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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
4th edition terrain rules, literally the only time GW got that sort of thing right. Prepared positions being a 5++, with ruins and craters only being a 6++, it’s truly bizarre.

If we go with literally one single rule, than I echo the “can draw Los into and out of area terrain / structures, but not THROUGH them.

Yep that was the most functional the game has ever been.

makes you wonder how messed up a games developer has to be to go from that.. to what we have now

"ok show me on the doll where a cover system that worked.. well you know.."

in/out, not through, how most sane games treat cover...

I mean how is it with infantry "ok squad A is in a wood, they are a bit harder to hit, so we will shoot at Squad B, behind them, out the other side of the wood, no probs they are standing right out in the open"... I'd suggest "do GW even play this game but then it seems reasonably well known they don't exactly play the same game they publish but a more "nah thats silly, we won't do that even though the rules say we can" version of it




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Love Ramming. Especially with my Sabres. And another vote for "4th edition LoS/terrain rules were the best".

if there is anything that screams about the universe of 30k/40k its the 'ramming' and 'death or glory last stand' to counter it stuff

Remove the random charge distances. I hate this rule in every game that has it. Nothing is more frustrating than when your assault based army does nothing for the entire game because you repeatedly fail to roll high enough to charge a unit you literally could have run into if the game allowed that.

ray648 wrote:
Remove the random charge distances. I hate this rule in every game that has it. Nothing is more frustrating than when your assault based army does nothing for the entire game because you repeatedly fail to roll high enough to charge a unit you literally could have run into if the game allowed that.

they need to do something, I like some random element to it, but 2d6 and thats your lot is too much variation. M+1d6, or M+(highest of 2d6) for more assault oriented units. gives you a decent threat range. in effect you get some level of risk, but also some way to manage it (e.g. for M7 infantry getting to within 8").

gives a bit of representation that the ground is not totally solid or whatever, the 2d6 roll thing is to me just lazy design and "Mx2" leads to silly positioning games trying to get a fraction of an inch too far.

I do like how the 2d6 gets some modifiers for faster and slower units but feel there are better ways to do it, as noted with assault focused units you are generally paying a fair few points for a unit that may only get into one, maybe two combats in a game anyway and failing a 5" charge basically sucks

I agree with the earlier suggestion that overwatch is way too op, and handicaps melee-focused armies too much.

One thing that I would like to change is to allow units to charge enemy units that they did not fire at. The current system of forcing you to charge what you shot at feels too restrictive and robotic.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
I agree with the earlier suggestion that overwatch is way too op, and handicaps melee-focused armies too much.

One thing that I would like to change is to allow units to charge enemy units that they did not fire at. The current system of forcing you to charge what you shot at feels too restrictive and robotic.

that or provide some other benefit to shooting prior to assault - like maybe you can reduce the level of overwatch fire by making the enemy put their heads down - its not "pinning" as such, no impact on the combat, just dilutes overwatch - and allow other units to provide supressing fire maybe, not totally effective but something.

then you can lift the restriction easily as its then a player choice, fire elsewhere or fire at the melee target take/don't take that benefit - heck maybe something that better quality troops can do?

At that point is it not just reactions causing reactions though?
Your opponent is getting one Overwatch per turn and unless you keep charging units into stuff that absolutely will kill them with said Overwatch, it doesn't seem that big of an issue IMO.

I'm absolutely against making CC troops better. Right now the Deathstar is a valid option, but probably not the best.

Reducing overwatch will shift the balance, the same with shooting at targets different from the one you will charge.
To be true I find the latter to be one of the better rules. You just don't shoot in a different direction than you charge. The charged unit will mow you down while you concentrate on shooting at someone else.
I also applaud the rule that normally all weapons of a unit have to be fired at the same target. This takes the sting out of Shootingstar (shooty equivalent to a Deathstar).
I find nothing more annoying than single units taking out all others.

There are already so many ways to reduce the amount of overwatch, if you care to do so. You can have secondary units to charge first. You can have additional units firing at the charge target, you can use a librarian to take away reactions or pin them, or pin them in any other way.

A 10 man unit of CC specialist charging 10 Lascannons, will kill the Lascannons anyway regardless of overwatch. The may loose 5 models, but will still have 25 Attacks hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s or 3s and no save, so what.

And if you think overwatch will kill you, charge something different. Obviously you did choose the wrong unit or target for the job.

