save and not much else in the way of defense. With oldschool initiative or the modern chargers-go-first system, my expensive clowns have a chance of charging into a squad of ork boyz and walking away intact by virtue of reducing incoming attacks. But if 10 ork boyz get to swing back (even hitting on 5+ because of your proposed WS vs Initiative mechanic), I feel like it's going to be hard for my clowns to trade well. I mean, quick math says the harlies will do okay, but significantly worse than they would if they could attack without retaliation. And charging something with both a decent save and a good punch like an assault marine squad might actually end up a bad trade for the supposedly more powerful anti-elite harlequin unit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/02 02:41:22


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






We've tested some of the OP's suggestions one way or another in ProHammer.

AP vs. Armor Save
We do exactly this recommendation of reducing the save by -1 if the AP = Sv.

In theory, yes, a lot of dedicated anti-marine type weapons (AP3) get nerfed, but it generally cuts the other way too. Sure, your marines get a 50% save vs. my dark reapers, but when you return fire on my aspect warrios with a heavy bolter, I now generally get a save. Basic marines often felt pretty underwhelming, ditto for terminators, and having better saves across the board helps in our experience. I'm all for things that reduce lethality and keep models on the table.

We have instant death inflict D3 wounds instead of instant kill. Much more enjoyable.

5th edition rules worked pretty well for skimmers and transports. The main issue with 5th was that vehicle damage tables made tanks a little too hard to kill.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Nice to hear feedback from someone who has actually tried some of these out. Thanks, Mezmorki!
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yeah having looked back I dont think this is a 4th ed redux so much as a 3-7 paradigm amalgam...


I used to be a cheerleader for the 2nd ed AP system (what 9th uses), but have come to admit the big swings in save make higher level saves far less impactful than they ostensibly should be.

ie, in 3rd a marine was actually pretty tough saving on 3+ all the time. The spamming of AP3-2 started to become a problem though.

Basically I'm seeing AP bloat in the current game making saves relatively useless which causes wounds to take on higher importance, creating a bloat in that area.

So I' ve coined the term 37th edition (from editions 3-7) instead...

Unit stats from 7th might be the best to use for these rules, with conversion of some special rules or additions depending on the weapon types.







 Filename 4th ed redux.pdf [Disk] Download
 Description
 File size 179 Kbytes


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Yeah, I really prefer the the older AP system compared to a save system.

People claim to love the AP modifier system (i.e. 9th edition) but then complain about the lethality of the game! When so many weapons have a -1 or -2 to your armor save, it's a huge blow to the value of armor, and hits heavily armored units like marines even more. Which is probably why they started giving them all 2 wounds, as you point out.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I don't think the AP modifier system is fundamentally flawed so much as that GW didn't change anything's saves when moving to 8e, and gave AP to way too many things. In WHFB save mods coexisted with 1+ and 0+ saves (still fail on a natural 1, but ignore the first point or two of AP), and AP-2 was the kind of thing you'd see on hardcore specialist armor-cracking units or artillery, not something you could easily get army-wide on small arms in a lot of lists.

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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut





WFB didn't use 1+ and 0+ for units though, or at least not in the later editions.

The highest save on a unit was 2+ - barded knights with shields.

When the majority of your units are 6+ or 5+ save and only specialist unit carried AP weaponry, the issue wasn't that big.

40k is a different beast.


AP seems to be one of the cheapest methods of differentiating weapons, but it causes issues with armour.

If they'd stuck with -1, -2, and -3 as the ONLY modifiers and applied them like so:

Anti infantry weapons -1
Anti materiel -2
Anti tank -3

and not put them on any standard infantry rifle then it might be fine. But they clearly can't do that...


The version I used in 37th is a compromise between all or nothing and the increments of 9th.

It allows for the tougher armoured units to remain relatively tough and shifts the target priority of attacks around.

It gives AP1 some value and makes AP2 less of an optimal weapon load for all comers.






   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






I will suggest, OP - your system functionally grants a durability boost to basically every system EXCEPT orks, so its probably a good idea to house-rule orks to T5 as they are in 9e to keep them from feeling overly fragile compared to everyone else.

Marines: Big durability boost. As I4, most BS3+ models in the game now hit them on 4s, and orks and guard hit them on 5s. Also their sv is far more valuable being a 4+ vs AP3

Sisters: Same boat

necrons: Save based durability vs AP3 went up, but being I2 they should roughly break even/get weaker vs small arms. All BS3 and BS2 armies now hit them +1.

