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.

Hey guys this is my first post in proposed rules so don't flame me too hard if I don't really know what I'm doing.

Do you guys ever find yourself in the middle of a battle of 40k or even other war gaming and you feel like your just really into it the whole battle. You're imagining bolter fire and even what it would feel like being a guardsman with a literal wall of metal tumbling towards you as chaos space marines prepare to make a line breaking charge into your position? I love those moments and even as a big fan of tatics over fluff I find myself smiling when a group of guardsmen book it after being crashed into.

However I do find it frustrating that sometimes the rules just don't add anything or even in some cases pull away from the fluff of a game.

One instance example I'm thinking of involves the more insane races when considering deep striking. Prey tell me why the heck opening a daemonic portal into the midst of a space marine chapter could 1 delay or 2 kill off a entire group of khnorne blood letters while leaving the said marines unharmed?

Thus my first proposed rules involve some of the crazier deep strikers. The first being Daemons the second being orcs to show this rule could have wide spread applications.

One of the most obvious nurfs to assaulting units in 6th edition has been the no assault after deep striking addition. I can understand the reason for this rule as outflanking units coming in and tieing up a group of units is just too good and anti dakka (I'm actually a huge fan of dakka). However the idea that a unit that for one reason or another slams into the midst of a opposing unit via teleportation or what have you is unable to affect the opposing unit is simply silly. I purpose that for certain melee oriented units such as blood letters the should be able to deep strike onto a unit and entire straight into combat or baring that tank shock the unit out of the way and force the unit to assault the nearest unit that turn. Of course being daemons I wouldn't be apposed to having to role a D6 to determine a random buff or hazard. The 6 could be something like the enemy unit can't fire over watch while a 1 resulted in a initiative of 1 and a difficult and dangerous terrain role.

My second idea has to do with orcs and deep striking. Seeing as one of the main ways orcs reach planet side is by colliding pieces of space debris with the planet why not represent that with orcs deep striking? instead of having a orc mishap when deep striking why not use them as a literal form of living artillery fire!? Obviously depending on the model being deep struck they themselves would have to take damage from the deep strike but wouldn't it be cool to see a blob of guard and say..."I'm gonna hit them with chunks of burning rocks with orcs in them"

So what are you're guys opinions on deep striking abilities? Do you guys buy that a drop pod would say well I was going to drop their but since their are gaunts in the way I'm just gonna chill for a bit? wouldn't you say the tank shock them the hell out of the way?

My second main rules idea is probably already covered by tons of people so I'll make it brief.

I'll use Thousand Sons as an example as a unit I believe should be not only able to fire over-watch but also fire over-watch at full BS. It is simply silly that as a group of essentially automatons would stop firing at a charging group of enemies. Instead I'd say they'd shoot at them even as they approached close combat. Further as they aren't trying to get a hurried group of shots off as the enemy closes in on them (they're emotionless statues for the most part) I'd say they should be able to shoot as if they were fireing at normal BS. Your guys thoughts on that?

Also are their any rules that just pull you guys right out of the fluff of the game and make you say..."that makes absolutely no sense." I'd like to hear them. I've probably been in the same exact scenariobut I can't think of any rules in particular that really just don't make any sense to me. Well anyways thanks for not flaming my first post guys, cheers.

I'm going to just reply to the daemon deep-strike one as I'm most invested there. Allowing any of the daemon units (barring horrors and such) to assault after deep-strike would be a significant boost to them. As it stands, daemons stand a significant risk when deep-striking within effective assault range, as they're likely to take a turn of withering fire, or be assaulted first. The issue of scatter can be mitigated by Chaos icons, so I'm going to ignore that aspect. The thing is, if they could assault as normal after arriving it makes them extremely deadly, so I feel that there should be an extra risk inherent to balance out this ability.

My suggestion would be something similar to what you said, but leveraging existing rules rather than adding new ones. I would allow units with the daemon rule to assault after deep-striking, but make it so that the assault move counted as moving through difficult and dangerous terrain. This makes it less of a sure thing, and makes it significantly more of a risk to the assaulting unit. After all, it's no fun for a shooting army to have a bunch of bloodletters turn up in their lines and have nothing to do about it beyond fire some BS1 shots at it.

protonhunter wrote:

One of the most obvious nurfs to assaulting units in 6th edition has been the no assault after deep striking addition.

Was it not this way in 5th as well?

I agree the daemons are a bit of a special case fluff-wise; clawing your way through the fabric of reality isn't very well realised with the current rule set.
If it were to be changed I think htj's idea is a sound one.
Another option could be the deamons could deep strike as they do currently, but instead have an enhanced cover save on the turn they arrive to represent them emerging from the energy of the warp into physical reality. This would also neatly explain why they can't assault fluff-wise (still forming their physical bodies).

On the ork side of things, there is only one unit in the dex that deepstrikes, and it's stormboyz, so they're coming in down out of jump packs anyway. So there isn't really a reason to have special ork deepstrike rules, because, simply put, orks don't deepstrike.

 loota boy wrote:
On the ork side of things, there is only one unit in the dex that deepstrikes, and it's stormboyz, so they're coming in down out of jump packs anyway. So there isn't really a reason to have special ork deepstrike rules, because, simply put, orks don't deepstrike.

As far as I can see, there isn't a special Ork deepstrike rule. There's a special jump pack rule...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 loota boy wrote:
On the ork side of things, there is only one unit in the dex that deepstrikes, and it's stormboyz, so they're coming in down out of jump packs anyway. So there isn't really a reason to have special ork deepstrike rules, because, simply put, orks don't deepstrike.

As far as I can see, there isn't a special Ork deepstrike rule. There's a special jump pack rule...

That's what I'm saying. The op proposed a special ork deepstrike rule that would involve chances of burning space debris on mishaps, to represent orks coming into play via roks from orbit. I'm pointing out that the only unit that deepstrikes in the ork codex doesn't deepstrike via roks, but just jump packs and planes, so the rule isn't needed.

Also they have a complete expansion just for that, Planetstrike

 loota boy wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 loota boy wrote:
On the ork side of things, there is only one unit in the dex that deepstrikes, and it's stormboyz, so they're coming in down out of jump packs anyway. So there isn't really a reason to have special ork deepstrike rules, because, simply put, orks don't deepstrike.

As far as I can see, there isn't a special Ork deepstrike rule. There's a special jump pack rule...

That's what I'm saying. The op proposed a special ork deepstrike rule that would involve chances of burning space debris on mishaps, to represent orks coming into play via roks from orbit. I'm pointing out that the only unit that deepstrikes in the ork codex doesn't deepstrike via roks, but just jump packs and planes, so the rule isn't needed.

Sorry, this thread complaining about how the game doesn't work started to bore me.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

I don't mind the non-deepstrike ability of most Ork units. I like my sloggin' Orks running around on the ground rather than falling out of the sky.

 Che-Vito wrote:

 htj wrote:
I'm going to just reply to the daemon deep-strike one as I'm most invested there. Allowing any of the daemon units (barring horrors and such) to assault after deep-strike would be a significant boost to them. As it stands, daemons stand a significant risk when deep-striking within effective assault range, as they're likely to take a turn of withering fire, or be assaulted first. The issue of scatter can be mitigated by Chaos icons, so I'm going to ignore that aspect. The thing is, if they could assault as normal after arriving it makes them extremely deadly, so I feel that there should be an extra risk inherent to balance out this ability.

My suggestion would be something similar to what you said, but leveraging existing rules rather than adding new ones. I would allow units with the daemon rule to assault after deep-striking, but make it so that the assault move counted as moving through difficult and dangerous terrain. This makes it less of a sure thing, and makes it significantly more of a risk to the assaulting unit. After all, it's no fun for a shooting army to have a bunch of bloodletters turn up in their lines and have nothing to do about it beyond fire some BS1 shots at it.

A simply fix: Daemons can assault after Deep Striking, but may only roll d6 for their assault roll. (effectively allowing them to run d6, and assault d6. With an average of 7 inches, you're still having to be pretty risky with your DS rolls. Your opponent also still gets the benefit of Overwatch, which didn't exist at all in 5e.)

So the Daemonic Assault would allow a run and a charge? Ok.

Bikes and jetbikes having to roll 2d6 to charge.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sorry, this thread complaining about how the game doesn't work started to bore me.

Stop interacting with the thread then. I hear solitaire is very entertaining.

Personally I think interceptor makes no sense. Shooting at the end of the opponents movement phase is dumb. I know that they do that so you can measure for line of sight etc but it seems off to me.

Here comes 3 drop pods on the first turn... lets allow them to land and the troops safely get out and then we will shot the immobile single storm bolter vehicle...

