Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So I'm finally getting serious about getting back into 2nd edition 40K, and have been looking around the net for ideas on how best to go about it, and for any cool looking fan codexes to add in missing factions. I'm also slowly putting together a full Necron Codex, as their 2nd edition incarnation was a little limited in the units department - the aim is to add in most or all of the newer additions, and tone them down slightly overall, as they don't need to be as powerful individually if they have access to a wider range of options.
For the core rules, I'm looking at running with the following tweaks. Some of these were lifted from Commissar von Toussaint's handy list of house rules, others are just things that I feel would make for a better experience overall.
Shooting
Line of Sight: The LoS arc for non-vehicle models is 180 degrees to the model’s front. This is easier to calculate than the original 90 degrees, and reduces shenanigans from squad members being deliberately faced in different directions to choose specific targets.
Sustained Fire: Rather than use a 6” radius, sustained fire must be directed at a single squad, vehicle or squadron.
Distribution of Hits: Hits flow from front to back, both with templates and direct fire. Thus a grenade or other blast template using direct fire would have to hit visible models at the front of the squad rather than bursting over (unseen) ones in the middle. The template determines how many models are hit, not the specific models hit.
Grenades: Only one model per unit can throw a grenade each phase.
Close Combat
Squad Cohesion in Close Combat: Because the cohesion rules do not apply in close combat, some players have used the fact that unengaged models may leave close combat without “free strikes” to force attackers to chase them across the board. This runs contrary to logic and the spirit of the game. Therefore, unless unengaged models choose to disengage (and are broken as outlined above), or are charging another enemy unit, they may not otherwise move away from an enemy engaged in hand to hand combat with their squad.
Parry: Swords may parry as per the normal rules. Any other close combat weapon may be used to parry, with a -1 penalty to the parrying player’s combat score.
Psykers
Psychic Powers: Psykers must select their powers predominantly from the deck for their army, with a minimum of one power from their own deck and a maximum of one power chosen from any other deck they have access to. Ie: a level 1 Librarian would only be able to take a single Librarian power, while a level 4 Librarian could take 4 Librarian powers, or 3 Librarian powers and 1 from the Inquisition or Adeptus decks.
Casting: Psychic powers are only cast in your own Psychic Phase.
Vehicles
Transports Are Not Death Traps: Most datafax cards contain damage results that either kill passengers on a simple die roll (usually a 4+) or exterminate them wholesale. This ignores the often considerable amount of armor they are wearing. Therefore, passengers on board a transport that is the datafax indicates are killed (either on a 4+ or “all models on board are killed”) instead make an unmodified armor save. If they pass, they are placed adjacent to the wrecked vehicle.
Taking The Wheel : If the driver is killed for any reason, the vehicle will still move out of control until another model on board can take over. The earliest this can happen is after the owning player’s next movement phase.
Army Lists
But I Thought Farseers Were Rare: Eldar are not required to take an avatar or farseer as an army commander, nor must Space Marines take Captains. Any character can be the army commander. EXCEPTION: Because of the rigid hierarchy of both armies (for very different reasons) Tyranids and Imperial Guard must use their mandatory commanders.
Virus Weapons: Virus weapons are extremely unbalancing and should not be used.
Wargear Card Limits: The following restrictions per army apply to Wargear Cards, replacing the original White Dwarf limits:
• Uncommon – any number may be taken.
• Rare – Limited to 1 per 2000 points (or part thereof)
• Unique – 1 only. However, special character wargear may be taken by similar generic characters if the special character is not present in the army.
Note that Rare items carried by special characters do count towards the army limit.
I feel like transports may still need some work to be properly viable, as my memories of 2nd edition are of very few people ever actually putting models in them. I'm tempted to remove vehicle turn arcs, as they're fiddly and prone to arguments, but I do like the granularity they add to movement speeds.
Any thoughts on any of the above, or suggestions of other potential tweaks to consider would be welcome!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/22 23:16:53
As I mentioned in the first post, I'm working on an updated army list for the Necrons, as they were quite limited in their 2nd ed incarnation. Along with making them a little less over-the-top overall, I want to introduce units that were added in later editions (possibly not all of them, but we'll see what happens) and make sure the army is well rounded for taking on any other 2nd ed force.
Because the psychic phase is such a massive part of the game, and in 2nd ed you were at a massive disadvantage if you didn't bring at least one psyker, armies with no psychic potential at all are an awkward fit. Necrons, with their lack of souls and complete absence from the Warp obviously can't be psykers themselves, but I wanted to give them access to some amount of psychic power. I had considered making the C'tan abilities into psychic powers, but that doesn't really fit either... although they may wind up being different things that function in more or less the same way, for simplicity.
For the Necrons, though, I came up with the idea of an 'Empyritek' - an offshoot of the Cryptek. Recognising that psychic potential is such a boon on the battlefield, an Empyritek captures an enemy psyker and stores their brain in a capsule on their back. The brain is kept alive through arcane science, and bound by various warding systems linked to a Staff of Domination carried by the Empyritek. This will allow the Empyritek to channel the psyker's power without the need to use psychic energy themselves. In game, the Empyritek will have a 'Primal Scream' power (chanelling the visceral horror and rage of the captive brain into a deadly psychic blast), and one other power chosen from any psychic deck through the usual method. This latter power will require one additional Force than usual to cast. If subject to a Daemonic Attack card, the Empyritek isn't destroyed, but the psyker brain is, and so no more powers can be cast.
Will most likely not be able to include C'tan in a force that include Empyriteks... Haven't fully figured that bit yet, though.
Early days, but it's coming along nicely, I think.
The core issues with Necrons in 2nd were the combination of toughness, armor, "I'll be back" and the scarabs screwing up targeting and the whole business of even bioweapons losing power.
My first fix would be to abandon that concept altogether (which I think happened in 3rd, but it was a long time ago, I don't remember).
As for psykers, yes, if the opponent hand one, you needed one as well. However, the overwhelming majority of my games in that era were without them. Maybe it was my area, but when you did a pick-up game, the first question was whether psykers were going to be used. Most people were happy to leave them out.
Yeah, cards, powers, etc., but they do slow the game down, particularly if you'd rather have larger model count games.
Right now I'm experimenting with the "get you by" rules in the core rulebook. Limited powers, roll a die and they work. It's simple and fun, and GW basically adopted that for 3rd. Just something to think about.
I like the direction you are taking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/23 01:10:13
Yeah, particularly towards the end of 2nd edition there were plenty of people choosing to not use psykers at all, but I for one enjoyed how stupidly overpowered they were.
My hope is that by limiting casting to your own phase, that will somewhat mitigate the 'penalty' for not having a psyker, as you're only going to to be getting stuff thrown at you half as often. But I'd still like every army to have access to psykers so that they can use them if they wish.
So far as toning down the Necrons overall, I've gone with lowering the Warrior's Toughness to 4 and save to 3+, and I'm planning to limit the Disruptor Zone rule to specific units - possibly scarabs, possibly Tomb Spyders or Wraiths.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, particularly towards the end of 2nd edition there were plenty of people choosing to not use psykers at all, but I for one enjoyed how stupidly overpowered they were.
My hope is that by limiting casting to your own phase, that will somewhat mitigate the 'penalty' for not having a psyker, as you're only going to to be getting stuff thrown at you half as often. But I'd still like every army to have access to psykers so that they can use them if they wish.
So far as toning down the Necrons overall, I've gone with lowering the Warrior's Toughness to 4 and save to 3+, and I'm planning to limit the Disruptor Zone rule to specific units - possibly scarabs, possibly Tomb Spyders or Wraiths.
Refresh my memory: was there a Disruptor Zone in 3rd or later editions? I mean you have total freedom of action here.
Yeah, it was dropped for 3rd edition, which also dropped the warriors to the same stats I'm using. 3rd ed also took the scarabs from munching armour to flying bombs.
I'd like to include a version of Disruptor Zone, because I think it's an interesting mechanic... I just don't think it should be army wide, as that was annoying for everyone concerned. Putting it on scarabs gives them a reason to exist if the enemy doesn't bring any tanks.
insaniak wrote: Yeah, it was dropped for 3rd edition, which also dropped the warriors to the same stats I'm using. 3rd ed also took the scarabs from munching armour to flying bombs.
I'd like to include a version of Disruptor Zone, because I think it's an interesting mechanic... I just don't think it should be army wide, as that was annoying for everyone concerned. Putting it on scarabs gives them a reason to exist if the enemy doesn't bring any tanks.
It's a frustrating mechanic, especially because the buggers were hard to kill. Remember that the 2nd. ed. rules were not in any was definitive, more an attempt to boost sales in anticipation of the new edition. I would treat 3rd as more authentic.
Regarding scarabs as bombs, just have them use two modes - they either overheat and burn a hole (krak) or detonate like a frag grenade.
Another thing regarding psykers - one option for an army without psykers could also be something they can use to mitigate enemy psykers.
As an example, in my Blood Angels headcanon, BA do not have Librarians because they would be too dangerous if they ever fell to the black rage. So how do they deal with enemy psykers? With Sisters Of Silence as their allies. As long as factions without psykers had at least access to some psychic nulls or anti-psyker units, you could still make it work
Also, if overall consensus was that psykers were wayy too OP in 2nd, maybe cap their psychic mastery levels to 1 or 2?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/11/23 20:35:30
It's a frustrating mechanic, especially because the buggers were hard to kill. Remember that the 2nd. ed. rules were not in any was definitive, more an attempt to boost sales in anticipation of the new edition. I would treat 3rd as more authentic.
Yeah, I may just wind up dropping it in favour of simplicity.
Regarding scarabs as bombs, just have them use two modes - they either overheat and burn a hole (krak) or detonate like a frag grenade.
I'm thinking that scarabs will be fieldable as squads of 3-10 or alternatively as 1-3 swarm bases, for the sake of those with the newer models or who (like me) rebased the old metal scarabs for later editions. 1 exploding scarab would be about equivalent to a Frag grenade, and then it boosts the damage for each additional scarab you detonate at the same time.
Another thing regarding psykers - one option for an army without psykers could also be something they can use to mitigate enemy psykers.
As an example, in my Blood Angels headcanon, BA do not have Librarians because they would be too dangerous if they ever fell to the black rage. So how do they deal with enemy psykers? With Sisters Of Silence as their allies. As long as factions without psykers had at least access to some psychic nulls or anti-psyker units, you could still make it work
Yes, this is also something I had considered. I'm thinking that Pariahs (and possibly C'tan Shards) will have the Culexis Assassin's Warp Disturbance rule.
Some sort of warp dampening field would also be a good addition for Tau... although the homebrew Tau list I'm adopting has Kroot Shamen as psykers.
Also, if overall consensus was that psykers were wayy too OP in 2nd, maybe cap their psychic mastery levels to 1 or 2?
I think my regular gaming group discussed something like this as an option way back in the day... basically tying mastery levels to points limits (1 per 500 points, or whatever). Limiting Warp Flux to 1D6 if one side has no psykers would also go some way towards balancing things out. Back in the day, I often ran both a Chief Librarian and a Level 4 Inquisitor, and it was catastrophic against an army with no psykers. Only getting a max of 3 Force cards a turn would drastically limit their output...
I'm also thinking that shuffling the warp deck each turn rather than only when the deck runs out adds an extra element of risk, as Daemonic Attack and the other special cards remain constantly in play.
I'm thinking that scarabs will be fieldable as squads of 3-10 or alternatively as 1-3 swarm bases, for the sake of those with the newer models or who (like me) rebased the old metal scarabs for later editions. 1 exploding scarab would be about equivalent to a Frag grenade, and then it boosts the damage for each additional scarab you detonate at the same time.
Given current events, scarabs seem very much like suicide drones - they loiter, can get shot down, but then they go in and do damage. An interesting take would be allowing them to "fly high." I'd boost the point cost a bit for that ability.
The core issue with psykers is the game time in using the cards. You shuffle, deal, study the range, guess your opponent's likely cards, and often just wait for the right hand to come up. People in my area found it be a distraction from battlefield tactics.
I also think that the state of WHFB at the time, where magic effectively ruled the battlefield, caused a reaction against it in the sister game. Certain armies in WHFB required magic to work (Undead, Chaos) while none did in 40k. So people left it out.
As a revival, it might be fun to break out cards for nostalgia's sake, but our gaming time is limited, so we'd rather bump up the point totals than include a psychic phase.
That being said, I am enjoying using the simple rules in the rulebook. It adds some nice flavor without taking up time and mental energy.
Dark Millenium had a bunch of stuff other than the psychic powers - vehicle datafaxes, and strategy, vehicle cards, mission and wargear cards.
Whether or not it's worthwhile for the psychic content comes down to whether or not you want to use that content. The good Commissar here is obviously not a fan, but for me psykers were a big part of what made 40K distinct from other sci fi settings, and for all that they could be over-powering at times, psychic powers in 2nd edition were gloriously over-the-top and a lot of fun.
There are various ways of toning them down if they are a little too much... I think my idea above of limiting casting to your own turn will go a long way towards achieving better balance with them, but even just limiting how many Warp cards are dealt out each turn sorts out a lot of the nonsense as well. The 'standard' in 2nd edition was to roll a D6 per psyker, and that's how many cards are dealt. If there are more than two psykers on the table, that can result in a lot of Force cards in hand, and a lot of powers getting flung around as a result. Reducing the number of dice limits the potential for casting each turn... if you want your psykers, but don't want them to dominate, keep the Warp Flux roll to 1D6, regardless of how many psykers there are.
insaniak wrote: Dark Millenium had a bunch of stuff other than the psychic powers - vehicle datafaxes, and strategy, vehicle cards, mission and wargear cards.
Whether or not it's worthwhile for the psychic content comes down to whether or not you want to use that content. The good Commissar here is obviously not a fan, but for me psykers were a big part of what made 40K distinct from other sci fi settings, and for all that they could be over-powering at times, psychic powers in 2nd edition were gloriously over-the-top and a lot of fun.
I would absolutely recommend getting Dark Millennium.
The nice thing about the psyker rules is that you can take them or leave them without disturbing the core of the game. As Insaniak says, you can amp them up or tone them down as you prefer.
That flexibility and player customization is one of the things that makes 2nd the best edition.
And just to be clear, when people wanted to use Psykers, I did without so without hesitation. If someone wants to today, I'd play along.
You sure you want to keep 2nd Ed's close combat rules?
They work on a small scale - like Necromunda - but for 40k they were always too clunky for mass battles. Put more than two squads into combat and it just gets worse.
Yeah, close combat was my one major gripe with 2nd ed, but changing it was more work than I was interested in taking on right now. And the fact that it's the same system as Necromunda will be handy when we finally dust that off, as well.
It does at least have going for it that it's a simple enough system... the clunkiness is just in having to resolve two models at a time instead of whole units.
Although thinking about it now, there might actually be an easy fix for that - fight each combat as if it is the last in a round of multiple combats.
- For the close combat that you are resolving, each player picks one model in base contact with an enemy.
- For those two models, make attack rolls as per the usual process, and add +1A and +1 to the score for each other model from the same unit in base contact.
- Tally up the scores, and apply wounds to the units involved, starting with the model that fought.
Would be simpler, but does lose some of the two-way effect, as casualties will always come solely from the losing unit. Which removes, say, the tactic of throwing a unit at a powerful model knowing that the first few models are going to die, in the hope of the last model to fight accruing enough of a bonus to overpower the better enemy.
Dunno... We're not likely to be playing the sort of big battles that the group I was with in 2nd ed commonly did (we routinely played 5000 points or more for the last half of 2nd ed) as we just don't have the time. More likely to be sticking with 1500-2000 points. So it might be easiest to just stick with the normal combat system for starters and change it later if it gets annoying.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You sure you want to keep 2nd Ed's close combat rules?
They work on a small scale - like Necromunda - but for 40k they were always too clunky for mass battles. Put more than two squads into combat and it just gets worse.
My resource page (link in nic) has a method to streamline combat that works quite well.
The problem with GW's approach in 3rd and subsequent editions was that it was just as prone to gamesmanship. What is nice about 2nd is that it is very straightforward - models fight each other. The problem is that rolling multiple dice, doing re-rolls, etc., bogs things down. In my variant, the extra attack dice, parries and so on are just added to WS. Roll a die, add mods, winner inflicts hits, make saves, move on. It goes pretty quick.
I think people don't grasp how much of GW's dice games slow down game play. It seems like a minor thing, but rolling and re-rolling takes several minutes. The less, the better.
If you're worried about excessive play time, psykers would also be out. Card shuffling is a huge waste of time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/11/28 00:27:16
Yeah, play time isn't really the concern for me, as we can just play smaller points limits if time is limited. And I enjoy rolling dice, so don't have a problem there, either.
So speeding things up just for the sake of faster gameplay isn't a requirement. My goal is to have fun playing the game, not get it over with as quickly as possible...
insaniak wrote: Yeah, play time isn't really the concern for me, as we can just play smaller points limits if time is limited. And I enjoy rolling dice, so don't have a problem there, either.
So speeding things up just for the sake of faster gameplay isn't a requirement. My goal is to have fun playing the game, not get it over with as quickly as possible...
My revised combat system produces almost the same results, so nothing is lost but extra rolling.
The biggest difference is that there is a point in the rules as written where extra attack dice actually work against you. My system removes this glitch.
Indeed! And the point about the decision to parry, rolling multiple dice per combatant are exactly why I crunched it down to a single modified die for each combatant. Those bigger scrums go much master as a series of quick one-roll duels.
At the same time, this isn't a "house rule" that reworks the mechanic, it merely streamlines resolution. Thus parries, higher WS, ignoring additional opponents, etc. - all of these retain their value.