Eldar: Big boost, much harder to hit. I actually really like where this puts eldar infantry, and think given their lower armor save there'll still be plenty of ways to counter them.

Guard: Basically stay the same. Durability vs AP5 SLIIIGHTLY increased but they will only be seeing a 6+ instead of no save.

Orks: Sv change doesnt benefit them at all, and being I2 most everybody gets better at hitting them. Marines and Eldar now hit on 2s, other orks now hit on 4s, guard hit on 3s, etc.

I also agree WS vs WS should stay. Except you should move to the same chart as your BS vs WS thing you mentioned earlier, to keep it consistent. Dont double dip on initiative being the uber defensive stat.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 02:41:03


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
I will suggest, OP - your system functionally grants a durability boost to basically every system EXCEPT orks, so its probably a good idea to house-rule orks to T5 as they are in 9e to keep them from feeling overly fragile compared to everyone else.

Marines: Big durability boost. As I4, most BS3+ models in the game now hit them on 4s, and orks and guard hit them on 5s. Also their sv is far more valuable being a 4+ vs AP3

Sisters: Same boat

necrons: Save based durability vs AP3 went up, but being I2 they should roughly break even/get weaker vs small arms. All BS3 and BS2 armies now hit them +1.

Eldar: Big boost, much harder to hit. I actually really like where this puts eldar infantry, and think given their lower armor save there'll still be plenty of ways to counter them.

Guard: Basically stay the same. Durability vs AP5 SLIIIGHTLY increased but they will only be seeing a 6+ instead of no save.

Orks: Sv change doesnt benefit them at all, and being I2 most everybody gets better at hitting them. Marines and Eldar now hit on 2s, other orks now hit on 4s, guard hit on 3s, etc.

I also agree WS vs WS should stay. Except you should move to the same chart as your BS vs WS thing you mentioned earlier, to keep it consistent. Dont double dip on initiative being the uber defensive stat.


Have a look at the pdf I attached above, it's a bit more fleshed out on this than just the OP.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Hellebore wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
I will suggest, OP - your system functionally grants a durability boost to basically every system EXCEPT orks, so its probably a good idea to house-rule orks to T5 as they are in 9e to keep them from feeling overly fragile compared to everyone else.

Marines: Big durability boost. As I4, most BS3+ models in the game now hit them on 4s, and orks and guard hit them on 5s. Also their sv is far more valuable being a 4+ vs AP3

Sisters: Same boat

necrons: Save based durability vs AP3 went up, but being I2 they should roughly break even/get weaker vs small arms. All BS3 and BS2 armies now hit them +1.

Eldar: Big boost, much harder to hit. I actually really like where this puts eldar infantry, and think given their lower armor save there'll still be plenty of ways to counter them.

Guard: Basically stay the same. Durability vs AP5 SLIIIGHTLY increased but they will only be seeing a 6+ instead of no save.

Orks: Sv change doesnt benefit them at all, and being I2 most everybody gets better at hitting them. Marines and Eldar now hit on 2s, other orks now hit on 4s, guard hit on 3s, etc.

I also agree WS vs WS should stay. Except you should move to the same chart as your BS vs WS thing you mentioned earlier, to keep it consistent. Dont double dip on initiative being the uber defensive stat.


Have a look at the pdf I attached above, it's a bit more fleshed out on this than just the OP.



ok, a couple basic questions

1 - are we alternating by phase? like I move you move i shoot you shoot etc etc?

2 - when do I charge? the assault phase doesnt really say. I assume at the beginning of it. I will note to you, maybe this is a problem maybe it isnt, if you do alternating charge phases you will see a lot of armies just SMACK into one another - this happens with my alt-by-phases version of Age of Sigmar. We compensate/reduce the deadliness by halving the number of assault phases that either player gets, basically.

3 - is it intended that two units in combat may (or, will frequently) both fall back from one another? As in you fall back from me, then I fail my morale test and fall back from you? Does anything stop me from using my fall back to get back into melee with you? Does the first player only get to make those 'cut down' attacks if they dont fail on their turn and then you fail during your morale phase?

4 - blasts dont scatter? some of the low-BS armies like orks and guard seem to be highly hurt by the new blast system you propose.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:

ok, a couple basic questions

1 - are we alternating by phase? like I move you move i shoot you shoot etc etc?


No, this was because of my 'summary mode' writing. The game still runs exactly the same as currently , IGOUGO.

 the_scotsman wrote:

2 - when do I charge? the assault phase doesnt really say. I assume at the beginning of it. I will note to you, maybe this is a problem maybe it isnt, if you do alternating charge phases you will see a lot of armies just SMACK into one another - this happens with my alt-by-phases version of Age of Sigmar. We compensate/reduce the deadliness by halving the number of assault phases that either player gets, basically.


