Switch Theme:

40K - Alternative Edition  [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 at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

usually you design a game with a specific size in mind and the machanics to work for that size

for example if damage is per model or per unit
if there are only 10 models on the board, damage per unit might not be the best option, were for 100 models, keep track of health for every single model might not work either

using the very same rules for 500, 1250, and 2000 points means not all sizes will work well, specially if the basic rules are designed with 500 points game in mind, but army lists for 2000 points


so yes, if you want to play a game outside its core size, it need to change

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 LordofHats wrote:
I did try Kill Team and I do like it, but it's also a very different game from 40k.

I am glad you liked it, too few models for me. I agree with most of what you write about, except for the models part, 9th has relatively few models IMO. My last 2k list used 55 models, I haven't played against a list with 150+ models this edition and there is always Incursion/1k pts. Are the rules for 500/1k pts bad? A mission set could fix that. 500 pts works really well for teaching games, I think it's just inherent to games with fewer pieces that they are going to be really swingy and one OP model might change everything.

9th is bloated, but I feel like all the bloat is almost entirely in the army-wide rule and Stratagem compartments, a Community Edition is likely to make the core rules a lot more bloated, so the game isn't going to be slimmed up at all by the end of it.
 kodos wrote:
usually you design a game with a specific size in mind and the machanics to work for that size

for example if damage is per model or per unit
if there are only 10 models on the board, damage per unit might not be the best option, were for 100 models, keep track of health for every single model might not work either

using the very same rules for 500, 1250, and 2000 points means not all sizes will work well, specially if the basic rules are designed with 500 points game in mind, but army lists for 2000 points


so yes, if you want to play a game outside its core size, it need to change

What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

 Gert wrote:
I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.


Because the game really isn't designed with lower power games in mind which only makes the rule and dice bloat worse.

And this isn't necessarily a criticism of 40k's design exactly. Basically, every game system has a scale in mind and upper/lower points where it doesn't work so well. This is true of tabletop games, RPGs, and most closed systems really. There's a point where the system's balance just doesn't work so great. Here I'm not really complaining about that exactly. It's kind of a tangent.

Mostly, I'd really just appreciate 40k in a tighter package for my own sake. A rule set that involved less moving parts and fewer dice to sling and sped up play would be slick IMO. It would probably feel too streamlined or devoid of character for other people, since it would almost certainly mean losses of mechanics that are used to give different armies and units flavor.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/28 20:13:22


   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 vict0988 wrote:
What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?

current damage system on how hits are resolved are one hit at a time which you can do with a low model count on the table but not with each single dice in a 2k points game
you can do the fast dice rolling, but with that you have a disadvantage over doing it as it is supposed to be

the whole part of damage being resolved with single dice on single models, instead of units vs units is something that does not really work at 2k points

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 LordofHats wrote:
It would probably feel too streamlined or devoid of character for other people, since it would almost certainly mean losses of mechanics that are used to give different armies and units flavor.


This is looking for complication to add flavor when you should be looking for depth to add flavor.

We don't need complexity.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 kodos wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
What kind of rules do you think would make the game more suited for 500 pt games and why wouldn't those rules make 2000 pt games better?

current damage system on how hits are resolved are one hit at a time which you can do with a low model count on the table but not with each single dice in a 2k points game
you can do the fast dice rolling, but with that you have a disadvantage over doing it as it is supposed to be

the whole part of damage being resolved with single dice on single models, instead of units vs units is something that does not really work at 2k points

That doesn't answer the question. If 40k 9th edition is for 2000 pts then what changes could be made for 40k 10th edition to make 500 pts better if making 2000 pt games worse was not an issue.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Gert wrote:
I mean you could always play lower point/power games. Why does the entirety of 40k need to change when you could just not play large games? Combat Patrol is very much a thing.
Because the fundamental flaws of the 40k rules are not a result of the game's size.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







macluvin wrote:
The OP has my support. I could even fundamentally disagree with some of these changes but I would much rather the OP’s vision of 40k than GW’s. There was another version that sort of died as well, that may be worth looking at.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796766.page#11073836


Isn't that the one that died because the guy who's running it is convinced that he absolutely must have exactly the same rules and keyword set for a WWII game, a sci-fi game, and a fantasy game, independent of whether the result makes any sense at all for any of them?

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
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




 AnomanderRake wrote:
macluvin wrote:
The OP has my support. I could even fundamentally disagree with some of these changes but I would much rather the OP’s vision of 40k than GW’s. There was another version that sort of died as well, that may be worth looking at.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796766.page#11073836


Isn't that the one that died because the guy who's running it is convinced that he absolutely must have exactly the same rules and keyword set for a WWII game, a sci-fi game, and a fantasy game, independent of whether the result makes any sense at all for any of them?


Possibly. I just noticed that it got a lot of attention then the threads died. It looked interesting to me at the time though. Like I said, I am looking for anything besides the rapid fire codex creep and half baked supplements that either fail spectacularly at getting an out of date codex by or accidentally add a wacky combo that breaks that faction. I feel like a wackaloon for looking for something like that though because I get the feeling that selling whatever I come across to others may be darn near impossible. I would love to have something in my pocket though for if I find someone else local to me that is willing to consider something beyond GW rules proper though.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.


Yes, there is more to narrative than progression; that's why I also talked about things like taking and capturing territory to become the Master Crime Lord of Commorragh, taking a Penitent Oath and fighting your way to repentance, becoming a senior Cannoness or even a Living Saint; destroying and repurposing enemy technology to create better machines. It's why I also talked about how bespoke faction-based Agendas personalize the story of each battle and can be used to link battles.

And again, 4rth's system did have value- it's just that every army in it played exactly the same way in terms of missions, long term objectives and yes, progression as well. Also, the various points of the escalation continuum (ie. Kill Team vs. Combat Patrol vs 40k) were disconnected, each using its own rules so that you couldn't move seamlessly between them. Like: "Hey, my Kill Team has recruited a lot of members- I'd really like to add a transport. Guess that means I have to get rid of all my skills and gear, learn the new rules for Combat Patrol and play that instead. And then in another few months, I'll have to get rid of all my combat patrol skills and gear and learn the new rules to play 40k instead."

Maybe you think it's okay for genetically modified humans working for a fascist Imperium to use identical missions, have identical battlefield and story goals and progress in exactly the same way as a hive-minded devourer of worlds, or an army of daemons that occupy a parallel dimension, or a race that derives its immortality from the pain of others, but I don't. I am glad we have bespoke faction agendas, bespoke goals that include both a progression system and longer term goals like sainthood, territorial domination or any of the other path related content which link battles together in a narrative arc that actually fits the faction without having to houserule it.

It's also nice as a narrative (Crusade Player) to see Narrative (Crusade) content in every dex and campaign supplement rather than - "Yeah, we talked about narrative/ campaign stuff for 20-30 pages in the BRB, so shut up and houserule it from here on in. Want to become a Living Saint? Well we can show you how to run a map-based campaign that will work reasonably well for any army, but sainthood is up to you."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


Crusade doesn't include this stuff in the BRB, but it's there. We've had 5 Crusade Mission Packs so far, as well as running flashpoint articles for more than a year in White Dwarf, plus the campaign content in the hardbacked campaign books. This content has given us tree campaigns, team and betrayal mechanics, grudge matches and vendettas and all sorts of additional content.

Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

But again, I know you well enough to know I'll never change your mind, and I'm sure you know by now you'll never change mine. I'm not actually trying to change your mind; you've advanced a narrative based on your truth, I'm just advancing a counter-narrative based on mine so that anyone else reading along has the benefit of a different perspective so they can decide for themselves.

For the sake of OP- if you follow through with this project, I'm sure that both Unit and I would agree, you may want to include some information about playing narrative and campaign based games. Both of us do enjoy campaign play, and I don't think either of us would be happy with a version of the game that didn't include it as an option.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/29 16:52:16


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






First of, I agree with everything that you wrote PenitentJake, I just wanted to add my view about some things.
PenitentJake wrote:
Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

The first campaign from the book of rust was quite specific to the DG conflict, but the other ones from the chaos and the ork book can be supplanted into any setting that is sufficiently close to the eye of terror or any ork territory. The scenarios of many missions also are common enough to use them as a pool to draw from for your own campaign.
It's also worth pointing out that GW is using the same framework to run all of those campaigns, which works surprisingly well - almost as if someone actually tried it before writing a book about it
We have adopted it for our own campaign and are quite happy with it.

I also fully expect the next warzone to bring yet another way of running a campaign. I truly hope they bring back Planetary Empires.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

Containment has the planet strike rules and missions and nothing else. Our next campaign mission will be planet strike for everyone, so I will be able to share some experience afterwards
Catastrophe has rules for 3 and 4 player FFA games (aka everybody backstabs everybody games) which work a lot better than anything GW has tried before in that direction, though I haven't tried it with more than 50 PL per person yet.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/29 18:31:06


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Hard disagree myself.

Who cares what the progression trees are? There is so much more to narrative than mere 'progression.' IMHO, a game with no story that lets me level One Handed, Archery, Sneak, Illusion, etc. is way worse than a game that lets me level "combat" or "magic" but actually has a rich and compelling story.


Yes, there is more to narrative than progression; that's why I also talked about things like taking and capturing territory to become the Master Crime Lord of Commorragh, taking a Penitent Oath and fighting your way to repentance, becoming a senior Cannoness or even a Living Saint; destroying and repurposing enemy technology to create better machines. It's why I also talked about how bespoke faction-based Agendas personalize the story of each battle and can be used to link battles.

That's good for the people who have Crusade rules (which 0 of my codexes do). And good for the people that want to use those Crusade rules - I do own a Sororitas army, but why would I want a Living Saint for them? They're a minor order who worship Saint Sabbat. Getting a Living Saint of their own certainly isn't high on the todo list.

The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be.

PenitentJake wrote:
And again, 4rth's system did have value- it's just that every army in it played exactly the same way in terms of missions, long term objectives and yes, progression as well. Also, the various points of the escalation continuum (ie. Kill Team vs. Combat Patrol vs 40k) were disconnected, each using its own rules so that you couldn't move seamlessly between them. Like: "Hey, my Kill Team has recruited a lot of members- I'd really like to add a transport. Guess that means I have to get rid of all my skills and gear, learn the new rules for Combat Patrol and play that instead. And then in another few months, I'll have to get rid of all my combat patrol skills and gear and learn the new rules to play 40k instead."

Maybe you think it's okay for genetically modified humans working for a fascist Imperium to use identical missions, have identical battlefield and story goals and progress in exactly the same way as a hive-minded devourer of worlds, or an army of daemons that occupy a parallel dimension, or a race that derives its immortality from the pain of others, but I don't. I am glad we have bespoke faction agendas, bespoke goals that include both a progression system and longer term goals like sainthood, territorial domination or any of the other path related content which link battles together in a narrative arc that actually fits the faction without having to houserule it.

You're confusing "generic" with "bland". All of those missions are generic precisely so that they didn't have to proliferate bespoke rules across codexes (and feth you if you don't get one, like now). The generic missions provide an excellent framework for any army's narrative, if you have even a modicum of imagination.

And there was variety even in the generic. The Great Devourer wants to break open a bunker? Play the Bunker Assault battle mission, that allowed for a massive army of bugs to flow forwards into the enemy's defensive line. The Space Marines want to break open a bunker? Play the Strongpoint Attack battle mission where they work their way forwards and launch a surprise attack on all sides against an unprepared foe.

And if the Space Marine player wants to charge across open ground and attack a bunker in a pitched, set-piece battle, that's also allowed. Maybe such folly is the result of a commander on the Imperial side secretly turning to Chaos, trying to waste as many valuable lives as possible before being discovered... who knows! The narrative is yours, not your codex's.

The rules provide a generic framework within which to build a narrative, and go through the extra steps of explaining how to include Your Dude's narratives into the generic system... rather than just saying "Nice Your Dudes, but here's how the Order of the Martyred Lady crusades, so do that."

PenitentJake wrote:
It's also nice as a narrative (Crusade Player) to see Narrative (Crusade) content in every dex and campaign supplement rather than - "Yeah, we talked about narrative/ campaign stuff for 20-30 pages in the BRB, so shut up and houserule it from here on in. Want to become a Living Saint? Well we can show you how to run a map-based campaign that will work reasonably well for any army, but sainthood is up to you."

Yes, exactly.

Sainthood is up to you. Because not every ~100 woman Sororitas detachment will be working towards one of them becoming a living saint. Your army's goals, motivations, desires, even criteria for success are in YOUR hands, whilst the core rules provide a generic framework and suggestions/recommendations to include those motivations, desires, and criteria for success in the campaign. Crusade doesn't really do this at all, if you don't have a dex. And if you do? Well, I hope your criteria for success and your army's motivations align exactly with what GW mandates your Crusade system to support.

PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


And 4th had bits that actually taught you how to build and execute a campaign of each different type, including some I hadn't even heard of at the time.


Crusade doesn't include this stuff in the BRB, but it's there. We've had 5 Crusade Mission Packs so far, as well as running flashpoint articles for more than a year in White Dwarf, plus the campaign content in the hardbacked campaign books. This content has given us tree campaigns, team and betrayal mechanics, grudge matches and vendettas and all sorts of additional content.

Having said that, I do think there could be more support for developing campaign systems- particularly map based campaigns. And I'd also acknowledge that the campaign structures that we have been given being linked to specific conflicts in specific locations may make it less likely that the material will be regarded as generic enough to be used outside of that context. But it certainly can be.

Many of the campaign systems mentioned in previous editions have not been invalidated by Crusade either- I still use Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. Planet Strike got it's reboot in one or another of the Crusade Mission Packs, and I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, so I'm not sure exactly how much it deviates from/ adds to what we already had- the folks at Goonhammer seemed fairly positive about most of it.

But again, I know you well enough to know I'll never change your mind, and I'm sure you know by now you'll never change mine. I'm not actually trying to change your mind; you've advanced a narrative based on your truth, I'm just advancing a counter-narrative based on mine so that anyone else reading along has the benefit of a different perspective so they can decide for themselves.

For the sake of OP- if you follow through with this project, I'm sure that both Unit and I would agree, you may want to include some information about playing narrative and campaign based games. Both of us do enjoy campaign play, and I don't think either of us would be happy with a version of the game that didn't include it as an option.


Agreed with all of your conclusions - and I acknowledge the gap in the number of non-BRB Crusade books I've bought. But I was unimpressed with the first one I bought (the very first one, Pariah) and decided that if this would be the model for all future Crusade books, I might as well not.

I also bought WZ:Octarius 1 but just for the Cadian supplement. Still not really that excited about the campaign rules from it, either - in fact, I have some pretty major issues with them that I won't get into here.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be...


Picked this bit out for emphasis. The narrative of Crusade feels to me like building a 5e D&D plot by rolling on all the random tables in the DMG. It's great if you don't know where to start and want to be able to come up with something approximating a plot without needing to know what you're doing, but if you do have a plot in mind for your dudes it feels very limiting. It's a great way to play through GW's story for one of their armies, not a great way to play through my story for my army.

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






Honestly id probably be way more OK with Crusade if it:

1) Ditched the absolutely dirt-stupid Power Rating crap, which has just never worked and once again puts an immense degree of power in the hands of people who want to abuse the system/know the best combos

2) wasn't stacked on top of the already ridiculously gigantic pile of subfactions+doctrines+army rules+auras+strats+traits+Relics+armies of renown+etc etc etc

In a system that had more sane limitations on those things, like say AOS does, I'd really be fine with Crusade's progression systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
in terms of creating a community edition...good luck. best case scenario you get something like Prohammer - which allows someone to add a few little houserules to mostly nostalgic older mechanics from previous editions, and then you play it with a bunch of likeminded folks uninterested in breaking the game and *incredibly* your experience ends up feeling a whole lot better than when you used to play the main game where trying to break the game/use the best power combos was the norm.

Incredible. It must be your genius houserules that made the difference.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/29 20:23:27


"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 gb
Fixture of Dakka







Who peed in your cornflakes this morning, the_scotsman?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly id probably be way more OK with Crusade if it:

1) Ditched the absolutely dirt-stupid Power Rating crap, which has just never worked


You're wrong on that. It's quick, easy, & close enough (for Govt work or GW games). It's not intended to be an exact science.
But hey, you've all backward engineered PL & know how many pts 1PL equels. Right? So what's stopping you from running Crusade with Pts?

 the_scotsman wrote:
and once again puts an immense degree of power in the hands of people who want to abuse the system/know the best combos


I'm going to share a dirty dirty secret with you:
Spoiler:
Those of us who can find/abuse the best combos using PL? Yeah, we can find & abuse them using Pts as well. Might be slightly different combos, but it's the same skill & more importantly the same mindset. So if you find someone abusing a system? Changing what you call the #s, or adding a decimal point, isn't going to change the results. You'll still be playing with an


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's good for the people who have Crusade rules (which 0 of my codexes do).


This is unfortunate, and I feel for you. If you want to blame edition churn, Covid, Brexit, the International Shipping Crisis, I'll go right along with you. This is not Crusade's fault.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And good for the people that want to use those Crusade rules - I do own a Sororitas army, but why would I want a Living Saint for them? They're a minor order who worship Saint Sabbat. Getting a Living Saint of their own certainly isn't high on the todo list.

The codexes telling me what my narrative is links the game, it's true. But sometimes my narrative goals in a campaign are not what the Codex automatically assumes them to be.


Fair enough.

But you know there's more than Living Saints in the Crusade content of the dex, right? Like the penitent oath redemption arcs, the bespoke agendas, or the progression to cannoness superior represented by earning the right to use one of the blessings. If none of that works for you, you know you can use any of the generic agendas or other content from the BRB, or any of the campaign specific stuff in any combination, right?



 Unit1126PLL wrote:

You're confusing "generic" with "bland".


No, I'm using generic to mean that the rules in the missions are the same for every army, despite the fact that all armies are supposed to have different fighting styles, motivations, goals and criteria for achieving them. In 9th, this is achieved by combining missions with agendas and rewarding those with requisitions and battle honours.

Unique, faction based and campaign based options are provided for those who find them suitable, and generic options exist for those who don't. This is true of Agendas, Battle Honours and Requisitions, and what's more, you can combine options from all three sources in any combination you choose.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

All of those missions are generic precisely so that they didn't have to proliferate bespoke rules across codexes (and feth you if you don't get one, like now).


Okay... this is the second time you've said this like it's an inherent failure of the Crusade system rather than the edition churn model or the fact that the world has gone to hell, and it's the second time all call you out for it, because THIS. ISN'T. A. FAILURE. OF. CRUSADE. But don't worry- you'll do it again and I'll call you out again. Back on track...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The generic missions provide an excellent framework for any army's narrative, if you have even a modicum of imagination.


Sure. But without rules to represent that on the table, there isn't really a difference in anything but the story.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And there was variety even in the generic. The Great Devourer wants to break open a bunker? Play the Bunker Assault battle mission, that allowed for a massive army of bugs to flow forwards into the enemy's defensive line. The Space Marines want to break open a bunker? Play the Strongpoint Attack battle mission where they work their way forwards and launch a surprise attack on all sides against an unprepared foe.

And if the Space Marine player wants to charge across open ground and attack a bunker in a pitched, set-piece battle, that's also allowed. Maybe such folly is the result of a commander on the Imperial side secretly turning to Chaos, trying to waste as many valuable lives as possible before being discovered... who knows! The narrative is yours, not your codex's.


These two stories sound different, but they sound like they are played exactly the same way, which means they AREN'T different whether they sound that way or not. Now it's been a long time since I read 4th missions, so maybe there were little things you could add in to change the ways the armies actually play- like the "without number" rule for the nids or whatever. But for the most part, no matter what your army was, you had to do the same thing to "win" and "winning" was how you got advances, which were the same as everyone else's advances.

In the new system, the primary mission is the same regardless of army, but you also have selectable Agendas to modify that mission- some of which are unique to factions and others which aren't. And you have to decide in battle whether unit objectives (Agendas) matter more, less, or as much as army goals (primary objectives) meaning that what constitutes "success" is more nuanced than it's ever been. And when you achieve either army goals or unit goals, you again have faction specific options available if they happen to suit your army, as well as generic and campaign based options if they don't (or if you are one of the unfortunate factions whose dex has been delayed), and you can mix and match these in any combination.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The rules provide a generic framework within which to build a narrative, and go through the extra steps of explaining how to include Your Dude's narratives into the generic system... rather than just saying "Nice Your Dudes, but here's how the Order of the Martyred Lady crusades, so do that."


Include your dude's narratives, sure, if by that you mean stories that play exactly the same way, just with different fluff. And again, if you don't like any of the dozen or so options in the sisters book, you can use any of the two dozen options in the brb or any of the half a dozen or so in each of the five Mission Packs or four campaign books AND you can mix and match!

Or you know, you could just play the exact same mission and get the exact same reward and just say "Yeah, I surrounded the bunker cuz I'm a swarm" or "Yeah, I attacked the bunker from all sides cuz I'm a crazy wolfy wolf" and "Now I can fight better cuz I'm a six limbed alien" or "Now I can fight better cuz I channeled my wolfy rage!"

Your narratives might be different, but your games are identical so who cares. A different skin does not a different game make.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, exactly.

Sainthood is up to you. Because not every ~100 woman Sororitas detachment will be working towards one of them becoming a living saint. Your army's goals, motivations, desires, even criteria for success are in YOUR hands, whilst the core rules provide a generic framework and suggestions/recommendations to include those motivations, desires, and criteria for success in the campaign.


Again, the stories of your army's goals, motivations, desires are in your hands, because there are no actual rules for representing ANY of that besides a one size fits all set with various suggestions for reskinning it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Crusade doesn't really do this at all, if you don't have a dex.


Told ya you'd say it again. Told ya I'd call you out again. Difference is, here it's even better, because Crusade still DOES do this for you, even if you don't have a dex- you just have to use options from the BRB or the Mission Packs or Campaign books UNTIL your dex comes out.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if you do? Well, I hope your criteria for success and your army's motivations align exactly with what GW mandates your Crusade system to support.


Already addressed, but by all means, continue to pretend that the BRB and campaign resources aren't also available to every faction in the game. And the fact that the can be used in any combination multiplies the impact. You can earn a Charadon battle Honour for completing a BRB agenda and an Octarius requisition for a Pariah mission victory if you really want to; heck in the same battle a different unit might be pursuing an Octarius Agenda to earn a BRB Battle Honour. And guess what?

You can do it whether your 9th dex has been printed yet or not not.

Now it's true, you'll want to talk to your group about this because there is a rule that says you only get campaign rewards for campaign battles- but given the imaginative houseruling your group seems to have let you get away with in 4th, this should be fine- it's far less of a stretch or bend than what you've been raving about in 4th.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Agreed with all of your conclusions - and I acknowledge the gap in the number of non-BRB Crusade books I've bought. But I was unimpressed with the first one I bought (the very first one, Pariah) and decided that if this would be the model for all future Crusade books, I might as well not.


This is the important part, and I almost considered not responding because of this. I also feel like parts of my response may have come across as unnecessarily catty because of this. In the end, I guess I wanted to let you know that I read your response. Both of us already knew we weren't going to agree on specifics, and that is okay.

Sorry to be catty.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I also bought WZ:Octarius 1 but just for the Cadian supplement. Still not really that excited about the campaign rules from it, either - in fact, I have some pretty major issues with them that I won't get into here.


As much as I've been talking positively about them, I wouldn't say they're perfect either. I found that if you have it all, it's awesome, but if you look at the individual pieces in isolation, there are short-comings. And I've got gaps in my collection too- I've filled those in loosely for the purposes of posting with the Goonhammer reviews. Maybe we'll address the short-comings of the next campaign book + mission pack in another thread sometime down the road- like you, I don't really see the value of going over it from any of the existing ones.

And again man, genuinely, sorry about being catty- I've got stuff going on around me as I'm writing, and I've actually started this post over three times from scratch because of that stuff, so I'm in a grumpier mood than I should be.

Peace brother, and by all means, you do you.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I'd like to point out that you are arguing with a person who, according to his own posts, is making uninformed statements based on having read 2 out of 26 books with crusade content.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




I'm also interested in doing something with 40k. I think the problem, though, is that it's too big a project. As others said, you're never going to reach a consensus on things. With 9 versions of the rules, it's going to be impossible to blend that smoothly.

I think a better approach to take is to pick one edition and work off of that. That way, instead of saying "I'm going to trying and make the one true version," you're instead saying "this is my take on this problem."
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





Personally, I'm finding this idea, if nothing else, a fun thought exercise. Still, I could see something really interesting coming out of it.

Yeah everyone has different ideas of what made the game great from one edition or another, but what everyone gives GW a lot of crap for is how they innovate the game. So rather than being nostalgic for the old days, I think that would be what would make a great "community edition" keeping some things and ideas that work, but building a new system/idea around it.

The OP's suggestion of going to Alternating Activations already requires a pretty hefty redesign of the base rules anyway, so why not go all the way on this. I said something similar when I was talking about how using a smaller amount of D12's would make scaling so much better than using a whole bunch of D6's as well as cutting back on dice rolls.

I'm working on a core concept idea that should be done in the next couple days that I'll put up then for many of you to all tell me how terrible it is but in the meantime, here's a bit of an idea on the scale of how the transition to D12's would adjust some profiles.

T1: Non existent, so everything can be lowered by at least one point if needed.
T2: Gretchin/Swarms
T3: Physically weaker than Gaurdsman: Eldar Guardians / Fire Warriors.
T4: Guardsman.
T5: Between Guardsman and Marines: Sisters/Kroot/Tempestus
T6: First Born Marines: Orks, Necrons
T7: Primaris Marines: Death Guard
T8: Custodes: Light Vehicles/Skimmers: (Land Speeder Storm, Scout Sentinel)
T9: Small Vehicles/Armored Skimmers: (Armored Sentinel/Land Speeders)
T10: Light Tanks/APC: (Hellhound/Chimera/Rhino)
T11: Tanks (Leman Russ)
T12: Massive Tanks: Baneblade (Just as a frame of reference.)

With this example, say a bolter is Strength 6. So that makes it 7+ to wound a Space Marine at Tough 6, then you either +/-1 for each point variance, going from 2+ to wound a Gretchin to needing a 12 to wound a Leman Russ. (If vehicles are even kept with Tough Profiles that is, but that's another conversation.)

13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Tawnis wrote:
Personally, I'm finding this idea, if nothing else, a fun thought exercise. Still, I could see something really interesting coming out of it.

Yeah everyone has different ideas of what made the game great from one edition or another, but what everyone gives GW a lot of crap for is how they innovate the game. So rather than being nostalgic for the old days, I think that would be what would make a great "community edition" keeping some things and ideas that work, but building a new system/idea around it.

The OP's suggestion of going to Alternating Activations already requires a pretty hefty redesign of the base rules anyway, so why not go all the way on this. I said something similar when I was talking about how using a smaller amount of D12's would make scaling so much better than using a whole bunch of D6's as well as cutting back on dice rolls.

I'm working on a core concept idea that should be done in the next couple days that I'll put up then for many of you to all tell me how terrible it is but in the meantime, here's a bit of an idea on the scale of how the transition to D12's would adjust some profiles.

T1: Non existent, so everything can be lowered by at least one point if needed.
T2: Gretchin/Swarms
T3: Physically weaker than Gaurdsman: Eldar Guardians / Fire Warriors.
T4: Guardsman.
T5: Between Guardsman and Marines: Sisters/Kroot/Tempestus
T6: First Born Marines: Orks, Necrons
T7: Primaris Marines: Death Guard
T8: Custodes: Light Vehicles/Skimmers: (Land Speeder Storm, Scout Sentinel)
T9: Small Vehicles/Armored Skimmers: (Armored Sentinel/Land Speeders)
T10: Light Tanks/APC: (Hellhound/Chimera/Rhino)
T11: Tanks (Leman Russ)
T12: Massive Tanks: Baneblade (Just as a frame of reference.)

With this example, say a bolter is Strength 6. So that makes it 7+ to wound a Space Marine at Tough 6, then you either +/-1 for each point variance, going from 2+ to wound a Gretchin to needing a 12 to wound a Leman Russ. (If vehicles are even kept with Tough Profiles that is, but that's another conversation.)

If I was re-designing Apocalypse (fast game with AA) I'd do mortal wounds and regular wounds. Give each unit an armour save. No comparing characteristics, weapons just make x mortal wound attacks (red dice) and y regular damage attacks (white dice), all do damage on a 4+, 6+ does an extra regular damage (mortal wound if the weapon is rending). Then do a save roll at the end of the battle round for the regular damage attacks and count up damage, get rid of the D12 save odd/even damage system. Resolving damage with two rolls isn't really difficult, you're getting rid of re-rolls, wound rolls and FNP rolls, that's already a big improvement in terms of speeding up the game.

Off the cuff numbers: 3 lascannons might do 9 mortal wound attacks with rending, 3 heavy bolters might do 12 regular damage attacks with rending and 10 Guardsmen might do 5 regular damage attacks. 10 Guardsmen would have 5 wounds and a 6+ Sv, a Leman Russ 10 wounds and a 2+ Sv. It would take 180 Guardsmen or 6 lascannons to destroy a Leman Russ. 20 Guardsmen or 3 lascannons to destroy 10 Guardsmen. Maybe ranges are tiny relative to 40k, maybe the Wounds characteristics should be doubled, I've never done math on this system.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





ScooterinAB wrote:
I'm also interested in doing something with 40k. I think the problem, though, is that it's too big a project. As others said, you're never going to reach a consensus on things. With 9 versions of the rules, it's going to be impossible to blend that smoothly.

I think a better approach to take is to pick one edition and work off of that. That way, instead of saying "I'm going to trying and make the one true version," you're instead saying "this is my take on this problem."


Yeah, the title was suboptimal for this thread. Changed it a couple of minutes ago.
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




I think the last few posts have some good ideas. I've also pondered the d6 problem. There just isn't enough wiggle room in there. That being said, if the dice were changed, I'd maybe say d10s instead. d12s start getting into the "sphere" problem that d20s have, and we already have trouble hitting the table with our dice.

I like vict's idea about removing a lot of the comparative rolls. There are so many roles being made and so much slowdown. This also worsens the RNG because no roll ends up actually mattering because there is another one that can undo it. And something like resolving wounds at the end of a turn could be a way to address alternating activation and the fact that action should all be happening at the same time.
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




ScooterinAB wrote:
I think the last few posts have some good ideas. I've also pondered the d6 problem. There just isn't enough wiggle room in there. That being said, if the dice were changed, I'd maybe say d10s instead. d12s start getting into the "sphere" problem that d20s have, and we already have trouble hitting the table with our dice.

I like vict's idea about removing a lot of the comparative rolls. There are so many roles being made and so much slowdown. This also worsens the RNG because no roll ends up actually mattering because there is another one that can undo it. And something like resolving wounds at the end of a turn could be a way to address alternating activation and the fact that action should all be happening at the same time.


I think the biggest counterargument to resolving wounds at the end of the turn is the book keeping... having to put counters next to everything you wounded that did not save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do like this idea though, but be prepared for others not to so much.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/12/01 21:14:14


Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Obviously this topic is near and dear to me (I'm the ProHammer author), so I'll offer up my two cents on this:

(1) I'm all for big ambitious projects. Go for it! Just don't have any expectation that you'll produce something unilaterally embraced by the community. Make it something that YOU are excited about and that your group is willing to play. If you can't get anyone to play it with you, the coolest ruleset in the universe won't matter.

(2) I think projects like this face a VERY steep climb if they are predicated on needing to write / re-write the codex books. It's a huge task just to re-write core rules to a decent level (I've been working away at ProHammer well over a year now). It's an entirely higher order of magnitude effort to re-write the codex books. And the more you stray from the original source rules of 40K, the more work the codex books will take. Something like GrimDark Future, which I'm sure has taken a ton of time to develop, at least focused on having a very streamlined and elegant ruleset so that making the army books wasn't as daunting.

I think also, from a player's perspective, there is a certain attachment to codex books that player's develop and an impression, even if we know it's misleading, that there is an internal logic or balance in the codex book that shouldn't be tampered with too much. Making all new rules and codexes means players need to not only buy into the rule changes, but they also need to buy into a vastly different codex approach.

The above points are why, with ProHammer, I decided to focus on making the core rules serve as an "interoperability" conduit between all of the classic (3rd-7th edition) codexes. There are no codex specific adjustments that are needed, just some blanket rules in the force organization section about how to use codexes generally from different editions. I think this really works well and empowers players to use the codex books they like best.

But back to the bigger topic and my suggestions...

(3) Establish your guiding principles. As said many times here, everyone has a different opinion of what would make the best 40K experience. If you want to connect with like-minded players you need to lay out your vision and guiding principles for what you want to achieve, and find people on board with that approach. That way, you can dig into the details and know you're all rowing in the same direction.

(4) I think it's easier to sell people on an extensive set of house rules and patches, rather than trying to re-build the game from the ground up. Earlier on in this thread, people discussed WHFB being picked up by the community since the old world was "killed off." While 40K continues on still, I'd argue that the "classic" era of the game (which I view as 3rd-7th edition) WAS killed off with 8th. Nothing in 8th/9th is really backward compatible with the classic versions.

So in a sense, the classic version of 40K was also killed off. So one approach, which is what I did with ProHammer, was to say "how can we make the best classic version of 40k to keep it alive?" When it comes to what people liked most within the classic era, my sense is that a mashup of 4th and 5th edition rules is what most people would probably gravitate towards if forced to make a choice. It is also what I've wanted, and so it's what I focused on making.

(5) Regarding some of your specific design proposals - again I encourage you to check out ProHammer, because it aligns with a lot of your ideas. Going off your list earlier:

* Emphasis on USR's - yes - I've assembled them all in a very concise list

* Alternate activations - ProHammer has a very light-weight reaction system AND old-school style overwatch. These changes make the gameplay more engaging for both players while still maintaining the overall IGOUGO structure. I am working (and have tested) a true AA module/addon as well.

* Emphasize on small-sized engagements - sticking with the current scale/scope of 3rd-7th edition

* Several different actions for units - ProHammer strives to inject more choices into rule, and I think the classic versions had done that already more so than the current versions. That said, ProHammer has options for going to ground, taking reactive fire to being shot or charged, forgoing movement+shooting to enter overmatch, not moving to gain a first fire advantage, advancing vs normal moves, voluntary withdrawal from CC, etc.

* Abstract area cover - we spent a lot of time trying to get the balance right here. We've very carefully defined terms for models, LoS rules, and terrain to both simplify but make sure terrain matters.

* Wide range of modifiers - This is NOT something ProHammer does. Classic 40K basically took a philosophical stance related to most situations that there are no die modifiers. While it gives you less tools to work with, in practical terms it can add a lot of mental gymnastics and overhead to just rolling dice. I prefer avoiding modifiers in most situations.

* Facings - yeup, ProHammer has this. We've gone to great lengths to standardize and clarify how vehicle facing is determined to make it simple and intuitive. No facing for infantry though. We felt that would be more appropriate in a smaller scale ruleset.

* Templates - hell yes they are back.

* Move stat - In keeping with the guiding principal of maintaining classic codex compatibility, we couldn't mess with this. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to either, although at times I miss it. It "could" be something that is implemented on an army-wide basis (i.e. all non-"slow" models in army X move at speed Y, etc.)

* Overwatch - yes, this is, as mentioned above.

* Crossfire - no rules for this, but we've considered it. We do have rules for SCREENING however.

* Pinning/Stagger - yes there are rules for pinning, which can also be forced via a special suppression rule. We're continuing to work on the way suppression works. I'm not sure we have it right yet.

* Wound Allocation - this was a major area of work and fine tuning. We've devised a process for wound allocation that is predicated on ALWAYS batch rolling / fast rolling attacks, and also fully considered multi-wound, mixed armor/cover save, mixed wargear, etc. units. It's been working quite well.