What about non-deathstar melee units though?

Not much good if deathstar melee is viable if that's only way to have viable melee...

It's always the same.
You decide which units you play.
I love to play fast and shooty units. I usually take a unit of Assault Troops in addition, sometimes I take a Delegatus with Commando Troop instead.
My Assault Troop will not charge anything tougher than a Tactical Squad. Delegatus and Retinue will not charge anything that might kill them in overwatch or close combat. I might prepare the target with other troops to better my odds. That's what they call tactics. It's about selecting the right troops and methods to get the job done, it's not about changing the rules so that units I have can do what I want them to do.
One of my regular opponents plays BA with lots of Jump Packs and units capable of pinning, no Deathstar so.
Our games are usually close. After some games he learned that to charge ahead is not the way to win. And to keep those units preferably out of sight til needed - which is often possible, because we play LOS in/out/not-through.
In the last game we had Delgatus and 4 remaining commando trooper facing 8 remaining Lascannons, For 4 player turns they were just facing each other and preventing the other to claim an objective. I didn't dare to shoot, because he could use his advanced reaction to charge me and have a shroud when doing so and he wouldn't charge me, because I would most likely kill him in overwatch. The stalemate was broken by bringing in other units,
He also uses a Librarian to great effect to prepare important charges.

"If your army contains any unpainted models or models with an incorrect faction scheme you can never achieve more than a draw regardless of points scored."

Painted models make the game better for everyone and as a nice bonus it keeps out the meta chasers.

ray648 wrote:
Remove the random charge distances. I hate this rule in every game that has it. Nothing is more frustrating than when your assault based army does nothing for the entire game because you repeatedly fail to roll high enough to charge a unit you literally could have run into if the game allowed that.

Be careful what you wish for. Going back to flat 6" charge distances in a game that allows measuring at any time (and we are NOT going back to the bad old days of "how to cheat and measure anyway" being a skill) makes it a lot easier for ranged units to kite melee units. Instead of having to weigh the risk vs. reward of how deep they want to go into the melee unit's possible threat range the shooting unit knows exactly how far the melee threat can charge and can stay exactly 0.0000001" outside that range with complete immunity. As some who mostly plays shooting armies I would absolutely love it if melee was nerfed back to a flat distance instead of 2D6".

I actually proposed a rule, called Total Defense.
I later updated it with a proposed unit. The updated version is below:



I wouldn't want it as a universal rule, but on some defensive characters or units, it'd be cool.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
"If your army contains any unpainted models or models with an incorrect faction scheme you can never achieve more than a draw regardless of points scored."

Painted models make the game better for everyone and as a nice bonus it keeps out the meta chasers.

Incorrect scheme? Look, I get you have a hate-on for unpainted minis, but who gets to decide what's incorrect?

Is a Raven Guard model, painted in woodland camo, incorrect?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is a Raven Guard model, painted in woodland camo, incorrect?

Nope, that's thematically appropriate (assuming correct iconography, a thematic stealth unit/army, etc). An Ultramarines model with Ultramarines iconography being used as "Raven Guard" because Raven Guard have stronger rules is not.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Is a Raven Guard model, painted in woodland camo, incorrect?

Nope, that's thematically appropriate (assuming correct iconography, a thematic stealth unit/army, etc). An Ultramarines model with Ultramarines iconography being used as "Raven Guard" because Raven Guard have stronger rules is not.

What about Alpha Legion wearing ultramarine colours pretending to be Raven Guard in order to work alongside Imperial Fists who think they are actually Blood Angels?

I guess, more to the point, would such a rule actually improve the game?

It doesn't stop anyone from playing the game, and would be easily ignored for casual games with friends.
It would matter for a tournament... But they usually HAVE painting requirements anyway. So the actual change is "You can play in a tournament, you just can't win with unpainted minis," instead of "You can't play at all."

It also encourages FAST painting, rather than good painting-got 99 models Golden Demon level, and one model that's only primed? Can't win.
Got 100 models that are painted like trash, but completely and accurately painted? You can win.

leopard wrote:
What about Alpha Legion wearing ultramarine colours pretending to be Raven Guard in order to work alongside Imperial Fists who think they are actually Blood Angels?

No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I guess, more to the point, would such a rule actually improve the game?