Yes, charging happens in the assault phase like always.

 the_scotsman wrote:

3 - is it intended that two units in combat may (or, will frequently) both fall back from one another? As in you fall back from me, then I fail my morale test and fall back from you? Does anything stop me from using my fall back to get back into melee with you? Does the first player only get to make those 'cut down' attacks if they dont fail on their turn and then you fail during your morale phase?


Yes, all units in a melee that lose models flee 2D6", on either side. The cut down attacks should be clarified as only units that flee from units that don't flee get hit.

As models are only required to rally when under half strength, fleeing is now a positional penalty, causing your units to lose ground. It makes the game more dynamic.

 the_scotsman wrote:

4 - blasts dont scatter? some of the low-BS armies like orks and guard seem to be highly hurt by the new blast system you propose.


Forgot about this. I'll think about scatter.



As for WS vs I, I am still keen to keep that, as melee is now simultaneous. So you don't get the higher initiative striking first, but you do get the higher initiative harder to hit.





   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





I played around with a BS vs I system ages back with a previous version of simplehammer.

Heavy weapons vs vehicles and MCs was one of the blockers I hit - setting I based on speed was a bit of a moving target as far as costing effectiveness went, locking them at I3 made walkers a bit of an oddity, and those same weapons had to be priced up to deal with I5 and 6 monstrous creatures.

At the time it was too much rebalancing work, but you may have better luck. With the extent of the changes I figure you have to repoint everything anyway.

---------------------

Other thoughts:

The old psychic powers tended to be phase-specific. I.e. you would use a ranged attack in the shooting phase, a movement effect in the movement phase, and so on.
I'm not sure an added psychic phase does anything if players aren't bidding against each other (as with some other editions).

Unit facing - will be a huge pain in the ass for infantry. Round bases, no unit formations, no defined 'front' for many models. Just asking for trouble.

Obscured model removal - removal of visible/hidden targets has always been an awkward one. There is an odd exploit in many of these systems (that I remember was popular at times in 4th) where a player would use their own models, usually tanks, to hide the opponents models.
As they were required to remove the unhidden models this would allow players to snipe specific models out of units.

Blast / template - under/touched - different wording to each should be clarified.
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

In theory I like the idea of I vs. BS for shooting and so on. It makes a bit of sense.

But man, you'd need to adjust orks in some way to make them useable in that system. They'd be getting absolutely hosed, and their 6+ saves wouldn't really benefit at all from the AP system you're describing.

Maybe it'd be as simple as boosting Orks to I3 though? Because as is, I'd feel really butthurt about it!

   
Made in us
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver





Honestly, I never know why orks going into their modern form had lower initiative. They started out as just sort of a tankier guard type thing, but with their transition to what we know now I don’t know why barbarians who are born knowing how to fight and are actually just pure muscle with algae brain mixed in aren’t higher initiative.
If you really didn’t want to give em higher initiative, maybe just plop a 5+ fnp on em, would show how they feel no pain, that or they don’t remove models until the end of the combat phase, make sure every boy gets to scrap.

"Us Blood Axes hav lernt' a lot from da humies. How best ta kill 'em, fer example."
— Korporal Snagbrat of the Dreadblade Kommandos 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Hellebore wrote:
WFB didn't use 1+ and 0+ for units though, or at least not in the later editions.

The highest save on a unit was 2+ - barded knights with shields...


Chaos Knights (super-heavy armour - 4+, barded mount - 2+, shield - 1+) and Empire Knights (same) had a 1+ save all the way through to the end of 8th, there were Lore of Metal save buffs that could get other armies' units there, and a lot of characters had ways to get 1+ or 0+ from magic items. You still always failed saves on a natural 1 but having a 1+ or 0+ meant you ignored the first point or two of incoming AP.

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






A.T. wrote:
I played around with a BS vs I system ages back with a previous version of simplehammer.

Heavy weapons vs vehicles and MCs was one of the blockers I hit - setting I based on speed was a bit of a moving target as far as costing effectiveness went, locking them at I3 made walkers a bit of an oddity, and those same weapons had to be priced up to deal with I5 and 6 monstrous creatures.
.


Simplest way to handle it is just to make vehicles by default count as I3. Setting something to I3 doesnt change its defenses from the default game - a BS3 model hits I3 on 4s, BS4 on 3s, BS2 on 5s etc.

