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.

Hello! I plan to write up some kind of combination of a few edition rules, but which editions should I use out of 4th, 5th, and 6th? Which are the most balanced? Which requires more tact and macromanagement, yet still provides a compelling narrative? This thread should be pretty open to opinions of the other previous editions, so don't be Fluttershy about yours.

Cheers!

Games Workshop is notorious for 'fixing' rules by swinging the pendulum from one extreme to another, or simple throwing out one idea and replacing it with another different but equally flawed mechanic. Due to the disappointment of 5th Ed (ridiculous Wound allocation method, wonky TLoS, absurd terrain effects, such as having to destroy a building in order to harm troops shooting from the roof), we revamped much of 4th Ed and have added or changed things as desired. Dropped target priority and assault from moving close-topped vehicles. Changed torrent of fire mechanic to something more likely to take out individuals. Added more scenarios. Kept most of 4th Ed terrain effects, but not terrain size categories. Altered the vehicle damage chart results to prevent vehicles from being absolute death traps for transported infantry.

From 5th we added outflank and a variation of TLoS. Also used deployment method from reserves (distance into table moved), but altered Deep Strike mishap. Used a less severe penalty for being Fearless. Added a mechanic for shooting into and through close combat. Used cover of intervening units but with a 5+ save instead.

6th has little worth adding. No need for hull points and though AP values for weapons is interesting on a company-sized game add little upside. Have adopted the focus fire mechanic but none of the warlord traits or random terrain. Wound allocation by nearest model only introduces other problems, and doesn't work as smoothly as the method we use which is closer to 4th Ed. We dropped challenges completely except for models with a specific rule (Emperor's Champion). Added a method for disengaging from a close combat with penalties.
We already have a better mechanic for overwatch and splitting fire, so those elements are incorporated but not as in 6th Ed. Have yet to incorporate flyer rules since we still have rules for skimmers that work. May alter that at some point.

Though we absolutely understand why GW overhauls their rules every few years, my gaming group grew weary of doing the same with their multiple armies without any perceived improvement in game play. So we got off the roller coaster and made our own alterations. Not everyone has the desire or the luxury to do this, but it has made the game much more engaging for us. If better ideas come along we'll incorporate them, but we don't feel the need to wait for GW to fix their last pile of rules, because it will never happen.

Good luck!

Good luck finding people to play with if you don't play by the rules.

I find 6th edition to, over all, be an improvement to 5th edition. There are things I don't like. It's still very hard to get 100% obscured from decent looking terrain with TLOS (which in itself is very odd in a game that relies on abstraction) and with reduced cover saves this creates a very odd dynamic. Also, I find that certain random elements spoil the immersion or the suspense of disbelief. "Why would I not know the temperament of my warlord?" or "Our scans should clearly show the freaking huge com. array at this critical location" or other oddities such as "why the gak would Vect accept a challenge from your lesser creature from <insert non-Eldar army here> and why the gak would he run and hide if he refuses? Those challenges are made to be dishonoured!". And don't get me started on Overwatch, a mechanic which removes the abstraction of you-go-I-go.

 Celtic Strike wrote:
Good luck finding people to play with if you don't play by the rules.

To be fair, this is the Proposed Rules section. It can loosely be translated as "what do you think about this house rule?" section. Pick up games really must be done using a specific rule set that both are familiar with, house rules are bad in those settings so none of the posts in Proposed Rules apply to that.

This seems oddly similar to my feelings a few months ago haha.

 amanita wrote:
Games Workshop is notorious for 'fixing' rules by swinging the pendulum from one extreme to another, or simple throwing out one idea and replacing it with another different but equally flawed mechanic. Due to the disappointment of 5th Ed (ridiculous Wound allocation method, wonky TLoS, absurd terrain effects, such as having to destroy a building in order to harm troops shooting from the roof), we revamped much of 4th Ed and have added or changed things as desired. Dropped target priority and assault from moving close-topped vehicles. Changed torrent of fire mechanic to something more likely to take out individuals. Added more scenarios. Kept most of 4th Ed terrain effects, but not terrain size categories. Altered the vehicle damage chart results to prevent vehicles from being absolute death traps for transported infantry.

From 5th we added outflank and a variation of TLoS. Also used deployment method from reserves (distance into table moved), but altered Deep Strike mishap. Used a less severe penalty for being Fearless. Added a mechanic for shooting into and through close combat. Used cover of intervening units but with a 5+ save instead.

6th has little worth adding. No need for hull points and though AP values for weapons is interesting on a company-sized game add little upside. Have adopted the focus fire mechanic but none of the warlord traits or random terrain. Wound allocation by nearest model only introduces other problems, and doesn't work as smoothly as the method we use which is closer to 4th Ed. We dropped challenges completely except for models with a specific rule (Emperor's Champion). Added a method for disengaging from a close combat with penalties.
We already have a better mechanic for overwatch and splitting fire, so those elements are incorporated but not as in 6th Ed. Have yet to incorporate flyer rules since we still have rules for skimmers that work. May alter that at some point.

Though we absolutely understand why GW overhauls their rules every few years, my gaming group grew weary of doing the same with their multiple armies without any perceived improvement in game play. So we got off the roller coaster and made our own alterations. Not everyone has the desire or the luxury to do this, but it has made the game much more engaging for us. If better ideas come along we'll incorporate them, but we don't feel the need to wait for GW to fix their last pile of rules, because it will never happen.

Good luck!