Yes, because it sets the expectation that painting is mandatory and you are expected to pick a legion and stick to it, not change on a whim to improve your dice math a bit. Obviously people can ignore it but the more we set the expectation that painting is mandatory the better. And formal events would of course have even stricter painting requirements.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I guess, more to the point, would such a rule actually improve the game?

Yes, because it sets the expectation that painting is mandatory and you are expected to pick a legion and stick to it, not change on a whim to improve your dice math a bit. Obviously people can ignore it but the more we set the expectation that painting is mandatory the better. And formal events would of course have even stricter painting requirements.

Painting isn't mandatory.
If it's mandatory for you, that's fine. Only ever field painted minis, and turn down games against anyone who doesn't do the same. But your standards are not everyone's.

Edit: And again, it doesn't encourage GOOD painting. Only fast painting.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Painting isn't mandatory.

You know you're posting in a topic titled "if you could add one rule...", right? I'm not sure why you think it's relevant to point out that the rule I want does not currently exist?

Edit: And again, it doesn't encourage GOOD painting. Only fast painting.

Only if you define "painted" as "technically has paint on the model" instead of the battle-ready standard. And let's be honest here, most unpainted models and armies aren't unpainted because the owner is a skilled painter who is actively working through the project without compromising quality just to "complete" it a bit faster, they're unpainted because the owner refuses to paint at all and has an endless list of reasons for why they shouldn't have to. Most of the high-quality painters aren't even able to put unpainted models on the table because good painting usually requires painting before final assembly and there is no complete model until it is fully painted.

Allow me to rephrase, then:

Warhammer, of any variety, and other wargames are games. You play them for fun, barring the tiny minority who can make a living from it. If you only have fun with painted minis on both sides, then only play that way.
But that's not a universal. There's plenty of people who don't care about the painted status of the minis. There's people who don't enjoy painting, such as myself. If you were to turn down a game with me because my minis aren't painted, that's fine (provided you're not a jerk about it). But there's a good chunk of people who simply don't care, and we can have fun our way.

If you have your own gaming club, tournament, event, whatever, feel free to impose painting standards! But you don't get to claim some moral high ground on painting, because it's not a neccessity.

By the Dark Gods, can we not have this whole "painting argument" for the umpteenth time? And derail another thread with it?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
By the Dark Gods, can we not have this whole "painting argument" for the umpteenth time? And derail another thread with it?

There's passion behind this talk.

But yeah, to avoid a derail, I'll make another thread.

Apologies.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
By the Dark Gods, can we not have this whole "painting argument" for the umpteenth time? And derail another thread with it?

There's passion behind this talk.

But yeah, to avoid a derail, I'll make another thread.

Apologies.

Much appreciated JNA. And no apologies needed.

Ahh yes ramming, I still remember when you could ram other flyers with the Caestus Assault Ram.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. Going back to flat 6" charge distances in a game that allows measuring at any time (and we are NOT going back to the bad old days of "how to cheat and measure anyway" being a skill) makes it a lot easier for ranged units to kite melee units. Instead of having to weigh the risk vs. reward of how deep they want to go into the melee unit's possible threat range the shooting unit knows exactly how far the melee threat can charge and can stay exactly 0.0000001" outside that range with complete immunity. As some who mostly plays shooting armies I would absolutely love it if melee was nerfed back to a flat distance instead of 2D6".

That sounds great. Make the outcome depend on players movement decisions instead of a single 2d6 roll. It works just fine for all the non gw games.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
"If your army contains any unpainted models or models with an incorrect faction scheme you can never achieve more than a draw regardless of points scored."

My stuff is all painted to a good standard... but is a total homebrew colour scheme free from any symbols/insignia/etc, because I haven't decided on one yet.

So because I enjoy the game, but want to paint my toy soldiers in a colour scheme of my own creation, I should be handicapped to getting a draw at best?

the best bit about a total homebrew is the flexibility from it, if it looks good anyone objecting, especially if their objections are only raised as you are beating them..

draw your own conclusions

stuff thats confusing is a different matter, but generally there is a reason, comes down to talking to people and being will to compromise on both sides and its a non-issue

Pointless Gate Keeping: Aecus Decimus automatically loses the game. Upon losing the game Aecus Decimus’s opponents must smash 1D6 of Aecemus Decimus’s units with a hammer.

More seriously I’d suggest either letting vehicles return fire with all weapons or limit return fire only to weapons S6 or less. It makes no sense that a marine carrying a lascannon can shoot back but somehow that’s beyond the ability of a tank