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.
2014/01/12 22:32:55
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Zebio: The funny part is that even though they are battle brothers, Chaos Daemons and Chaos Marines really don't ally very well with each other because IC's from one can't join squads from the other codex under any circumstances because of how Daemons work.
2014/01/12 22:59:55
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Things with Fleet can run and assault, but can only choose to re-roll the distance of one of those.
Fear changes:
- If a model that causes fear is in combat for more than one round, then the opponent's units locked in combat with it have their leadership reduced (to a minimum of 1) by how many models killed by the Fear causing source.
- And They Shall Know No Fear ignores all negative leadership modifiers for the purposes of Fear tests, but is still susceptible to Fear.
- Units with Fearless still automatically pass Fear tests.
Vehicles: Hull points stay, but a new save system is introduced called a "Hull Save".
- Skimmers and open topped walkers have a hull save of a 4+
- Non-skimmer tanks and Walkers that are not open-topped have a hull save of a 3+
- Heavy vehicles have a hull save of a 2+
- Flyers have a hull save of a 4+, but if they take an unsaved glancing or penetrating hit they count as crew shaken in addition to whatever other effects they may gain.
Hull Saves cannot be outright ignored unless the weapon or attack has either the Melta or Armorbane special rule. Otherwise, the AP of the weapon can provide negative modifiers for the Hull Save.
- AP3 confers a -1 modifier.
- AP2 confers a -2 modifier.
- AP1 confers a -3 modifier.
So for instance a Rhino would have a 3+ Hull Save base. If it was shot with a Lascannon, it would get reduced to a 5+ Hull Save for that shot only.
- All Super Heavy Vehicles have a Hull Save of 1+. Weapons without Melta, Armorbane, or AP3, 2 or 1 cannot hurt them.
- Hull Saves on any vehicles can never be taken against D Strength weapons.
Space Wolves: 3770
Orks: 3000
Chaos Daemons: 1750
Warriors of Chaos: 2000
The 40k vision is to have a simple and fast paced battle system that supports large amounts of models. For this you'd need to avoid complications and cut down on the amount of dice rolling. Units need to be homogenized somewhat while supporting customization.
Altering attack mechanics.
The purpose is to remove unnecessary dice rolls and make each attack roll follow the same mechanic and the same "table". By not having a special instance for each type of attack, but rather homogenising all the steps, you can increase the pace of the game and as such support larger amounts of models in the same time frame.
Ballistics Skill + D6 is compared against Cover.
Weapon Skill + D6 is compared against Weapon Skill + 3.
Strength + D6 is compared against Toughness + Armour.
Each roll has a number of potential modifiers. The goal is to keep the modifiers simple. Armour Piercing statistic is done away with completely and replaced with special rules that can either halve or ignore a model's armour value, similarly poison, flesh bane and armour bane can ignore a model's toughness value. Cover works by directly modifying a model's chance to hit, meaning that seeking cover is of importance even to extremely armoured models.
Homogenising units.
A basic flaw with the current system in terms of handling large number of models is that a unit can have units with more than one armour value (and more than one toughness value). By removing the Independent Character rule and removing differentiating armour values inside units as well as removing the Look Out Sir! mechanic, the wounding process on units can be streamlined.
Cover alterations and line of sight.
By removing true line of sight and making a terraced 2D system for determining line of sight and cover, one can effectively hide important models behind a screen of less important models and therefore make singular models a viable method of representing command models without unduly making them Bolter-Bait.
Additionally, cover needs to be separated between that which is granted by intervening terrain and that which is provided by movement. Certain weapons makes sense ignoring intervening terrain, but those do not necessarily have the projectile velocity to be remotely effective against models that move at very high speed. Conversely weapons with a lock-on system isn't going to care if the model fired upon is traveling at high speed while those weapons may not even be able to shoot at infantry at all.
Overwatch.
Overwatch as a concept is a good one, but it's execution is weird. Of course defenders will fire wildly if assaulted, but this abstraction is represented by their melee attacks. The I go You Go mechanic does not represent some sort of time difference between each army's moves, they happen roughly at the same time, but rather it represents who has the initiative.
Overwatch as such can be replaced with a deliberate mechanic. I see two with a high potential.