Should be able to shoot the deepstriking units before they enter so a drop pod could be shot down like flyers. Passengers take damage.

I dont think this is a major game problem or anything lol Just adding my imput as to a game rule I think doesnt make sense fluff wise.

Perhaps a new ability for Deepstrike Assault, say Quickstrike? If you roll your Init or less, you can assault in the turn you arrive. That way, such forces are taking a risk that the tactic may work, or that they end up exposing themselves to a round of fire?

 Icelord wrote:
Personally I think interceptor makes no sense. Shooting at the end of the opponents movement phase is dumb. I know that they do that so you can measure for line of sight etc but it seems off to me.

Here comes 3 drop pods on the first turn... lets allow them to land and the troops safely get out and then we will shot the immobile single storm bolter vehicle...

Should be able to shoot the deepstriking units before they enter so a drop pod could be shot down like flyers. Passengers take damage.

I dont think this is a major game problem or anything lol Just adding my imput as to a game rule I think doesnt make sense fluff wise.

You do know you can intercept the guys who came out of the pod, because they came out of reserves as well...

Crazyterran wrote:

 Icelord wrote:
Personally I think interceptor makes no sense. Shooting at the end of the opponents movement phase is dumb. I know that they do that so you can measure for line of sight etc but it seems off to me.

Here comes 3 drop pods on the first turn... lets allow them to land and the troops safely get out and then we will shot the immobile single storm bolter vehicle...

Should be able to shoot the deepstriking units before they enter so a drop pod could be shot down like flyers. Passengers take damage.

I dont think this is a major game problem or anything lol Just adding my imput as to a game rule I think doesnt make sense fluff wise.

You do know you can intercept the guys who came out of the pod, because they came out of reserves as well...

Of course I do... Still makes no sense. Lets allow then to land safely then shoot them. Seems to not be an interception to me.

Here is a brief general list of what I feel is counter intuitive...

Movement.
Random charge and dangerous terrain.

Shooting.
Disparity between volume of fire and effectiveness of fire.(No 'supression' on non vehicle units.)
Disparity between weapon effect between unit sub types.
Disparity of damage resolution .
Over complication of damage resolution.

Assault.
Using the mechanics from WHFB seems a bit off, when coupled with the high tec of 40k. Leading to a difficulty in ballancing assault.(Pick overpowering or undewhelming.)


Special rules
Ones that are added to patch up poor core rules.And just add complication rather than depth to the game play.

I find it odd the games I play NOT written specificaly for 'narrative' or 'cinematic' play.Seem to be able to allow it far better than 40k rules do.

Just writing clearly defined intuitive rules seems to be far more effective for narrative /cinematic games.

The only things I have a problem with right now are why Swooping Hawks aren't allowed to assault flyers (assaulting any and all vehicles no matter how fast they moved used to be their niche, until the flyers rules came around) and just how badly blast weapons can miss when firing at closer ranges. One's easy to patch, the other not so much.

Not a rule, but the last two chaos codices:

The removal of the chaos legions and cult armies as an encouraged option and the introduction of weird daemonic, animal machines (metal dragons) and other odd units to plug multi-unit kits; warp talons and mutilators. Mixed chaos units in armies that shouldn’t really be fight along side each other; noise marines and berserkers. Basically the fact that many, perhaps most, chaos marine armies do not match any force depicted in the fluff.

The Chaos Boon table that mutates your characters for killing an opponent in a challenge (ironic because this rule seems like it was added to aid the narrative). Killing an IG sergeant shouldn’t cause chaotic gifts or daemonic ascension in a 1500 point game. If it did every chaos marine in the 40k universe would either be a daemon prince or a chaos spawn by now. Also this doesn’t make sense when dealing with the more secular chaos marines like the alpha marines and iron warriors.

The FOC on many occasions. Considering that it is rather accepted that eldar craftworlds have populations in the millions restricting the standing military (aspect warriors) over the drafted civilians (guardians) doesn’t make much sense. Sorry Farseer Joe, Ulthwe with its millions of eldar couldn’t rustle up more than a handful of banshees and scorpions, better flood the orks with storm guardians.

The way craftworld eldar play in general. Shuriken catapults being worse than ork shootas, when in 2nd edition they were the best basic gun in the game.

The harlequin rules when compared to their old 3rd edition CJ codex. The harlequin kiss went from an interesting and unique weapon to something that just gives the rendering rule, which while useful in the game, makes no logical sense considering the weapon.

-The Cover Save system (you know... Marines do not use cover against lasguns)

-The lack of modifiers to firing on long distances (OMG this land raider is almost in Btb!! 3+ to hit... that land raider over there is on the other side of the board!!! 3+ to hit. Very good scopes!)

- Also the strange system of challenges, even if I love the concept can become weird (I am the mighty Skrukagarnag, Uberservant of Khorne! I'm here to slaughter you! ..... And I'm Tim, the IG sergeant, and you will have to beat me to touch my other men!)

I think there could be a "suppression" system on non-vehicle units, but in a way it already exists. It's supposed to be what pinning is, but since everything and their dogs ignore pinning anyway it's a moot point. It would be kinda cool to have a true suppression system though.

Like, if the amount of dice rolled to wound you (AKA it has to hit first) is equal to or greater than your leadership value the unit is suppressed and....(the effects of suppression, which im not up to creating atm haha)


All in all, what GW needs to do is write a nice, in-depth, CLEAR rule set and let US the players add the narrative and cinematic to our games as we see fit

 Icelord wrote:
Personally I think interceptor makes no sense. Shooting at the end of the opponents movement phase is dumb. I know that they do that so you can measure for line of sight etc but it seems off to me.

Here comes 3 drop pods on the first turn... lets allow them to land and the troops safely get out and then we will shot the immobile single storm bolter vehicle...

Should be able to shoot the deepstriking units before they enter so a drop pod could be shot down like flyers. Passengers take damage.

I dont think this is a major game problem or anything lol Just adding my imput as to a game rule I think doesnt make sense fluff wise.

I really like that idea. I'd say in order to shoot at SM Drop Pods you'd have to have the Skyfire rule, but would take a -1 penalty to BS even with that. These things are falling from space, probably at close to terminal velocity for the majority of the trip, so they should be harder to shoot down than a plane traveling in a more predictable trajectory.
For Dreadclaw Drop pods this rule and the -1 BS would only apply on the turn they deepstrike. If the Dreadclaw then takes off again and moves to pick another unit up they are treated just like a normal flyer.

I hate the way initiative currently works...it's unrealistic that an entire group of enemies all strike and kill the other group before they have a chance to do anything about it. Same goes for shooting phase, the turn taking aspect of combat kills the narrative for me. There needs to be contextual rules for shooting simultaneously (with initiating side getting an advantage) as well as some rules for melee combat being a bit more realistic. It would throw the current balance off but I think the game could benefit from it in the long haul

-----

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The only things I have a problem with right now are why Swooping Hawks aren't allowed to assault flyers (assaulting any and all vehicles no matter how fast they moved used to be their niche, until the flyers rules came around) and just how badly blast weapons can miss when firing at closer ranges. One's easy to patch, the other not so much.

The blast weapon one has an easy fix, actually. Just borrow the rule from Warmahordes that blasts can't scatter more than half the distance between the firer and the target.

Also I agree about cover not being represented properly. Cover makes you harder to hit, it doesn't protect you from the hits you've already taken. It should definitely be a modifier to ballistic skill, although that is really hard to balance on a single D6 system.

HI all.
Just a quick note.
A)
As most of the units in 40k have 'modern type equivilents'. Would be more intuitive/ 'realistic' for gamers if the game play was closer to 'modern warfare.'
Why do GW use hacked up and patched WHFB game mechanics and resolution methods?

As there are loads of more suitable game mechanics available to arrive at a 40k game play more in synergy with the background.
Refer to Epic Armageddon, 138 pages cover EVERYTHING including ALL army lists etc. Better defined more straightforward and more tactical.
If they can make a far better rule set for 40k in 10mm,(as reguards game play to rule ratio,) why not simply scale up these rules for 28mm?

B)
Many other rule sets simply allow special abilities , without bloating /contradicting the core rules...
They use the simple options of , dice modifier, dice re roll, and maybe ignore ONE condition....
Mind you they are rule sets written specificaly for a particular type of game play.(Unlike 40k which is still borrowing its rules from its big brother WHFB.)

A complete re write focusing on the game play using modern game mechanics and resolution methods. (From the 1980s onwards!)
Should allow 40k more depth of game play and reduce the level of complication by a factor of 3 to 4.
40k in 40 pages!

C) Good rule sets do NOT have to 'script action' with loads of 'special rules'.It just happens naturaly within the core rules.