Outside of Orks needing some kind of help, after a review of a few different fights, things seem *relatively* even across the board. One may consider a boost for necrons as well, either a point of T or a little points discount.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Hellebore wrote:
...
 the_scotsman wrote:

4 - blasts dont scatter? some of the low-BS armies like orks and guard seem to be highly hurt by the new blast system you propose.


Forgot about this. I'll think about scatter...


I think 4e's blasts were actually one of the more sensible implementations in 40k; roll to hit, only scatter on miss, and scatter the full 2d6" meant you didn't scatter that often and when you did you scattered a ways, rather than in 5e-7e where you scattered short distances a lot and had to argue about specific coverage a lot. I think a bigger problem to worry about with blasts is uniform blast damage. If you have a blast weapon that's capable of threatening armor under the 4e system it's got to have the profile of an anti-tank weapon, which means if you hit a unit with it you're hitting that unit with a bunch of anti-tank weapons, which led to the decline of infantry in 5e-7e as bigger and bigger blast weapons showed up that could casually remove whole squads of anything without an Invulnerable save by dumping cover-ignoring S10/AP2 blasts into them (this is hyperbole, there weren't many literal S10/AP2 blasts). You could easily get away with leaving the entire blast system completely untouched if you just backed off on the statlines of all the artillery and started giving weapons you wanted to be dual-purpose a separate AT shell profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:
A.T. wrote:
I played around with a BS vs I system ages back with a previous version of simplehammer.

Heavy weapons vs vehicles and MCs was one of the blockers I hit - setting I based on speed was a bit of a moving target as far as costing effectiveness went, locking them at I3 made walkers a bit of an oddity, and those same weapons had to be priced up to deal with I5 and 6 monstrous creatures.
.


Simplest way to handle it is just to make vehicles by default count as I3. Setting something to I3 doesnt change its defenses from the default game - a BS3 model hits I3 on 4s, BS4 on 3s, BS2 on 5s etc.

Outside of Orks needing some kind of help, after a review of a few different fights, things seem *relatively* even across the board. One may consider a boost for necrons as well, either a point of T or a little points discount.


Another possible approach would be to back away from the +1 stat = +1 die roll tables. If you got +1 to hit every two points of I, say (skill 3 hits I3-4 on 4+, I5-6 on 5+, I7-8 on 6+), you could get away with a wider range of stats.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 20:40:03


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
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Just did a quick read through it, it's a pretty nice framework. I like having a damage table for Monsters in particular. Nice job/good start Hellebore!

Couple questions:
1: Which set of codexes is this aimed at (if any)?

2: Can units split fire as they are allowed to today? Or is this assuming one-unit-one-target, like 3-7th?

3: Have you considered using size mechanics for targeting purposes (aka, a unit/model may freely select the closest vehicle/monster instead of infantry to shoot at).

4: Grenade rules (for throwing and CC)? Imo one of the best things about grenades up until 7th was the ability for a whole squad to slap AT grenades on a vehicle.



I want to say that I really enjoy seeing people putting the effort into making alternative systems. Mezmorki's Prohammer, One Page Rules, 37th Ed (GREAT name, btw ). The churn of GW has been so egregious as to make alternatives 40K rules more desirable, and I hope this trend results in a better community or maybe even changes GWs practices. I'd totally be trying to write my own system if I had the time, but it's nice to see that some passionate, like-minded people are doing it for me

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/03 20:48:24


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Unsure which codexes it would work best with, maybe 6-7? Ignoring the decurions, formations etc.

Happy for some to suggest another.

Id be happy for split fire - something like "a unit can select a different target for each weapon group the unit possesses (ie 1 for bolters, 1 for plasma gun and 1 for missile launcher in a tactical squad).

Following the targeting requirements in the doc I'd just clarify that you can ignore smaller units for the nearest larger units (ie you can target the nearest size 4 model regardless of how many size 3 and less units there are between you and them, without needing to test for it).


As for grenades, something like this would work:

Grenades - may move, run and shoot once per unit. In melee a model with grenades may choose to replace their melee attacks with a single grenade attack when in combat with a vehicle or monster, counting as WS1.


   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^Those are all good answers. +1. Was there a size category stipulation I missed?

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
^Those are all good answers. +1. Was there a size category stipulation I missed?


It's in the shooting rules and is pretty much the same as 4th, I just added titanic units as well:

MODEL HEIGHT
These determine if models in a unit act as obscuring or not.
• 1: Small targets
• 2: Average targets
• 3: Large targets
• 4: Titanic targets

OBSCURED
Models in a unit may be obscured by models from other units of equal or larger size. If you draw line of sight through obscuring terrain, the models are also obscured. Apply hits to a target unit starting with unobscured models first.


   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Updated rules with updates in a dark orange.

including:

clarified turn
movement vs charge
blast scatter
morale
Height
target priority
 Filename 40k 37th Edition 1.1.pdf [Disk] Download
 Description
 File size 243 Kbytes


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Personally, I wouldn't use the BS vs I test for shooting. It would really messes with some fundamental game balance considerations IMHO and is complicating the process.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Mezmorki wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't use the BS vs I test for shooting. It would really messes with some fundamental game balance considerations IMHO and is complicating the process.


Meh, if people can deal with comparing WS, they can deal with comparing BS. I've never liked the different resolution methods between these. Comparison makes armies interact with each other better and it means you can build speed defence into the profile without having to use special rules. Genestealers SHOULD be harder to hit and they use that difficulty to hit as their main defence. It combines all this into a single roll, rather than adding special rules on top to represent it. And the scale from 1-10 has the same functionality rather than ignoring BS above 5, or adding clunky additional rules to reflect BS6-10.

For these rules I'd consider a stationary BS modifier and perhaps a bonus to hit for targeting vehicles, monsters and titanic creatures to reflect their size.



The more I look at this, the more I think this would be most suited to 6th and 7th as melee weapons have stats and it's still being run in HH.










   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Think about this a moment.

You're going to have guard and tau - ostensibly shooting only armies - hitting space marines, eldar, chaos marines/Desmond, Tyranids, etc on. 5+ all the time.

Space marines and initiative 4+ units are going to hit Orks on a 2+ Orks can barely handle the hits as it is.

I just don't know why this needs to use a comparison role. I understand the thematic logic a little bit. But. What mathematically and balance wise is it trying to achieve?

If you want to represent the speed of fast units to "dodge" fire or be hard to hit, perhaps a very simple modifier would work. For example, if you're targets Init is 2 or more higher than you're BS, you get a -1 to hit. BS 3 would get a -1 to hit eldar or faster Tyranids basically. But even here, I don't really think that's needed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/05 22:16:20


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Mezmorki wrote:
Think about this a moment.

You're going to have guard and tau - ostensibly shooting only armies - hitting space marines, eldar, chaos marines/Desmond, Tyranids, etc on. 5+ all the time.

Space marines and initiative 4+ units are going to hit Orks on a 2+ Orks can barely handle the hits as it is.

I just don't know why this needs to use a comparison role. I understand the thematic logic a little bit. But. What mathematically and balance wise is it trying to achieve?

If you want to represent the speed of fast units to "dodge" fire or be hard to hit, perhaps a very simple modifier would work. For example, if you're targets Init is 2 or more higher than you're BS, you get a -1 to hit. BS 3 would get a -1 to hit eldar or faster Tyranids basically. But even here, I don't really think that's needed.


I'm aware of what it means. I'm not averse to putting updated stats in an addendum at the back, or even making the hit table more like the 3rd ed WS table - Hit on 4+, if target I is lower than your BS hit on 3+, if target I is double or more your BS hit on 5+. Or any of a dozen ways you can play with it. But what I don't want is to have more than 1 mechanic to reflect this, and not add work arounds. For me, game design should be optimising mechanics , not finding additional rules to add to existing ones to make something work.

Remembering that Initiative in 40k between 3-7th eds was used to determine who struck first, so I2 for orks and tau and necrons was to allow armies with I3 to strike them first. Without that requirement in the game there's no real need for those armies to necessarily stay at a low initiative value.


The change in AP alongside this changes survivability rates in the game as well.








This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/05 22:47:31


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Initiative is no different from the attack characteristic or the WS characteristic, which is that it just gets used at one specific point in the rules to determine something.

Anyway, I'm all for changing things up and doing things different. I guess in this case I don't know what effect or result you're trying to achieve by making a BS vs I test, and specifically with what the matchups mean for low/high BS and low/high I.

Edit:

Compare this to the proposed AP tweak (where AP = Sv applies a -1 instead of negating armor outright).
If the intent is to reduce lethality, the AP tweak applies a change to every army that goes in the same direction- ie everyone has a chance for a better save.

The WS vs I we proposed is very uneven it's application. Some factions get hammered by it, others stand to gain a lot. You're making shooting better for people that are already good at it, and worse for factions that are generally weak to resisting shooting. Is that what you want?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/05 23:55:02


Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: