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.

what do you guys think of the following:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

5th no tarpits/wrap and traps in melee. See 2nd proposal.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:


4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

This is a 2nd or 3rd edition rule wasn't it?

Kayback wrote:

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:


4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

This is a 2nd or 3rd edition rule wasn't it?

Nope, that level of dumbfethery came about in 6th/7th.

3rd ed simply was if an IC was within 6" of another unit they could not be shot.

1) Even if this were the default GW would likely just write stratagems/unit rules/etc... that make overcharged plasma safe for certain units.

2) Most units cant fall back and shoot. For those units with special rules allowing it, I assume GW would likely do the same sort of special rules. Knights for example, would be practically unplayable as a faction if infantry can stop all shooting attacks.

3) Maybe even all floors, not just 1st.

4) I like it

5) If rule 2 is present, sounds good.

6) I think we definitely need a 6's always hits rule

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

sounds good, this is what it should be!

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

are you saying that the unit which was disengaged from can only move toward the unit which ran away in their following turn? don't like that at all, you'll have flying units moving assault armies backwards. Also, instead of the shooting phase, what about falling back as an alternative to fighting in the fight phase? adds an actual downside to doing it, in that you don't get to swing if you do. allow units which are fled from to move forward and potentially engage new units - making holding the line an important thing to do if you're the last thing between the meganobs ad your artillery!
That way, falling back could lead to the enemy getting even closer and engaging even more units, which would be a bad decision - adding decisions to the game makes tactics relevant again!

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

Yes... but aren't knights physically taller than a building? might make some slightly wonky effects...

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

too much rolling, and too easily overwhelmed with massed shooting. A battlecannon getting 6 hits would almost guarantee mostly killing a character. I would instead keep characters untargetable, but only if they are within 3" of a unit of the same type as them. even if they are at the front. simple rule, easy to follow, makes a heap more sense than the current one.

5th no tarpits/wrap and traps in melee. See 2nd proposal.

this has always been part of the game, and is sensible. You can't politely ask the orks who just surrounded you to move aside because you don't really want to be in combat right now thank you very much. Vehicles should be able to tank shock again, and I'd love to see death or glory make a comeback. but terminators surrounded by gaunts shouldn't be able to walk away as if they weren't surrounded. being surrounded is bad - if you get surrounded, it should limit yr options somewhat.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

I agree with this one, making things impossible to hit is a naff mechanic Modifiers would have much more of a place if they did a comparison system instead of the fixed "to hit" rolls. then adding to BS or Evasion would have an effect sometimes and not others. Thus compounding to -4 to hit would intead be +4 to evasion, meaning most units are reduced to hitting on a 6+.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Kayback wrote:

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:


4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

This is a 2nd or 3rd edition rule wasn't it?

Nope, that level of dumbfethery came about in 6th/7th.

3rd ed simply was if an IC was within 6" of another unit they could not be shot.

Ah not as far back as I thought. Thanks.

Falling back should be a roll off and comparing LD, so that way we can make that one stat matter for once this edition.

I think the one thing I want is if a model is embarked in a transport then the transport and any other passengers should count as being in range of any aura abilities they have.

Then my Archon’s aura may actually be useful on something other than himself...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Falling back should be a roll off and comparing LD, so that way we can make that one stat matter for once this edition.

I'd prefer a roll off incorporating the units movement stats, that way faster units like jump infantry and bikes would be harder to get away from, like in the old trial assault rules from 3rd edition. You're trying to run away so how fast you can run and how fast the pursuing unit can run should matter.

As for plasma, I agree negative modifiers shouldn't affect whether or not they blow up, but positive modifiers should prevent it. If you buff a unit's ballistic skill somehow they should be better at shooting and therefore less likely to screw up and kill themselves with their own weapon.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Falling back should be a roll off and comparing LD, so that way we can make that one stat matter for once this edition.

I'd prefer a roll off incorporating the units movement stats, that way faster units like jump infantry and bikes would be harder to get away from, like in the old trial assault rules from 3rd edition. You're trying to run away so how fast you can run and how fast the pursuing unit can run should matter.

As for plasma, I agree negative modifiers shouldn't affect whether or not they blow up, but positive modifiers should prevent it. If you buff a unit's ballistic skill somehow they should be better at shooting and therefore less likely to screw up and kill themselves with their own weapon.

I agree with the idea of Falling Back not being infallible. Maybe find a way of merging it with the morale system, so the units falling back make a morale check to do so, with some form of modifiers, so they lose models when they try to fall back and do so badly. Maybe just a flat "roll 2D6, suffer 1 mortal wound for each point over the units morale, then the unit can move". Make vehicles immune to wounds, unless they are in combat with a monster or vehicle.
Or, Roll a D6 and add the difference between your Ld and the opponents Ld, losing models as per a morale check. (grots being Ld 4 would be a lot less likely to inflict wounds that way!)

Plasma shouldn't blow up less often because a unit is aiming well, it should always explode on a natural 1. The technology is still (ludicrously) unstable, whether the unit is aiming or not. An ork KMB is as likely to explode as a plasmagun fired by a BS2+ veteran, it's not due to their ability to aim - it's due to the weapon being unstable.

 some bloke wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Falling back should be a roll off and comparing LD, so that way we can make that one stat matter for once this edition.

I'd prefer a roll off incorporating the units movement stats, that way faster units like jump infantry and bikes would be harder to get away from, like in the old trial assault rules from 3rd edition. You're trying to run away so how fast you can run and how fast the pursuing unit can run should matter.

As for plasma, I agree negative modifiers shouldn't affect whether or not they blow up, but positive modifiers should prevent it. If you buff a unit's ballistic skill somehow they should be better at shooting and therefore less likely to screw up and kill themselves with their own weapon.

I agree with the idea of Falling Back not being infallible. Maybe find a way of merging it with the morale system, so the units falling back make a morale check to do so, with some form of modifiers, so they lose models when they try to fall back and do so badly. Maybe just a flat "roll 2D6, suffer 1 mortal wound for each point over the units morale, then the unit can move". Make vehicles immune to wounds, unless they are in combat with a monster or vehicle.
Or, Roll a D6 and add the difference between your Ld and the opponents Ld, losing models as per a morale check. (grots being Ld 4 would be a lot less likely to inflict wounds that way!)

Plasma shouldn't blow up less often because a unit is aiming well, it should always explode on a natural 1. The technology is still (ludicrously) unstable, whether the unit is aiming or not. An ork KMB is as likely to explode as a plasmagun fired by a BS2+ veteran, it's not due to their ability to aim - it's due to the weapon being unstable.

That's understandable if 1s to hit with plasma kill the user even if the 1 is rerolled as well, as rerolls signify superior accuracy gained from the leadership of a HQ. Do that and it would make sense. I could live with that.

Honestly any rule that benefits vehicles should also benefit monsters, as they are pretty much the same thing.

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

5th no tarpits/wrap and traps in melee. See 2nd proposal.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

Not highly.

1 is fine

2 is a total mess of wording that achieves very little, and doesn't fix the land-raider tripointing problem you described. There's much more elegant solutions out there.

3 is fine, since that's ITC's ruling, but is generally seen as a hotfix bandaid to cover the fact that structures that don't block line of sight and can't be garrisoned don't do anything if neither party are within the structure but it's between them.

4 is lookout sir, and is probably fine, but there's still issued of doing so for vehicles and the likes.

5 isn't a rule, it's an objective.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly any rule that benefits vehicles should also benefit monsters, as they are pretty much the same thing.

Vehicles and monsters shouldn't have been different in the first place.

There's no reason a Carnifex couldn't have a front-side-rear arc and weapons. Damage effects like "immobilized, stunned, or weapon destroyed" can also apply to a monster that got a arm or a leg blown off or it's brain case rattled by an explosion.

As usual it doesn’t have any central theory or organizing principle it’s just a list of fiddles

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
Honestly any rule that benefits vehicles should also benefit monsters, as they are pretty much the same thing.

Vehicles and monsters shouldn't have been different in the first place.

There's no reason a Carnifex couldn't have a front-side-rear arc and weapons. Damage effects like "immobilized, stunned, or weapon destroyed" can also apply to a monster that got a arm or a leg blown off or it's brain case rattled by an explosion.

There’s a good case that they’re different in at least two ways. Something like a wraith knight or a hive tyrant can reorient its posture constantly. At any moment it could be prone on the ground, it could twist at the hips but point its head and arm in again a different direction. A vehicle can’t do that. Vehicles armor is also structurally different. A tank, a sentinel or dread has armor that’s a pretty distinct structure from its engines, drives, weapons, etc. it’s like if you made arm holes in a refrigerator box and said it’s the same thing as a plate carrier. Conceivably you can destroy or make huge holes in vehicle armor without affecting the actual systems of the vehicle. Armor for creatures covers individual parts, can’t usually stand up on its own, and it’s more likely that making a hole in it also makes a big hole in whatever it’s covering.

Probably not worth representing in rules for most kinds of war game though

Xirax wrote:
3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

I would rather just do away TLOS entirely. Not like it adds much to the game, anyway, and in my experience, it is more trouble than worth. Return to the pre-TLOS rules like area terrains and be done with it.

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

5th no tarpits/wrap and traps in melee. See 2nd proposal.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

1.Sure, makes sense, assuming you mean any weapon that overheats, not just plasma.

2. I have no idea what you're trying to say here TBH. Something that makes fallback a bit more nuanced would be good in general. A Grot stopping a Land Raider shooting is pretty dumb but at the same time a unit just wandering out of close combat with very little penalty is also pretty stupid.

3. No. As the edition has gone on I've become less and less a fan of the ITC fix. It leads to far too binary a scenario and seeing entire armies clustered behind an L-shaped ruin to stay out of LoS gets old very quickly. I'd much rather see proper terrain and LoS rules. Get rid of TLoS and introduce something similar to Area Terrain rules instead.

4. Something to lessen character protection would be nice. Some kind of Look Out, Sir! roll as you've proposed is probably the best way to do it.

5. That's not a rule change.

6. Sounds like you need to bring back Universal Special Rules for that, which I agree with.

Xirax wrote:
what do you guys think of the following:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

5th no tarpits/wrap and traps in melee. See 2nd proposal.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

I think its great, especially the 2nd one elite melee in this edition dosent have a chance at all this is what 9th REALLY needs.

pelicaniforce wrote:

There’s a good case that they’re different in at least two ways. Something like a wraith knight or a hive tyrant can reorient its posture constantly. At any moment it could be prone on the ground, it could twist at the hips but point its head and arm in again a different direction. A vehicle can’t do that. Vehicles armor is also structurally different. A tank, a sentinel or dread has armor that’s a pretty distinct structure from its engines, drives, weapons, etc. it’s like if you made arm holes in a refrigerator box and said it’s the same thing as a plate carrier. Conceivably you can destroy or make huge holes in vehicle armor without affecting the actual systems of the vehicle. Armor for creatures covers individual parts, can’t usually stand up on its own, and it’s more likely that making a hole in it also makes a big hole in whatever it’s covering.

Probably not worth representing in rules for most kinds of war game though

Not quite. Making a big hole on a tank is likely going to kill off the fragile human crew or at least mission kill the tank, while the super-organic-tech monster in 40k will keep coming at you even if missing pieces. This is because tank armor is limited to its "skin", it is all in the surface while a monster can have it's internal structure engineered for redundancy and/or secondary internal armor.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Vehicles and monsters shouldn't have been different in the first place.

There's no reason a Carnifex couldn't have a front-side-rear arc and weapons. Damage effects like "immobilized, stunned, or weapon destroyed" can also apply to a monster that got a arm or a leg blown off or it's brain case rattled by an explosion.

The only issue is that front-side-rear arc sucks with anything that isn't a metal box and measuring angles slows the game a lot.

Xirax wrote:

1st plasma overheats on an natural roll of 1.

Sure. Fixes the weirdness of camouflage making your gun explode more often.

2nd falling back happens in the end of shooting phase. You can only move towards to disengaged unit in the following movement phase, but can declare charges to whom ever within range. exception titanic models who can roam freely, maybe same for vehicles. It's so stupid that a land raider can't function if there os three grotts tripointing it.

Not sure what you're saying or going for here. Moving Fall Back to happen after shooting can work well (Fly units could maybe be allowed to fall back at the start of shooting instead). Being forced to move towards the guys that disengaged from you feels clunky and prone to abuse. If the goal is to avoid tri-pointing, I'd just let units fall back through enemy models so long as they don't end their movement within 1" of them.

Now, removing tripointing is problematic unless you do something to keep the melee unit from getting shot up (like moving fallback to happen after shooting). You could probably get away with letting vehicles fall back through enemy non-monster and non-vehicle models even if you didn't make any other changes though.

3rd 1st floor ruins/buildings deny LoS.

Nah. The ITC "boarded up windows" thing, to my understanding, was originally just a way to add BLOS to tournaments that didn't have easy access to terrain that actually blocked line of sight. At this point, we can probably just start creating terrain that actually blocks line of sight. Alternatively, they could rework cover more significantly and do something else entirely. Having first floor ruins block line of sight is a weird bandaid that we've all just kind of gotten used to.

4th Apply a bodyguard rule to all infantry etc and make em take a bullet for characters on a roll of 2+ if within 3" of a character instead of 8th ed. character rule.

This would result in a ton of extra dice rolling, would make units look weird as every character suddenly has a blob of ablative wounds dog piling them, and would probably make it very difficult to keep characters alive despite those weird piles of meatshields. I don't see my farseer or chaos lord living very long with that rule in place.

6th you can only stack max 2 same buff, like -1 to hit on an same unit. And you always hit on natural roll of 6s.

Always hitting (and wounding) on 6s is a good rule. I don't think I'm a fan of the "no stacking beyond two buffs" part though. First, that's kind of a hard rule to write down if you want it to apply to all types of buffs and debuffs in the game. And second, I can't think of a lot of stacking modifier buffs that are actually all that problematic in the game right now. I suspect that you're specifically thinking of craftworlders with stacking to-hit debuffs. If so, I'd argue the problem there isn't that there are a bunch of to-hit penalties but that the Alaitoc Fieldcraft trait is too good/accessible.