* Close combat result modifiers - another area we've revisited quite a bit

* Scenarios - 4th edition is a huge inspiration here. We have the "battle book" 50% done at this point. It lays out six different mission archetypes (think of the big mission categories from 4th edition like "Raid" or "Breakthrough"), and a series of charts to randomize many of the specifics within each archetype. One of the archetypes, for controlling standard "control points" basically encompasses the entire set of missions from 9th edition.

* Environmental effects - nothing yet, but it's been considered/discussed.


Anyway, feel free to hit me up with ideas or borrow ideas from ProHammer. Or if you have suggestions for me and ProHammer, if they are consistent with the vision there's a good chance I'd work it into those rules if it makes sense.

Best of luck with the project!



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





@Mezmorki:

Thanks for your input. I am aware that such a project is a ton of work but it can be done with dedication. I have read your version of 40K to p.31 so far and like most of the changes you have done to the 3rd-7th ruleset. Good job! However there are a few things which imo could be improved in your Pro Hammer ruleset:

- Rude Friendlies
Pro Hammer does not allow friendly infantry squads to pass through another friendly infantry squad during the movement phase while both of them are unengaged. For this to happen one squad would need to have such a coherency that actual models might pass through between models. So if models stand shoulder to shoulder movement for the other squad is denied. This should be logical in Space Hulk or Necromunda but in 40K it is a bit nitpicky.

- Omniscent Overwatch
Pro Hammer allows units to calmly pick their targets. I intend to go another route: When an opposing unit becomes a legal target for a unit on overwatch then the overwatch attack is triggered immediately. Being in a firefight is a stressful affair and the battlefield is not known to your units in the same way as to the player. So they will fire nervously at anything which might kill them in the next seconds.
Exceptions to this rule would be small guns having to fire at vehicles (waste of ammo with zero results) and units having a specific USR to avoid this restriction.

- Reactive Fire with Pea Shooters
Reactive Fire is performed via snap shots. This is already a severe limitation to the mechanic so I was baffled that these shots lost all of their AP values as well.

- Mercy with Instant Death
Instant Death only causes D3 wounds in Pro Hammer. Imo you have to draw the line somewhere in a war game which kind of wound is fatal and which is not. I think the vanilla formula was good enough.


And now to my project:
- Alternate Activation
I have played over a decade now 40K with AA via house rules. Can´t imagine going back to vanilla and falling asleep during another player´s turn obliterating my force while I can´t do anything.

- Modifiers
Players are smart enough to do simple math on the fly. The excuse "it slows down the game" was perpetuated by marketing people to justify yet another edition of 40K to be released.

- Crossfire & Stagger/Pinning
This will be implemented from Epic 40K. Test games will show to what degree it will suit 40K best.

And another thing:
-Transports
I have watched in horror now for multiple editions that often players drive up their rhinos loaded with SM simply down the centre of the battlefield without regard for any cover. Transports blow up as usual when confronted by heavy fire but the passengers hardly take any casualties or are limited in their actions when they are activated next time. I intend to make life a lot harsher for units who like to be blown up inside their transports on a regular basis to close distance to the enemy.




   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Thanks for taking a look - let me know if you have other feedback as well. Curious to see how your core rules stack up as well!

Regarding reactive fire:
Only heavy weapons shooting reactive fire are subject to snap fire. Non-heavy weapons shoot using their normal BS.

The switch to have the weapons AP ignored was due to certain types of units becoming very difficult to counter given that their weapon's were ideally suited to reactive fire. For example, charging Wraithguards with Wraith Cannons becomes a death sentence for many units that specifically intended to be a counter (i.e. elite high strength and armor negating melee units). Again, we want there to be reactive fire, but we want to make sure the lethality of the game is kept in check as well.

Or are you referring to units making reactive fire only hitting on snap fire on their next turn?

Regarding overwarch:
Conceptually, if a unit is going into overwatch I imagine it's doing so with the proper situational awareness to know what the key target is it's trying to target.

Regarding Alternating Activation:
Do you have anything written up (or can you briefly share) the system you've bee using?

Here's a post describing what I've been experimenting with:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/801429.page#11253809

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/02 18:43:08


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





 Strg Alt wrote:


And another thing:
-Transports
I have watched in horror now for multiple editions that often players drive up their rhinos loaded with SM simply down the centre of the battlefield without regard for any cover. Transports blow up as usual when confronted by heavy fire but the passengers hardly take any casualties or are limited in their actions when they are activated next time. I intend to make life a lot harsher for units who like to be blown up inside their transports on a regular basis to close distance to the enemy.




You'll want to be careful here, this may just be one personal bias vs another, but I've had somewhat the opposite experience. I rarely use transports because I never find they do enough for their points (especially in 1k point games which I play the most) and on the rare occasion I do, I NEVER put a character in one. They always get focused down first, and on a 1 your important character that you're trying to protect in the transport is just gone.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be punishing, it certainly should; but to me the risk doesn't justify the reward/points investment, even currently (and you seem to think the opposite). This one will probably take a lot of balance. Perhaps a higher chance to wound, but you can allocate them to any passengers you want to give you more control?

13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Is there anything in here addressing the issue of focused fire?
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




Is there a community of people that play alternative rule sets? Especially on tabletop simulator?

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: