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.

C:CSM doesn't specify which Disciplines any of its special characters can take except Ahriman - for the others, it assumes the same list as normal psykers from that book... however, a special rule stating that special characters (and only special characters) can't use those disciplines unless it's specified means that they can't use them.

Also - either allow assault from outflank, or allow consolidating into assault. Allowing both lets single units sweep armies, as previously stated (having experienced both versions of the rule in previous editions).

Challenges: While it appears a good idea, it totally invalidates characters like Vargaard Obyron, whose whole concept is that he teleports into combat, issues a challenge, and thus protects Zahndrek from the assassin. Since he consolidates into the combat, you've denied him from issuing challenges. Also, on a less snowflakey note, it also denies the Heroic Officer Sacrificing Himself For His Men in the same fashion.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
C:CSM doesn't specify which Disciplines any of its special characters can take except Ahriman - for the others, it assumes the same list as normal psykers from that book... however, a special rule stating that special characters (and only special characters) can't use those disciplines unless it's specified means that they can't use them.

Also - either allow assault from outflank, or allow consolidating into assault. Allowing both lets single units sweep armies, as previously stated (having experienced both versions of the rule in previous editions).

Challenges: While it appears a good idea, it totally invalidates characters like Vargaard Obyron, whose whole concept is that he teleports into combat, issues a challenge, and thus protects Zahndrek from the assassin. Since he consolidates into the combat, you've denied him from issuing challenges. Also, on a less snowflakey note, it also denies the Heroic Officer Sacrificing Himself For His Men in the same fashion.

Re. CSM: It is in the codex that they can use it then they can use it... c'mon guys lol.

Re. outflank or the consolidation... the consolidation is only three inches. it can be mitigated and has not proven to be OP in our test games. As previously stated, we have been playing since 2nd edition and remember the horror days of rhino rush and CC armies sweeping through back lines, one combat after another due to consolidating into new combats. But that was much further than three inches and I believe it allowed for bonuses to attacks. Further, shooting was not as powerful as it is now. AP2 was not as prevalent, special weapons of all types were more expensive, and the high rates of fire were not there.

Challenges is one of the mechanics that bogs down the game the most. If these rules were to ever be more highly adopted, we would issue some sort of FAQ to address those outlier situations that you noted. Since these are unofficial (obviously) i suggest you and your gaming group come to an agreement as to how your Necron SC works.

Whoa. I try to point out a hole that needs looking at and your response is "Go do it yourself"?

Talk about unwarranted hostility.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Whoa. I try to point out a hole that needs looking at and your response is "Go do it yourself"?

Talk about unwarranted hostility.

No hostility i promise. But it also not a hole. The rules have not been written air tight and we have not striven to achieve that level YET. So some common sense is necessary. Even GW publishes FAQs and Errata for a reason.

I like some of it, not all of it.

The assault leap-frogging seems way out of balance.

Assaulting out of stationary vehicles was good in 5th and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

The ability to charge from Outflank combined with the extra charge range youve added seems out of balance. Either is fine, both is not.

I like your idea that a challenge can only be initiated by a charging IC.
But I would see if the rule could be changed that only an IC can initiate a challenge but regardless if he has charged or not. But only an IC can accept a challenge as well.
Challenges are very thematic and has its place in 40k IMO but the rules are broken right now.

I dont think your Look Out SIr rule change is a good idea. Characters would die too fast and I dont see any noteworthy benefits of that happening.

A pistol being useable in Melee with its shooting profile is great.

Im curious how you would fix Walkers.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

I should reword that. I am sure that the CSM Codex expressly says that psychers have access to certain rulebook disciplines.

The intent behind G2 is to avoid unanticipated interaction with older codices. An example is Mephiston with Iron Arm. C:BA was not written with 6th Ed in mind. Meph has access to all the BA powers in the codex. The DRAL Rules seek to maintain that internal balance GW wrote into the codex at the time.

So no worries, 6th Ed CSM has the same psychic powers available to them under the DRAL Rules as they would under pure 6th Ed rules.

Two nitpicks about the Lord of Death:
He only has acces to The Sanguine Sword, Unleash Rage and Wings of Sanguinius, not all the BA powers in the codex.
The updated digital Codex expressly says that he has acces to certain rulebook disciplines, namely three powers from Biomancy, Divination, Telekinesis or Telepathy at the expense of the said powers above.

Did a small trial game and one issue came up. By simply staying 3.1 inches away you can avoid being consolidation charged. That lead to a whole bunch of fiddly nonsense measuring where every unit was kept 4.1 inches away from all other units so you couldn't get such a charge off.

Seems much better IMO to simply allow consolidation into assault. A gradient of risk is far better than a black and white 3" maximum.

Failing that, a Consolidation of simply 3" would be better and make more sense. Game needs to use dice alot less than it currently does.

Thanks for these, might suggest trying some of the rules out with my gaming group, particularly like the charge range , challenges and the look out sir changes.

Not a fan of the massive nerf to flyers though, and I feel you need to tackle the issue of flying monstrous creatures getting a cover save from area terrain when swooping [wtf?]. Also the assault consolidation seems a bit OP. Finally, I actually love allies. Having Inquisition allied with my Sisters has really injected a whole new army building project [and has been a nightmare on my wallet lol].

My gaming group uses the following house rules:

1. Assaults from stationary vehicles allowed.
2. No VPs for dedicated transports.
3. When rolling for warlord traits you are allowed to apply the result to all 3 tables and choose the best one [or instead use the codex specific table].

Thanks for posting, some nice ideas.

Happy to hear some people are trying out the DRAL Rules

Keep the feedback coming!

If anyone has read the HH books, especially Massacre, you will see that FW gets it. They are making small tweaks here and there. Highly suggested read. Mortis pattern dreads of all kinds for example, gain skyfire and interceptor if they remain stationary in the movement phase. WOW brilliant and definitely in line with what the DRAL Rules are seeking to accomplish. Did I mention there is a new dread drop pod that is an assault vehicle but doesn't allow charges the turn it Deepstrikes. Yes, it makes up for it in other ways. So smart, FW. Also, they are curtailing allies based on army rules. Depending on Rites of War you may not be allowed Allies, fortifications or it may say you are expressly permitted to have certain battle brother allies (Word Bearers, I'm looking at you) . Such a great book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Did a small trial game and one issue came up. By simply staying 3.1 inches away you can avoid being consolidation charged. That lead to a whole bunch of fiddly nonsense measuring where every unit was kept 4.1 inches away from all other units so you couldn't get such a charge off.

Seems much better IMO to simply allow consolidation into assault. A gradient of risk is far better than a black and white 3" maximum.

Failing that, a Consolidation of simply 3" would be better and make more sense. Game needs to use dice alot less than it currently does.

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Comissar79 wrote:
I like some of it, not all of it.

The assault leap-frogging seems way out of balance.

Assaulting out of stationary vehicles was good in 5th and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

The ability to charge from Outflank combined with the extra charge range youve added seems out of balance. Either is fine, both is not.

I like your idea that a challenge can only be initiated by a charging IC.
But I would see if the rule could be changed that only an IC can initiate a challenge but regardless if he has charged or not. But only an IC can accept a challenge as well.
Challenges are very thematic and has its place in 40k IMO but the rules are broken right now.

I dont think your Look Out SIr rule change is a good idea. Characters would die too fast and I dont see any noteworthy benefits of that happening.

A pistol being useable in Melee with its shooting profile is great.

Im curious how you would fix Walkers.

 Deuce11 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
For: G2, you've royally fked the CSM dex for psy powers there.

I should reword that. I am sure that the CSM Codex expressly says that psychers have access to certain rulebook disciplines.

The intent behind G2 is to avoid unanticipated interaction with older codices. An example is Mephiston with Iron Arm. C:BA was not written with 6th Ed in mind. Meph has access to all the BA powers in the codex. The DRAL Rules seek to maintain that internal balance GW wrote into the codex at the time.

So no worries, 6th Ed CSM has the same psychic powers available to them under the DRAL Rules as they would under pure 6th Ed rules.

Two nitpicks about the Lord of Death:
He only has acces to The Sanguine Sword, Unleash Rage and Wings of Sanguinius, not all the BA powers in the codex.
The updated digital Codex expressly says that he has acces to certain rulebook disciplines, namely three powers from Biomancy, Divination, Telekinesis or Telepathy at the expense of the said powers above.

Hmmm Maybe charging from outflank should be treated like charging through difficult terrain or something... I'll bring it up to the group and have it playtested. Good thought and curtailing it.

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the other more subtle rules. We'll keep playtesting.

Regarding walkers, FW just threw a wrench in our plans by releasing rules for Grave Warden Death Guard Terminators that would toss a walker with a T value on its head. More thought is needed as a result. Womp womp

One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

Not sure what to think of these rules. While some of them have merit and good potential (Pistols being allowed to use their profiles in close combat), the rest of this didn't feel right and mainly felt like making close combat (which is already powerful) even more powerful.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

 Selym wrote:

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

This was our experience too, Selym.

I suppose we can discuss the relative power of assault in 6th until we are blue in the face, however it is incontrovertible that assault has been slowed. I, personally, would say that assault has been slowed immensely. These long, drawn out, laborious combats are due to the challenge mechanic and commonplace multi-character units.

The DRAL Rules are striving to maintain the uniqueness of the challenge and the flavor of the narrative game, while also keeping the pace quick. To the team behind the DRAL Rules, this makes for a more fun game. We think that many gamers agree and so we created these rules for those types of gamers.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pistols in CC

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/12/7th-edition-40k-not-65.html




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, CSM Players - If you are a legion player we highly recommend the World Eater rules in Horus Heresy Book II Massacre. They are finally deadly as they should be. Keep in mind that Book I Betrayal will be necessary to make a legal HH list.

 Selym wrote:

 Marik Law wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
One thing that came up after a chat with my mates - all characters in the Chaos Space Marine dex [including unit champions] have the Champion of Chaos special rule where they have to issue/accept challenges, which is pretty integral to the dex. Having only charging ICs being able to make challenges invalidates this. Thoughts?

^ This. It really nerfs the CSM dex, which didn't need any help on that front. I'm not gonna sit here and say the codex is underpowered or unplayable, but it does have some pretty glaring issues and something like this would only exacerbate said issues.

Actually, speaking as a CSM player, that would make my army more powerful.

I don't assault Typhus into a unit only to have him spend a turn molesting an IG sergeant, I send him in expecting him to be a rape train of doom against a combined unit of 2+ IG squads. He's there to murder the masses, not waste all his time on one little human, and then be spawnified. Or turn into a DP, which is almost as bad.

Don't disagree with you, I personally hate challenges, but if I'm trying to convince my group to change then I need a convincing argument as to why I'm proposing rules that would directly contradict a deliberate army wide mechanic in this one instance. I think it could open up a whole can of worms to invalidate a codex specific rule [bye bye ATSKNF? ]

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!

No, I love the idea of consolidate into assault, what I don't like is a 3" maximum on a d6 consol for doing it. Consolidation having those two seperate values is clunky - I'd much prefer that you can simply enter close combat with a consolidation move, even if the consolidation had to be reduced in distance to compensate.

Just to let you know, tried out challenges for ICs only yesterday and it worked really well. We also house-ruled Look Out Sir! to only be for ICs, and only on a 4+. Again worked really well and sped the game up. Much less fiddly and frustrating

 Dakkamite wrote:

So you don't think that consolidation into a new assault within 3" is overpowered but you think it is still bad for the game? I'm a little confused and would like to hear more. Please explain. Thanks Dakkamite!

No, I love the idea of consolidate into assault, what I don't like is a 3" maximum on a d6 consol for doing it. Consolidation having those two seperate values is clunky - I'd much prefer that you can simply enter close combat with a consolidation move, even if the consolidation had to be reduced in distance to compensate.

Oh I see! i will bring it up to the DRAL Team for consideration. Thanks for the input.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Just to let you know, tried out challenges for ICs only yesterday and it worked really well. We also house-ruled Look Out Sir! to only be for ICs, and only on a 4+. Again worked really well and sped the game up. Much less fiddly and frustrating

Fantastic - so happy to hear you are enjoying the DRAL Rules! And, yes, the quicker pace of the game was the most obvious and immediate benefit. What else did you like (or dislike) about the DRAL Rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW the Rules has been updated and edited slightly to keep up with your input and our play-test games.

Tiny update (sorry, with all the Holidays the DRAL Team has been unable to game lately. So is life for the aging gamer): It seems all but fact at this point that Nids will not have access to BRB Powers which falls in line with the DRAL Team's opinion that unanticipated rules interactions were running rampant at the release of 6th Edition and GW is correcting itself with each codex release. Further confirmation that the DRAL Teams and its supporters (you guys that like the rules) were on to something.

Thanks for the Support you guys and please continue to play with the DRAL Rules fro Competitive Play. We are looking forward to more input from gamers outside our circle! Happy New Year!

All of your rules are great. You do have the massive problem of six edition being very similar to running are unicycle while juggling. My personal favourite part of six edition was the addition of overpowered underpriced units like the flyer. The addition of snap fire to slow down and already slow game. An example of this is when you're heavy weapons team has to move. Over watch what a freaking great game mechanic It's having an extra shooting phase out of sequence with smaller margin of Success unless you necrons then it's a broken game mechanic. Challenges what can I say! This is literally the dumbest game mechanical ever seen adding in a gentlemanly duel in the middle of a fight to plug a Demon gateway or Nids devouring the planet.

The DRAL Team is happy to assist, Yorkskargrim! Please try out the rules and fill us in on your experiences. Thanks!

I like some of your rules, such as Charging change as well as Furious Charge, Fleet, Assault out of Vehicles and some others.

some of your rules are unnecessary or even counter productive. Example of ones I don't like is allies, that point limit is WAY to high. Allies are a gateway to collecting another army without spending to much, but having to have 2,500pts before you can use them is ridiculous. Simply use it as 1000+ plus would be fine or say allies point level must be less then 50% of the over all army points. Other examples include Challenges disallowing Sargents from challenging and LOS, I like those mechanics, but lowering LOS to a 3+ 5 + might help and only allow 1 per phase. The power weapon changes are bad because they invalidate the different types of power weapons, no one will go to I 1 for +1 strength but plus + 1 strength AND AP? Maybe.

Consolidate into combat? No, FMC would be to good. Full BS into flyers? Maybe not, to much Tau ignore cover. But half BS and a 4+ Cover, 3 + jink? I'd agree with that.

Just my £0.02

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I like some of your rules, such as Charging change as well as Furious Charge, Fleet, Assault out of Vehicles and some others.

some of your rules are unnecessary or even counter productive. Example of ones I don't like is allies, that point limit is WAY to high. Allies are a gateway to collecting another army without spending to much, but having to have 2,500pts before you can use them is ridiculous. Simply use it as 1000+ plus would be fine or say allies point level must be less then 50% of the over all army points. Other examples include Challenges disallowing Sargents from challenging and LOS, I like those mechanics, but lowering LOS to a 3+ 5 + might help and only allow 1 per phase. The power weapon changes are bad because they invalidate the different types of power weapons, no one will go to I 1 for +1 strength but plus + 1 strength AND AP? Maybe.

Consolidate into combat? No, FMC would be to good. Full BS into flyers? Maybe not, to much Tau ignore cover. But half BS and a 4+ Cover, 3 + jink? I'd agree with that.

Just my £0.02

Regarding the allies rules... the DRAL Team will simply have to agree to disagree. It is the opinion of the DRAL Team, as competitive hobbyists, that allies in anything under 2500 points creates problems by exacerbating the race to the penultimate list without regard to army loyalty. You see this phenomenon in "TauDar" lists for example. Keep in mind, the DRAL Rules are for COMPETITIVE PLAY. The gateway to collecting new armies that allies rules provides is not an objective of the DRAL Rules. Also, I think you read it wrong. In games of 2500 points per side you may have allies... you don't have to have a 2500 point primary detachment in order to add an allied detachment; just that both detachments together add up to 2500 points or greater.

Consolidation into combat has been addressed in previous member posts. Play with it. 3 inches in not a long distance and that is the maximum distance a unit is permitted to consolidate into new combats.

Full BS into flyers is mitigated by the cover save a flyer has. Just as a jink save for a speeder is a cover save given in light of the unit's speed and nimbleness, the flyers get cover saves for their flight pattern against ground-to-air fire. The BS is thusly not effected.

The DRAL Rules seek to streamline the game and speed up game play. If competitive games are what you and your gaming group are interested in, the DRAL Team welcomes you to try using the DRAL Rules and see for yourself whether they achieve the objectives set forth in the OP.

Thanks for posting!

I like some of where you're coming from, but lots of times you seem to be trying to drive a nail with a sledgehammer:

A) ALLIES
1) Allies may be taken in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side or in any game where there are more than 2 opponents.

This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. Using this rule, Allies would virtually never appear in games as games above 2500 are played considerably less often (I recall a poll on here once where 1750-1850 were the most commonly played point values). Also how does having more than one opponent make a difference for including Allies in your FOC? You aren't using the actual Allies rules at that point, you're using two separate armies and house-ruling the interaction between the two players based on the Allies matrix. As with many of these changes, you were unhappy with something in 6th, so you all but eliminated it rather than actually fix it.

If you want to fix Allies, first tweak the Allies matrix. Battle Brothers cause more problems than anything else, so make Battle Brothers rare (in particular, break up the Imperium/Tau/Eldar BB love triangle). Next eliminate the Allied detachment entirely: mandate that Allies are limited to 1 HQ, 2 Troops, and 1 each Elites, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support, but they use slots in your primary detachment. No more picking up a 4th Heavy Support by allying. Now armies that want to use Allies are actually making a trade-off and armies that have few or no Allies available aren't automatically screwed.

B) ASSAULT
1) Charge Distance: Units charge per 5th Edition rules, generally 6 inches for infantry and 12 for bikes/cavalry etc. Units may now elect to charge an additional D6 inches however the result of 1 causes the charge to fail regardless of how far the intended recipient of the charge actually was to the charging unit. Resolve Overwatch as normal.

This once again is overkill, and poorly implemented at that. You're increasing charge distances for every unit beyond what they were in 5th, with no downside at all. Electing to charge an extra D6" with an auto-fail on a roll of a 1 is not a downside except in the very rare case that the number you needed was a 1. If your normal charge is 6" and you need to go 6.1"-7", then you might care, a tiny bit, since there is a 1/6 chance that your charge will fail. If you need to go 7.1" or further, you will always roll your extra D6 with no consequences because a result of 1 is a failed charge anyway. Poor understanding of the implications of your own rules. Get rid of the additional D6" altogether and use it as a bonus for models with Fleet.

2) Challenges: A challenge may only be initiated by a charging IC. (NB: Consolidating into a new unit does not count as Charging)

This, again, is probably overkill. You don't like Challenges, they muck things up when your beatstick is charging into a squishy unit with a sergeant. So you all but eliminate them from the game. If we are keeping challenges at all, we can probably fix them easily enough by saying additional unsaved wounds beyond what is needed to kill your challenge opponent will carry over into the opponent's unit. Now the decision to challenge or not when you are being charged becomes situation-dependent, and Challenges are no longer a giant drag on Chaos Marines - Typhus easily bests the IG sergeant he's forced to fight and continues merrily slaughtering.

3) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

LOS, as stupid as it is, is necessary if you stick with 6th's casualty removal system. Otherwise your sergeant or captain is always reduced to cowering at the rear.

It's better if you think of it not as space marines throwing themselves in front of Marneus Calgar to stop bullets, but instead a combination of plot armor for your character, and the fact that every guy in the shooting unit isn't aiming precisely at the one model that's fractionally closer, their shots could be hitting anyone in view. Again, sledgehammer to drive a nail. Reduce LOS to a 3+ for IC's and a 5+ for regular characters and they will slow the game down less often because people will fail them and die more often.

4) Power Weapons: Ignore armor saves per 5th Ed. rule book.

Again, you didn't like the way a change affected your old codexes, so rather than tweak it somehow, you scrapped it. This is a non-starter at this point for several reasons. First, 2+ save models were greatly overpriced in 5th considering their vulnerability in HtH, and it's only gotten worse since then as new codexes adjust prices to reflect the new power weapon rules. Second, as much as people complained when the change happened, the differences in power weapon types are interesting and choosing a weapon for your model offers a pretty cool opportunity to specialize them for different opponents (poor Chaplains though). Third, the change to power weapons made weapons like power fists more viable, which is also a good thing. The power weapon change is a mixed bag, but it's too late to throw it out.

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

Clarify to say that you trade all your attacks for a single pistol shot. I'm fine with this.

6) Consolidation: A unit that wins a given close combat, and is permitted to consolidate, may do so and engage a unit in a new close combat if that unit was within 3" of the consolidating unit. The assaulting unit does not gain any charge benefits and the close combat will begin in the following Assault phase. The unit accepting the assault does so as normal (i.e. Overwatch, Counter-Atteck, etc. may be utilized).

This alone would probably fix assault armies. You have three major changes to assault here (change to charge, consolidation into combat, charge after outflank). You definitely cannot do all of them. I am in favor of consolidation into combat - I'd drop the other two entirely and make this work for the full 1D6 consolidation distance.

C) DEPLOYMENT
1) Opponents who elect to go first or steal the initiative may not launch an assault in game turn 1.

Taking a page from the Games Workshop school of rule-writing, this is very unclear. If you attempt to steal the initiative and fail, you can't charge in game turn 1, even if that means you are taking the second turn and could easily be within legitimate charge range? Clarify to say opponents who "... successfully steal the initiative". Except if you make that clarification, this rule basically does nothing. Player Turn 1 charges are almost completely impossible in 6th, unless you both line up exactly 24" across from each other and roll boxcars for your charge with a cavalry unit, so I'm assuming you added this because your modified charge rules basically broke the assault phase. Address that first and this rule is pretty much unnecessary again.

D) SHOOTING
1) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

Already covered it.

E) USRs
1) Furious Charge: provides +1S and +1I per 5th Ed. rule book.

Sure? Guessing an Ork or Blood Angel player added this. New codexes have compensated for the nerf to Furious Charge so adding it back in arbitrarily is probably a bad idea. Orks and BA will be brought in line eventually. It seems below the level of most of these large changes anyway, this is definitely a petty one someone was unhappy about. I'd toss it.

2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above)

And corrected above.

3) Outflank: Unit may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play via Outflank.

As others have said, this is pretty broken. Just give it up, man. Your Kommandos and/or Genestealers don't work like this anymore and need to be buffed in other ways. Yes, GW has already failed to fix Genestealers. So fix them instead of breaking core rules.

4) Sky Fire: Ignores a Flyer's cover save that results from Zooming status. (explained below)

Criticism below.

5) Deny the Witch: Deny the Witch is now a USR and therefore may only apply to a unit if expressly mentioned in its profile/rules entry.

In other words, virtually no one gets Deny the Witch except units who have psychic hoods, Adamantium Will, or maybe some unit somewhere that mentions it tangentially (any units or wargear who happen to mention, say, re-rolling it). Even most psykers won't get it as they don't mention Deny the Witch in their profiles. This is a jumbled mess that might make more sense as some kind of houserule when it's explained more clearly, or if you Errata'd every codex to say who did and did not get DtW now.

F) FLYERS
1) Shooting Flyers: All units may fire at flyers, regardless of the flying status (ie. hover or zooming etc), at full BS. No more snap shots... (weapon restrictions remain however)

2) Cover Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from a 3+ cover save from ground to air fire.

Nail with a sledgehammer again. A 3+ cover save is equivalent to snap firing when you're BS3, but worse for BS4 and up. Combined with so many other things that reduce or ignore cover, which we can expect more of in future codices, this resulting in nonsensical amounts of effective shooting at Flyers. Again this is probably fine for armies with old codexes where your flyers are underpriced already, but this makes almost every new flier completely non-viable. I hate flyers personally, but the only change I'd actually make is forcing flyers to come on the board from reserves one turn, then automatically move straight off the board again in the next turn, regardless of distance. Make any shooting attacks or disembark grav-chuting units at any point along your path while moving, during the Movement phase (so you can shoot while moving off the board too - this also allows you to get your shooting in before interceptor fire happens). Anyone who wants to turn tiny circles over the battlefield like current Flyers can switch to Hover mode instead, and anyone without that option can behave like an actual strafing aircraft.

G) VEHICLES (generally)
1) Assaulting out of Vehicles: Units MAY assault out of Vehicles that had not moved during the movement phase (per 5th Ed. rules)

We agree on something.

2) Defensive Weapons: A "defensive weapon" is any vehicle or walker mounted weapon with a Strength equal to or less than 4.
2.1) Defensive Weapons may Over watch (snap shot a charging unit) so long as the unit starts the Assault phase within the weapon's arc of fire.

Again, I agree, an almost entirely harmless change though.

H) SPECIAL CHARACTERS
1) SCs may not use Warlord Traits out of the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

2) SCs may not use psychic powers or disciplines from the main rule book unless expressly permitted in the relevant codex.

This is another case of sloppy writing on your part, but a previous poster addressed it already, so I won't belabor the point.

I) MISCELLANEOUS
1) Expansions: Expansions may be used in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side
1.1) Definition of Expansion: Any rule set compatible with WH40k that is NOT (a) the main rule book (that which is purchased with the game or a counterpart version), (b) an army codex as defined by GW but where only one may be in effect for a given "army" (chapter, legion, "race", "species", coven et al.) at a time; or (c) Official FAQs or Errata as published by GW free of charge on their primary website, is considered an Expansion. (Horus Heresy or 30K is fantastic and is highly recommended even at 2000 )

Probably easier to implement a blacklist of things you don't allow - Escalation, Stronghold Assault, and dataslates.

1) Sniper Rifles: Sniper rifles always hit on 2+, and are Precision shot on a 4+, flesh bane, AP - . UPDATE: After further playtesting this rule has been found to be game breaking. Tau can upgrade Kroot to have snipers for a grand total of 7 points per model... mobs of sniper kroot would be devastatingly game breaking.

Yes, clearly broken.

2) Land Raiders: Free Dozer Blades
2.1) Pride of the Mechanicum special rule: penetrating hits with AP1 count as AP2.

Random? Land Raiders are a little overpriced so I guess it's fine.

3) Currently Play-testing Vehicle Toughness - most notably for dreadnoughts and walkers.

Ok.

4) Mortis Pattern Dreads of all types gain Interceptor and Skyfire when they remain stationary in the previous Movement Phase. Adopted from Horus Heresy Book II: Massacre.

Interceptor is a bit much (yes I'm familiar with the HH books, I just don't like Interceptor as a rule, especially since it shows up everywhere simply to give Skyfire units a way of hitting ground targets, because GW can't write rules without nonsensical loopholes). Just say they have the option of firing in Skyfire mode.

I don't know what DRAL stands for, but it's good your "team" (I'm assuming just a gaming group) is receptive to criticism, as these rules are all a bit of a mess.

If you are going for competitive play, why are you putting such a big nerf onto 2+ units. Since you are getting rid of sargent challenges now are back the days of the 'hidden' powerfist knocking out a few termies a turn. Now any old Sarge with a battery on his sword makes your new riptide armour worth naught! I like the new custom power weapons, they buff 2+ saves indirectly while nerfing Xenos armies indirectly by giving options for both the Sword and the Maul. That was a main reason GK's where broken, every single guy had a power weapon rendering most things with wing in their name pointless

Now the choices are far harder, will i meet enough 3+ saves to justify sword or enough 2+ saves to justify axe or just play it safe with Maul? Will i brake the unit on the chagre with the lance or is re-rolling to wound worth the loss of an attack on claws? Choices, viable choices make an interesting meta Unbalanced autotakes make an unbalanced meta, as you have already shown our dislike of Tau/Eldar lists and that is because they have to many auto takes.

I like a lot of these rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but two of the major things you're trying to fix is the assault phase and how stupid fragile most vehicles are. A house rule that I think fixes vehicles is giving them armor saves as opposed to toughness. There is no reason why a dreadnaught should take more damage from bolters to the rear than my carnifex. I've been playing this 10=4+; 11=3+; 12=2+; 13=2+/5++; and 14=2+/4++ And that way you can completely remove AP1&2 from giving bonuses on the damage table.

Okay, my opinion:

1: Fleet, This invalidates many eldar and dark eldar units (and indeed maybe other units in other armies) that fleet was designed foremost to allow them to move faster. I think this should be reroll the charge distance and reroll run moves

2: Allies: 2500 is far too high I think, I think 1750 is a clearer number, but personally I think allies are fine for all points levels as they bring more flavour to the majority of games than they do OP combos. Perhaps make allies count towards your main FOC before 2000 points?

3: Agreed with assault distance

4: Id vote for make power sword/staffs/mauls/maces AP2, Axes AP2 +1str specialist weapon (still a cheaper and faster striking alternative to the power fist), lance/spear (including shining spear lances and rough riders etc) AP2 on the charge and AP3 Otherwise, in addition to normal bonuses. This way we still get abit of a boost but keep the flavour of different power weapons set out by 6th without having such annoying occurances like chaplains being pathetic in CC. Although personally I think the general power weapon shift if good as it makes a 2+ save model like a terminator move valuable where as in 5th 2+ armour wasnt that great because everyone and their nan ignored it in CC

5: Limit to one attack max, make plasma pistols worth the cost but not crazy good

6: Yeah I dont think this is a good idea, consolidation into enemies was crazy good and the best bit about 5th was removing it, even within 3" its very powerful as it allows units to faceroll an enemy and then sit safe till next turn avoiding retribution. Have you tried it with allowing overwatch at full BS vs consolidating units?

C)
1) strongly disagree. If you manage a first turn assault then good on you for good planning and manoeuvring. You shouldn't be penalised for this

D) 1) Make it once per phase, once per game with the allocation rules makes character sniping incredibly easy. Have you also considered disallowing LOS from precision shots?

E)
1) Agreed

2) as above

3) No, this was hilariously broken last edition and im glad it got removed

4) You AA ideas intrigue me. But id say clarify it as a "fly save" not a cover save, as it would make ignore cover weapons and markerlights way too powerful vs fliers

5) Agreed

F)
1) See above, very interesting idea though

G)
1) Agreed 100% this was the worst rule change in 6th imo

2) Interesting, a very nice idea and "feels right" but then I would suggest make the tau vehicle upgrade that grants overwatch to S5 weapons an innate ability of all tau vehicles

H)
1) No. This unintentionally nerfs pre-6th dexes (although Im sure you didnt actually mean to do that) and limits tactical choice. With the exception of the eldar warlord traits which are terrible all other trait tables are mostly better than rulebook anyway. I cant actually think of many SCs who do have access to the main rulebook traits anyway though

2) I would instead take more time to "patch" who can take what. However If the base version of the SC can take the powers then why shouldnt they be able to? Your example of mephiston will probably remain in the new book as he will almost undoubtedly have "blood discapline" or w./e they call it, plus the normallly allowed disciplines for BA from the rulebook so biomancy will be an option

1) Not sure if your explanation allows it, but Allow FW at any level but FW experimental rules at 1750+, escalation, lords of war from HH, and SA at 2500+
++ You mention HH yet this is specially mentioned to NOT be used with normal 40k without serious rule tweaks, quite interesting really for a "balance fix", I would also nerf D-Weapons at pre-3000pt games to STR10 AP1 Instant death, shred, armourbane weapons


All in all your rules sound interesting for your player base and well done for changing the rules for your player base to meet what you guys want, kudos for just playing the way you want instead of just all whining at GW. However to present this as a "fixed" version of 40k all round is well.. maybe not. I would also be a tad less abusive to people offering opinions and feedback, you posted asking for such things, lighten up, discuss, think about it. If it works for your group then brilliant but dont expect other people to lap up your ideas as if theyre the best thing since sliced bread

Also take yourself a bit less seriously mate, saying THE DRAL TEAM (tm) all the time and using the term COMPETITIVE HOBBYIST constantly isnt gunna do you any favours. You might not mean to sound arrogant or a nob, but you do

With all the ap2 guns floating about power weapons need to stay as their modern version otherwise 2+ armor becomes worthless.

We played your rules tau were slowest to adapt but then bought out his kroot mob so now he is happy to have a 30 strong outflanking mob. Tyranid read as far as outflanking then dropped the rules and bought out a bucket (literaly) of genestealers. I fielded a bezerker army.

Your ruleset buffs cc too hard, tau guy got very upset previously we could get into cc by carefull maneuvering and decoy stratagems, now due to outflanking we run roughshod all over his back line he had nothing that could stop bezerkers in full swing, and tyranid was a complete ass with genestealers.

6th needed cc improvements but these rules supercharge it to the point were its ridiculous. Currently due to outflankers being mandatory we practically swap table ends by turn 4.

Use rbacus vehicle rules, we have been trying new rulesets for vehicles for ages and his is the best we have fielded to date purely due to its simplicity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of our lot don't like randomised psyker powers, but opposition to pick and choose is a bit high as the biomancy powers can turn any psyker into a demigod. Currently to save face we allow you to only get one pre chosen psyker power from a discipline and then you roll for the rest. Try it, it restores some of the tactical element to psykers as currently they are rather inconsistent

Hi! Thanks for this!

My take on some of your rules.

 Deuce11 wrote:
DRAL Rules for Competitive Play:
A) ALLIES
1) Allies may be taken in games equal to or larger than 2500 points per side or in any game where there are more than 2 opponents.

Given that I never play games that big (lack of time, most games I play are 1500 or less, even 500, which are both fun and fast) that will rule allies out for me.

Don´t like it. Allies is broken, but it is a cool idea. It needs a fix, not destruction.

B) ASSAULT
1) Charge Distance: Units charge per 5th Edition rules, generally 6 inches for infantry and 12 for bikes/cavalry etc. Units may now elect to charge an additional D6 inches however the result of 1 causes the charge to fail regardless of how far the intended recipient of the charge actually was to the charging unit. Resolve
Overwatch as normal.

Not sure about the additional roll, I will take 6, 1D6 + Initiative or 1D6 +4 instead. I think I see the point of it however, but it is poorly worded: I am assuming you mean the unit already moved the 6 inches before the roll (you say it charge 6 inches and "now elect to charge an additional D6", meaning that there are two different decisions). Correct me if I am wrong. If I am wrong, then what CalgarsPimpHand said applies and the rule has no sense as it is.

Quote: CalgarsPimpHand: "Electing to charge an extra D6" with an auto-fail on a roll of a 1 is not a downside except in the very rare case that the number you needed was a 1. If your normal charge is 6" and you need to go 6.1"-7", then you might care, a tiny bit, since there is a 1/6 chance that your charge will fail. If you need to go 7.1" or further, you will always roll your extra D6 with no consequences because a result of 1 is a failed charge anyway."
Assuming he means he already moved the 6 inches before the roll (something I am not sure), there are two consequences for the fail:
1) Overwatch is already applied.
2) The charging unit is 6" closer to the enemy when the enemy´s turn begins.
And it is perfectly possible to charge at a unit at 6" and then suffer casualties from overwatch, so the charge fails and you need to "go for it".

Still not sure about it, the punishment is too mild, the roll too easy. What about an Initiative test instead of rolling a 1D6? Or failing with a 1 or a 2. Just a 1 seems too un-risky for what looks like a desperate "go for it" move.

By the way, I am using Bloodbowl slang . In Bloodbowl, "go for it" allows a single square of additional movement, but if you get a 1 you get an injury. What about keeping the roll, but, in addition to the assault, getting a 1 is like having moved through dangerous terrain (potential wounds for all models / the model leading the charge)?. That´s risky.

2) Challenges: A challenge may only be initiated by a charging IC. (NB: Consolidating into a new unit does not count as Charging)

Sounds fine to me, but then again I really hate Challenges, so I may be biased.

3) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

Fine. This rule gets stupid very fast. I know its relationship with wound allocation, but it is still dumb to see 10 LOS! in a row. What about once per turn?

4) Power Weapons: Ignore armor saves per 5th Ed. rule book.

Don´t like it. There are some rules from 6th that are a nice improvement. Having lots of different options in close combat is one

5) Pistols: A player may elect for any model engaged in close combat to use the profile of its pistol(s) instead of its normal unit profile.

As CalgarsPimpHand said, a lot of information is missing. I am assuming this is one single shot (lest enjoy a plasma festival all over the place). I will assume it is done with the BS attribute instead of WS, at Initiative 10 (bullets go faster than swords), and the pistol no longer gives an additional attack.

That I like.

6) Consolidation: A unit that wins a given close combat, and is permitted to consolidate, may do so and engage a unit in a new close combat if that unit was within 3" of the consolidating unit. The assaulting unit does not gain any charge benefits and the close combat will begin in the following Assault phase. The unit accepting the assault does so as normal (i.e. Overwatch, Counter-Atteck, etc. may be utilized).

Consolidation into combat was a really bad idea before and it probably still is. Sometimes units are very close to one another and this may get out of control very soon. I will give this rule to specific units (the Eversor being the obvious one), but not as a general rule.

C) DEPLOYMENT
1) Opponents who elect to go first or steal the initiative may not launch an assault in game turn 1.

Not sure on this one

D) SHOOTING
1) Look Out Sir!: A player may only elect to perform a LOS! once per game, regardless of whether in the Shooting or Assault phase.

This one you posted twice

E) USRs
1) Furious Charge: provides +1S and +1I per 5th Ed. rule book.

Definitely yes! It is a nearly useless rule right now.

2) Fleet (et al.): Permits player to re-roll the optional D6 when calculating charge distance (explained above)

Logical.

3) Outflank: Unit may assault in the Assault Phase the turn they enter play via Outflank.

This is big, and a potential game-breaking is the charge range is kept, let alone enhanced. Too strong. You are not the first one proposing this. Tone down the range or it is not cool

4) Sky Fire: Ignores a Flyer's cover save that results from Zooming status. (explained below)

Below then

5) Deny the Witch: Deny the Witch is now a USR and therefore may only apply to a unit if expressly mentioned in its profile/rules entry.

Not wise I think. The costs for psykers have gone dawn partly because of this. If you really need to do that, add 10 or 15 points to all psykers around

F) FLYERS
1) Shooting Flyers: All units may fire at flyers, regardless of the flying status (ie. hover or zooming etc), at full BS. No more snap shots... (weapon restrictions remain however)

2) Cover Saves: Zooming flyers benefit from a 3+ cover save from ground to air fire.

I must admit I prefer CalgarsPimpHand´s solution here. But the best solution to the Flyers problem is a similar, yet more detailed concept by Peregrine: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570428.page#6381952

I find it quite superior.

G) VEHICLES (generally)
1) Assaulting out of Vehicles: Units MAY assault out of Vehicles that had not moved during the movement phase (per 5th Ed. rules)

Sounds good to me. It seems a lot of people see this as an improvement

LoS is a bit overused I will admit but some units like bodyguards and tyrant guard are designed to do that so I would omit the LoS rule in those instances were it is automatically passed.

Incidenly to those with the axe vs fist complaint. axe offers an extra attack due to being non specialized fist is 10 points more and is useless on 1 attack Sargent's. Also not everything has a fist option as well as a power weapon so stop whineing its better for all.

Challenge alternatives
Character's allocate their own attacks onto enemies in btb contact. So keep hidden powerfist but if he is hiding at the back you can't pick your targets. Plus it still means that champion of chaos can still make sure they kill characters for god buffs



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I dislike challenges and since when did chaos start fighting fairly anyway.

 Blackskull wrote:
(...)
Your ruleset buffs cc too hard, tau guy got very upset previously we could get into cc by carefull maneuvering and decoy stratagems, now due to outflanking we run roughshod all over his back line he had nothing that could stop bezerkers in full swing, and tyranid was a complete ass with genestealers.

6th needed cc improvements but these rules supercharge it to the point were its ridiculous. Currently due to outflankers being mandatory we practically swap table ends by turn 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A lot of our lot don't like randomised psyker powers, but opposition to pick and choose is a bit high as the biomancy powers can turn any psyker into a demigod. Currently to save face we allow you to only get one pre chosen psyker power from a discipline and then you roll for the rest. Try it, it restores some of the tactical element to psykers as currently they are rather inconsistent

As a Tyranid player with 40+ genestealers I can report many play tests for "assaulting from outflank" that got the same result that Blackskull: very broken.

By the way, a lot of people do not like random psy-powers...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I like some of where you're coming from, but lots of times you seem to be trying to drive a nail with a sledgehammer:

[snip]

I thoroughly, thoroughly agree with what CalgarsPimpHand says here.

As Da001 said, Peregrine has posted up some mint flyer rules though I think them a little complicated myself.

Would be interested to see "rbacus vehicle rules" if anyone can provide a link?

As a Tyranid player with 40+ genestealers I can report many play tests for "assaulting from outflank" that got the same result that Blackskull: very broken.

Choppy players don't necessarily want to be broken, but to get equal treatment rather than ridiculous double standards

When I see "models can shoot absolutely fine from deep strike or outflank, but assault troops can go feth themselves just because" I want to rip the rulebook in half and punch the author in the face.

If outflanking/DS melee units could only be hit by snap shots, or were in some other manner protected from the typical solution of 'drop a pie plate on it' then that would probably be enough to even it out