Overwatch as a defensive action: A unit may declare overwatch and if it does so it will shoot overwatch against any and all units that assault it during the coming turn. Enemy models assaulting may only move after all overwatch shooting has been concluded.
Overwatch as a tactical action: A unit declaring overwatch will target a specific area. They will shoot on any models moving inside this area until their next turn.
Facing.
Each model has a facing. Models may not gain benefit of cover when shot in the back, they may not shoot at models they can not see, and they receive a penalty on defensive weapon skill when struck from behind. A highly skilled model in melee is going to be able to handle two or three models with the possibility of being so skilled they can't hit him, but if overwhelmed and struck from behind he won't be able to defend himself.
This opens up for tactical positioning, surrounds and so on.
Movement.
Some thing that really bothers me is the weird way movement is handled. A model that assaults can move significantly longer than should he not assault.
Assaulting and running should be treated as the same thing.
Predictable movement.
Each model moves at a predictable pace. You do not roll for running, you do not roll for difficult terrain, etc. Running/assaulting/combat speed doubles your movement range. Certain actions such as turbo-boosting (fast or skimmer or jetbike) or flat-out (fast skimmer or fast jetbike (eldar)) may triple or quadruple speed. Base speed may be model-dependent, but initial thought is to keep it at 6"
Range.
The over all range of weapons need to go down. Alpha striking on turn one from across the battlefield means that unless you have an extraordinary amount of terrain, the player starting second will play at a distinct disadvantage. Not only that, but if that player managed to seize initiative, then his opponent will likely be left out in the open, meaning that the battle may be decided on a single dice roll.
This also since movement speeds in general go down. Typical infantry weapon would be between 12 and 18" while really long ranged weapons go between 36 and 48". This instead of having really long ranged weapons sit at around 60" or more
Phases.
You Go I Go is kept, but individual phases are changed. Each unit has a subset of potential actions, meaning that the separating these into 5 or 6 different phases is not necessary.
Upkeep: This is where morale rolls, mandatory unit movements, reinforcement rolls, and so on go.
Main: This is where all unit reinforcement arrival, unit movement, shooting, psychics etc go.
Melee: This is where assault movement and fighting in close combat go.
This also means that movement sequence can play an important role. Do you activate the Librarian first in order to move into range of the Assault Marines to use Prescience on them or is it more important that the Librarian is not in the way for the Razorback to move forward?
So you want to go back to a slightly modified version 2nd ed? Most of those points were features in that edition. I strongly disagree with reducing weapon ranges even further. 40k ranges make Battletech look realistic. As it is, some troops can move as far as they can shoot, and artillery has the range of a infantry rifle.
Can't go back to something I never experienced. But no, 2nd edition had a larger array of modifiers. My vision is a more limited and simple array. A weapon wouldn't have an AP value, for instance, a weapon like a Lascannon would be armour ignoring at decent strength (6 or 7) while a melta would be armour ignoring and armour bane at decent strength (say... 6) which would roughly translate to automatically damaging vehicles at short range but not necessarily damaging non-vehicles as easily. The basic idea would be to reduce the number of weapons that fully ignore armour while keeping a fairly high amount that halves armour or occasionally ignores armour so that certain weapons simply won't be useful against some targets and thus reduce the amount of dice-buckets (mainly the common small arms against things like Terminators, Wraithlords, etc)
Oh, and did I mention unifying models under a common statline system so that no stat will ever go 11+, ever?
Reducing range on weapons is not a realism fix, none of my suggestions are aimed at this. Weapon ranges need to be reduced in order to provide a challenging game that is decided by evolving tactics rather than initial position and dice. The alternative is to design the game with a 8'x12' board in mind, but most people and gaming clubs won't be able to house that. It's also a matter of validating or invalidating melee, since in a realistic setting going into melee with swords is going to be rather stupid (hint: if you want to melee do it with short barrelled assault rifles, they provide decent stopping power and tremendously greater penetration than a sword, particularly a chainsword, while maintaining a greatly increased threat range and rate of attack).
So.... let's skip realism and keep a fast paced game with room for cinematics (that isn't random dice rolls).
I really need to stay away from the 40K forums.
2014/01/12 23:08:08
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
SRSFACE wrote: Zebio: The funny part is that even though they are battle brothers, Chaos Daemons and Chaos Marines really don't ally very well with each other because IC's from one can't join squads from the other codex under any circumstances because of how Daemons work.
I know, and it's irritating enough, but I don't wish to see my 3.5 army to be broken apart again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/12 23:08:20
2014/01/12 23:10:02
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Wilytank wrote: Things with Fleet can run and assault, but can only choose to re-roll the distance of one of those.
Fear changes:
- If a model that causes fear is in combat for more than one round, then the opponent's units locked in combat with it have their leadership reduced (to a minimum of 1) by how many models killed by the Fear causing source.
- And They Shall Know No Fear ignores all negative leadership modifiers for the purposes of Fear tests, but is still susceptible to Fear.
- Units with Fearless still automatically pass Fear tests.
Vehicles: Hull points stay, but a new save system is introduced called a "Hull Save".
- Skimmers and open topped walkers have a hull save of a 4+
- Non-skimmer tanks and Walkers that are not open-topped have a hull save of a 3+
- Heavy vehicles have a hull save of a 2+
- Flyers have a hull save of a 4+, but if they take an unsaved glancing or penetrating hit they count as crew shaken in addition to whatever other effects they may gain.
Hull Saves cannot be outright ignored unless the weapon or attack has either the Melta or Armorbane special rule. Otherwise, the AP of the weapon can provide negative modifiers for the Hull Save.
- AP3 confers a -1 modifier.
- AP2 confers a -2 modifier.
- AP1 confers a -3 modifier.
So for instance a Rhino would have a 3+ Hull Save base. If it was shot with a Lascannon, it would get reduced to a 5+ Hull Save for that shot only.
- All Super Heavy Vehicles have a Hull Save of 1+. Weapons without Melta, Armorbane, or AP3, 2 or 1 cannot hurt them.
- Hull Saves on any vehicles can never be taken against D Strength weapons.
These Hull Saves make a lot of sense. Would these saves 'stack' with cover? so these would apply after cover saves have failed?
I don't like the Super Heavy Vehicles being so resilient though, but that's probably because i just dislike Super Heavies.
WAAAGH Sparky! 1400 (ish) - On the rebound!
Kommander Sparks DKoK 1000 (ish) - Now on the backburner
- Men, you're lucky men. Soon, you'll all be fighting for your planet. Many of you will be dying for your planet. A few of you will be put through a fine mesh screen for your planet. They will be the luckiest of all.
2014/01/12 23:40:05
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Mahtamori wrote: Can't go back to something I never experienced.
Fair enough. I started with 2nd.
But no, 2nd edition had a larger array of modifiers. My vision is a more limited and simple array. A weapon wouldn't have an AP value, for instance, a weapon like a Lascannon would be armour ignoring at decent strength (6 or 7) while a melta would be armour ignoring and armour bane at decent strength (say... 6) which would roughly translate to automatically damaging vehicles at short range but not necessarily damaging non-vehicles as easily. The basic idea would be to reduce the number of weapons that fully ignore armour while keeping a fairly high amount that halves armour or occasionally ignores armour so that certain weapons simply won't be useful against some targets and thus reduce the amount of dice-buckets (mainly the common small arms against things like Terminators, Wraithlords, etc)
That might work as a simplification, but there shouldn't be "automatic damage" for anything. If a single model can evade being wounded through a toughness roll, a vehicle should be able to escape damage as well. One thing you might consider adding to your modification is having heavy weapons cause multiple wounds again. If someone's High Lord of Cheese gets hit by a lascannon or multimelta, one shot oughta be (potentially) enough.
Oh, and did I mention unifying models under a common statline system so that no stat will ever go 11+, ever?
Nope, but we can agree on that. I haven't seen that come up in a game, though.
Reducing range on weapons is not a realism fix, none of my suggestions are aimed at this. Weapon ranges need to be reduced in order to provide a challenging game that is decided by evolving tactics rather than initial position and dice. The alternative is to design the game with a 8'x12' board in mind, but most people and gaming clubs won't be able to house that. It's also a matter of validating or invalidating melee, since in a realistic setting going into melee with swords is going to be rather stupid (hint: if you want to melee do it with short barrelled assault rifles, they provide decent stopping power and tremendously greater penetration than a sword, particularly a chainsword, while maintaining a greatly increased threat range and rate of attack).
So.... let's skip realism and keep a fast paced game with room for cinematics (that isn't random dice rolls).
It used to be that the games were considered to be occurring just as the two forces were meeting on the battlefield. On a 4'x8' table, the mud-slogging infantry still generally had to go a turn before they could shoot at something. (Of course, everything but some eldar and bugs moved at 4" per turn, not 6".) Heavy weapons could really reach out and touch someone- heavy bolters had a range of 40" and lascannons ranged 60". With proper use of cover, those long distance shots didn't happen that often. Despite the longer ranges, CC infantry were still effective. With 3rd, GW cut a lot of the ranges by 1/4, some by 1/2. Point being, having quasi-realistic ranges isn't a huge damper on having a fun game. If I wanted a realistic game, CC wouldn't even be an option 90% of the time.
Oh, one other thing I'd like to see make a comeback from 2nd: CC attacks alternate between whatever CC weapons the model is using, including pistols.
Sometimes you have fun, and sometimes the fun has you. -Sgt. Schlock
2014/01/12 23:44:29
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
- Have blasts able to shoot as they did in 4th. Makes much more sense.
- Remove Hull points.
- Remove random assault ranges.
- Have Movement as a model characteristic (eg. Eldar standard move is 7", rather than the 6" for humans or the 5" for Necrons, say).
- Have the Rulebook, and sell a separate Armies book, which would effectively be all the codexes in one.
- Redo Allies. It annoys me that the IoA aren't xenophobic enough in the matrix for instance. Also have a rule that allows only 30 or 40% of the army as allied detachment, although any number of detachments can be allowed.
- Have a charge reaction test. Roll a Ld. If failed, the charged unit runs away as normal. If it passed exactly (ie. rolling a 7 for a Ld 7 unit) then they simply stand their ground. I passed otherwise, then allows Overwatch.
- Get rid of Look Out Sir! completely (the image of hulking Ork Warboss ducking and diving behind his Nob retinue, or even more ridiculous, said Nobz biting the bullet for their boss needs to go).
- Get rid of taking models from the front, and allow squad mates to 'pick up' specialist weaponry of fallen comrades.
- Challenges aren't great. They make Sergeant style characters useless. Challenges between IC's maybe.
- Get rid of fortifications as a FOC entry.
2014/01/12 23:48:32
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
That's a good point. Look Out Sir and Challenges need to go. The former is just ludicrous (and always results in super-silly things, like the pre-FAQ'ed Paladin Squads all diving in front of one another to be the biggest hero), and Challenges are terrible in a game where there are armies that have HQ's incapable of fighting in HTH with any real effectiveness (Tau and Guard spring to mind).
You can only shoot at melees involving two enemies (your opponent and an 'enemy' allied detachment) would work.
All missed shots against your target unit are rerolled as shots against another unit in the assault. (Even friendly.)
You treat the whole assault as a single unit, so if your guys are closest, you'll kill all of them first.
Any of these are acceptable to me. Something. Anything. Nothing chafes more than losing a game because the cutthroat, ruthless-to-a-fault Imperium refused to fire on an assault where twenty Ork boyz were locked with a single friendly model.
- Get rid of Look Out Sir! completely (the image of hulking Ork Warboss ducking and diving behind his Nob retinue, or even more ridiculous, said Nobz biting the bullet for their boss needs to go).
The nob doesn't dive in the way, the warboss grabs the nob and pulls him into the way. That seems totally plausible. (Also works for mindless units making LOS tests, like Plague Zombies, Necrons, Thousand Sons, etc.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/13 00:45:57
The rules I would like to see added/modified (not all of them are originally mine):
- After To-Wound rolls, defending player chooses who is hit and rolls armor/cover/invulnerable saves on a per-model basis.
- Look Out, Sir! is a 6+ only, and the intervening model is removed as a casualty with no chance of survival (similar to Death or Glory!). This would really only come up during Precision shots/attacks and keep it rare.
- Walkers ignore Unwieldy USR. This might let walkers actually hurt MC before it slams them to death.
- Move Through Cover counts as Assault Grenades on walkers/MCs. (Good call, Sephyr!)
- Penetration Table roll is lowered by the number of HP remaining after it removes one (minimum roll result of 1). Example: Turn 1, LRC is shot by a BL and a pen is scored. Player rolls a 5, +1 for AP2, -3 for remaining HP, equals a 3. LRC is Stunned.
- Charge distance: d6+3" (4"-9", average 6.5"). This keeps it random but not utterly fail. Because who really tries and makes a 10+" charge?
- Units may run and charge in the same turn. This charge is a disorderly charge (no +1 attack). Units may not run, shoot, and charge (so not OP for Eldar, even with Battle Focus).
- Units may charge after disembarking from vehicles or coming in from Reserves (Deep Strike and Outflank included) but the charge is a disorderly charge. Charging after disembarking from an Assault or Open Topped Vehicle is a normal charge, unless said vehicles came in from Reserves.
- Overwatch ignores True Line of Sight and cover saves. Current rules say if you Overwatch a unit charging from a forest, they get cover saves and you can't kill models you don't have Line of Sight on. Come on, the chargers are leaving cover to attack you. And with the other suggested rules, this would help keep things fair.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/13 13:27:28
3000+. 2000+.
"I have no enemies, only topographies of ignorance." - JC Denton (Deus Ex)
Allies take up FOC slots. Or, at the very least, if you use the same codex to ally with yourself it takes up your FOC slots.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
2014/01/13 06:49:00
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Farseer Pef wrote: - After To-Wound rolls, defending player chooses who is hit and rolls armor/cover/invulnerable saves on a per-model basis.
Ah yes, I forgot about casualty removal.
Owning player applies wounds to models of choice, but chosen only from those within range and Line of Sight.
Yeah, I really dislike the "take out the closest model" method. Sure it makes sense, but some players argue over it and it looks silly to have leader models always in the back. Just cut the crap out and play. Still would be cool with attacking player choosing which AP pool is dealt out first.
3000+. 2000+.
"I have no enemies, only topographies of ignorance." - JC Denton (Deus Ex)
Farseer Pef wrote: - Walkers ignore Unwieldy USR. This might let walkers actually hurt MC before it slams them to death.
This is already how it works.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/01/13 08:33:37
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Is there ANYTHING in the 6th ed 40k rules , that could not be replaced for something that does the same job in a simpler or more elegant way?
Because I can not think of anything!
Keep the cool game play at the same level , or increase it.But please write rules specifically for it,with much clarity and brevity as possible!
(Re hashing WHFB in space with a different set of poorly applied patches , and a different set of hideous balance issues each edition is getting a tad tiresome IMO.)
2859/01/13 10:40:47
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I do not know how, but either let melee-centric armies have a chance or remove the melee-centric armies. Don't keep them in inferior limbo like now.
This is my big problem with 6th.
I mean, say what you want about whether or not melee should exist at all in a futuristic game, however, if it does exist, and their are units that do melee, and nothing but melee, they need to be able to perform.
2014/01/13 18:39:03
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Lanrak wrote: Is there ANYTHING in the 6th ed 40k rules , that could not be replaced for something that does the same job in a simpler or more elegant way?
Because I can not think of anything!
Keep the cool game play at the same level , or increase it.But please write rules specifically for it,with much clarity and brevity as possible!
(Re hashing WHFB in space with a different set of poorly applied patches , and a different set of hideous balance issues each edition is getting a tad tiresome IMO.)
First you multiply, then you add, then you set statistics.
That's the only rule, as far as I can think of, that is concise and consequent throughout the rules. So far.
I really need to stay away from the 40K forums.
2014/01/13 18:55:59
Subject: If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's a good point. Look Out Sir and Challenges need to go. The former is just ludicrous (and always results in super-silly things, like the pre-FAQ'ed Paladin Squads all diving in front of one another to be the biggest hero), and Challenges are terrible in a game where there are armies that have HQ's incapable of fighting in HTH with any real effectiveness (Tau and Guard spring to mind).
That's exactly why challenges exist, though. In fact, it actually benefits the armies that have ineffective close quarters HQ units, because it ties up the guy that (usually) is going to kill the most units.
It's pretty dumb. I've utilized a command squad with my Librarian sporting the PFG to tie up a Daemon Prince for 8 rounds of assault. Champion took the first bout and lasted three rounds, apopthecary threw himself in the fray for another 3 rounds, and the Librarian only managed to last 2 but still. So, so, so stupid.
2014/01/13 19:23:51
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
Owning player applies wounds to models of choice, but chosen only from those within range and Line of Sight.
Yeah, it infuriates me to no end that a whole squad can be wiped out because one guy's elbow is sticking out from behind a bunker.
My super short list:
Remove all rolling for movement distances (except maybe Consolidation)
Run in movement phase so you don't move everything twice (and Battle Focus can die in a fire for all I care)
Light cover is a penalty to hit, heavy cover negates weapon AP Casualties like H.B.M.C. said, but Precision hits can stay for snipers and heroes
Charging out of stationary transports is allowed
Vehicles and MCs should be more similar; start by giving vehicles armour saves and making MCs accumulate debilitating damage
Redo flyers with different subtypes (Interceptor, Bomber, Gunship) so some are good at ground attack and some at dogfighting, not both
No pile in moves at every Initiative step, seriously, why are you moving things 10 times a turn
Redo scoring system and scenarios from scratch
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins.
2014/01/13 20:44:20
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
lord_blackfang wrote: Casualties like H.B.M.C. said, but Precision hits can stay for snipers and heroes
Ok yes, Precision hits should stay, but again, only in range and LOS. If you can't see something you shouldn't be able to kill it unless its an indirect fire weapon or something very specific (like a psychic power that carries through terrain, etc.).
lord_blackfang wrote: Light cover is a penalty to hit, heavy cover negates weapon AP
This is an area where I will disagree with everyone. It's a strange thing to say, but it needs to be said:
Cover saves have to stay.
Are cover saves artificial? Of course they are, but they are essentially vital to the flow of the game. 40K is a game where you spend a lot of time doing nothing but watching your opponent. In the world of IGOUGO there are multiple points in the game where you have no real interaction with the game outside of assault, so taking saving throws and removing casualties is about all you do.
Cover saves give the player more interaction and they give some sense of accomplishment – you are saving your guys, it’s something you do to stop your opponent’s attacks – rather than just sitting there and taking it. 2nd Ed 40K had To Hit modifiers for Light and Heavy Cover, and as everyone and his dog had a -1 Save Modifier (or better) there were some armies that spent the entire enemy shooting phase removing models (like Guard, or even ‘Nids) with no way of saving them at all. It was boring, and it meant during the parts of the game where you doing nothing you weren’t really contributing anything either. At that point you weren’t an active participant you were just a spectator that removed models.
Cover saves change that. They give you something to do, and as artificial as they are (so are AP values, while we’re on the subject) I feel they are necessary for the flow of the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/13 20:45:40
Add a mechanic for taking away overwatch within say 8" and with a chance of failure. Flash bang type grenades or something. Squad getting assaulted takes an initiative test, and if it fails, no overwatch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/14 12:31:45
2014/01/14 12:35:08
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
dadakkaest wrote: Add a mechanic for taking away overwatch within say 8" and with a chance of failure. Flash bang type grenades or something. Squad getting assaulted takes an initiative test, and if it fails, no overwatch.
Something like this, and the weapon skill table. A WS9 Unit should be able to his a WS2 unit on a 2+. Never understand why it's capped at 3.
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic
2014/01/14 12:44:13
Subject: Re:If you could write the 7th edition rulebook, what would you change?
dadakkaest wrote: Add a mechanic for taking away overwatch within say 8" and with a chance of failure. Flash bang type grenades or something. Squad getting assaulted takes an initiative test, and if it fails, no overwatch.
Something like this, and the weapon skill table. A WS9 Unit should be able to his a WS2 unit on a 2+. Never understand why it's capped at 3.
It should be a bit closer to the BS chart, where far higher allows for rerolls on attacks, and the enemy hitting on a 6+.
1400 (ish) - On the rebound!
1000 (ish) - Now on the backburner
3000+.
2000+.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