Thank you! It seems that you and you gaming group should write the next rulebook! But in all honesty, you've made some great changes to the game, and I have yet to take a look at the 6th ed flyers rules, but I know they have flyers (for 3rd) in the Chapter Approved collections (IIRC scans of them are on Scribd). I dislike random terrain when you're playing on an imperial/mechanicum world (or at least one you know well enough of), but it makes sense for playing in new or unknown xenos enviroments (e.g. for explorator fleets). GW should base their rules more on fluff/books (but not the Dreaded Matt Ward fanfics), and more on the style of tactics that each army follows (and they should actually test their rules before publishing them). Yep, I think I will "borrow" some of your proposed rules.

 Celtic Strike wrote:
Good luck finding people to play with if you don't play by the rules.

Celtic, you must remember that it's only a game/hobby, and it's not supposed to be taken on an extreme level of seriousness. This is where house rules apply, because if you have some friends over to play either 40k or any other tabletop game you should try to agree on which ruleset you will play by. Tournaments aren't really my thing, but I will abide by the rules if necessary. It's like the codex astartes, it should be taken as a set of guidlines, but not be used as a (quoting Captain Titus, the only guy in whatever the squid that company is that makes sense)(also Uriel Ventris)(and the Heresy-era Ultras with their epic theoreticals)(seriously, read Know No Fear sometime)(DAN ABNETT)

http://teamspacesquid.tumblr.com/

Agreed! I think of WH40K as more of a game system than a game per se. We never intended to stray so far from the rules initially but over time we could tell that making good, intuitive rules is not GW's focus. As time goes on our version will be even further than the most current rule set, but we're fine with that. I feel a little bad for those who gnash their teeth about some stupid rule but they feel powerless to overcome it. They either 'suck it up' and pretend it isn't so bad or they just hope some day GW will fix it.

kingofcephalopods, If you want I can PM you our rules and you can use what works for your group.

That would be splendid, Amanita! Thanks! (and yesh, I don't know why people who say they find some rules heretical don't actually do anything to improve them)

Also whilst on my journey throughout the internets, I googled up "steel rain" and look what I bumped into:

I wouldn't mind a copy of those rules myself man

One thing I really dislike about 40k, and most tabletop games today, is that whole true line of sight thing. So much millimetre specitic placement. So much cover becoming useless. Being able to shoot through one building at a guy in another because theres a small window in the building between. Having to go down to 'models eye view' to see if you can shoot the other guy... I dislike all of that.

 amanita wrote:
Games Workshop is notorious for 'fixing' rules by swinging the pendulum from one extreme to another, or simple throwing out one idea and replacing it with another different but equally flawed mechanic. Due to the disappointment of 5th Ed (ridiculous Wound allocation method, wonky TLoS, absurd terrain effects, such as having to destroy a building in order to harm troops shooting from the roof), we revamped much of 4th Ed and have added or changed things as desired. Dropped target priority and assault from moving close-topped vehicles. Changed torrent of fire mechanic to something more likely to take out individuals. Added more scenarios. Kept most of 4th Ed terrain effects, but not terrain size categories. Altered the vehicle damage chart results to prevent vehicles from being absolute death traps for transported infantry.

From 5th we added outflank and a variation of TLoS. Also used deployment method from reserves (distance into table moved), but altered Deep Strike mishap. Used a less severe penalty for being Fearless. Added a mechanic for shooting into and through close combat. Used cover of intervening units but with a 5+ save instead.

6th has little worth adding. No need for hull points and though AP values for weapons is interesting on a company-sized game add little upside. Have adopted the focus fire mechanic but none of the warlord traits or random terrain. Wound allocation by nearest model only introduces other problems, and doesn't work as smoothly as the method we use which is closer to 4th Ed. We dropped challenges completely except for models with a specific rule (Emperor's Champion). Added a method for disengaging from a close combat with penalties.
We already have a better mechanic for overwatch and splitting fire, so those elements are incorporated but not as in 6th Ed. Have yet to incorporate flyer rules since we still have rules for skimmers that work. May alter that at some point.

Though we absolutely understand why GW overhauls their rules every few years, my gaming group grew weary of doing the same with their multiple armies without any perceived improvement in game play. So we got off the roller coaster and made our own alterations. Not everyone has the desire or the luxury to do this, but it has made the game much more engaging for us. If better ideas come along we'll incorporate them, but we don't feel the need to wait for GW to fix their last pile of rules, because it will never happen.

Good luck!

Everything you said is spot on. The other rule that needs fixing is WS, why dose the Avatar have WS 10 but can't hit anything on a 2+ and why dose WS1 still let you hit WS 10 on a 5+

 Dakkamite wrote:
I wouldn't mind a copy of those rules myself man

One thing I really dislike about 40k, and most tabletop games today, is that whole true line of sight thing. So much millimetre specitic placement. So much cover becoming useless. Being able to shoot through one building at a guy in another because theres a small window in the building between. Having to go down to 'models eye view' to see if you can shoot the other guy... I dislike all of that.

This is why I consider a laser pointer an absolutely essential piece of kit for a tabletop wargamer.

Hmmm... if I could figure out the way to upload a Word Doc. I'd share our rules. Hints? : )

I don't know if you could send Word documents through Dakka, but this might also depends on how large the file is (I think the maximum is 10 megs).
If not you could also email it to me @ theawesomesquid@gmail.com. Thanks! B)

 Kain wrote:
This is why I consider a laser pointer an absolutely essential piece of kit for a tabletop wargamer.

QFT. I remember back when I started table top gaming (Warzone), EVERY gamer had a laser pointer at my FLGS. It was required to leave most ambiguity out of TLoS mechanics.