Switch Theme:

If you could add one rule...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




What would it be?

Thinking simple changes, stuff that makes some sort of logic to change how the game works in a way that makes it make a bit more sense.

For me it would be to allow a vehicle squadron to embark a squad that will not fit into a single vehicle - e.g. a 20 man squad bringing a Rhino Squadron of two vehicles to carry them - then following squadron rules.

would see "if any disembark all must do so" as a single squad would have to be deployed or embarked fully, but makes larger squads a bit more mobile.


seems simple enough to bring in

pure wish listing, 40k moved to allow multiple units in one transport, this is sort of the other way around, one unit across multiple
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







"Anyone who brings Fury of the Ancients gets buried in the woods behind my house"

Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in nz
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





leopard wrote:
What would it be?

Thinking simple changes, stuff that makes some sort of logic to change how the game works in a way that makes it make a bit more sense.

For me it would be to allow a vehicle squadron to embark a squad that will not fit into a single vehicle - e.g. a 20 man squad bringing a Rhino Squadron of two vehicles to carry them - then following squadron rules.

would see "if any disembark all must do so" as a single squad would have to be deployed or embarked fully, but makes larger squads a bit more mobile.


seems simple enough to bring in

pure wish listing, 40k moved to allow multiple units in one transport, this is sort of the other way around, one unit across multiple


This was a rule at one point. I very rarely saw it played but I assume it got removed because it would be clunky if one transport got destroyed.

You could just add a caveat that the unit has to disembark if that happened though. I'd be all for it coming back
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Make tank damage more akin to 2nd Ed.

Not just being destroyed, but having your turret blasted off and squelching stuff it landed on. Track damage potentially causing the tank to slew to the left or the right.

   
Made in au
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





"Don't shake the sarcophagus."

A dreadnought who has taken a wound during this or the previous turn has a -1 penalty to BS and WS until their next turn.
   
Made in se
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Sweden

I think it would be good to scale Reaction allowance with game size.

30k: EC, AL, IW
Epic30k: IH, House Coldshroud, Legio Metalica, IW, Legio Interfector, AL
40k: EC CSM, Orks
DzC/DfC: UCM
WW2 Battlegroup/Bolt Action 6-15-28mm: German 41-44, Soviet 41-43, French 1940

Instagram @grimdarkgrimpast
 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 lord_blackfang wrote:
"Anyone who brings Fury of the Ancients gets buried in the woods behind my house"


Alternate take. Let dreadnoughts alone and fix up the overly price efficent contemptor.


In regards to vehicles and vehicle squadrons, give them the rule that contemptors have that they can split up.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




nice thoughts

yes reaction allowance not scaling is a symptom of a very common problem with GW games, and very notable in smaller ones where basically whatever charges will take a reaction, any important unit firing will take return fire

probably not that hard to do but needs thought so the "extra" reactions some units bring don't cause problems but well worth the effort

many other games manage multiple transports for a unit, and its invariably along the lines of "if anyone gets out, all get out", with maybe an exception for if a transport dies and everyone in it also dies the others can stay mounted

the bit about fury of the ancients seeing a trip to the woods is a decent idea, as is some sort of penalty for dreadnoughts taking damage (TBH I'd bring in the 40k degrading profile concept), or see a scaling so one Dread costs "x", a second is "x+10%", a third "x+20%" - indeed that across the board with an exception for troop choices (maybe allowing two before it scales or something)

or re-point the contemptor, of drop to a 3+/5++ save (maybe a 3+ in melee v a 2+ at range?)




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Make tank damage more akin to 2nd Ed.

Not just being destroyed, but having your turret blasted off and squelching stuff it landed on. Track damage potentially causing the tank to slew to the left or the right.



Never actually played 2nd, did play 1st with the similar stuff, plus the plastic targeting grid so larger vehicles we much easier to hit, slowed things down but by eck created a few memorable battles

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/20 10:28:14


 
   
Made in au
Fixture of Dakka





Melbourne

leopard wrote:
yes reaction allowance not scaling is a symptom of a very common problem with GW games, and very notable in smaller ones where basically whatever charges will take a reaction, any important unit firing will take return fire
Having played a few games now, i'm still not sure entirely sure where I stand on reactions. I'm not exactly sure the game needed them, but at the same time (and in the vein of progressing a system) they do add an interesting element to gameplay. I acknowledge that at smaller points levels they do seem oppressive sometimes, but i'm not really certain that i'd want to see the comparable amount of them on at 3k+
Part of me would like to see reactions removed and just added as basic rules, but at the same time I know that WOULD just bloat out the turn time as every squad does everything it possibly can to be at advantage.
I'd also kind of like to see reactions as either a hard limit of 1 each per game with maybe certain ways of getting an extra one (ie- warlord traits)

I don't know. I'm very internally confused on the matter.
I think I need to play some higher points games before I reach a final verdict on them.

What i'd really like though is to see overwatch return to it's former rule of every squad can use it once per-phase but you're firing snap shots. It was nice, not too over powered, but made you think about the potential risk of a charge.

My Blogs -
Hobby Blog
Terrain 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Snrub wrote:
leopard wrote:
yes reaction allowance not scaling is a symptom of a very common problem with GW games, and very notable in smaller ones where basically whatever charges will take a reaction, any important unit firing will take return fire
Having played a few games now, i'm still not sure entirely sure where I stand on reactions. I'm not exactly sure the game needed them, but at the same time (and in the vein of progressing a system) they do add an interesting element to gameplay. I acknowledge that at smaller points levels they do seem oppressive sometimes, but i'm not really certain that i'd want to see the comparable amount of them on at 3k+
Part of me would like to see reactions removed and just added as basic rules, but at the same time I know that WOULD just bloat out the turn time as every squad does everything it possibly can to be at advantage.
I'd also kind of like to see reactions as either a hard limit of 1 each per game with maybe certain ways of getting an extra one (ie- warlord traits)

I don't know. I'm very internally confused on the matter.
I think I need to play some higher points games before I reach a final verdict on them.

What i'd really like though is to see overwatch return to it's former rule of every squad can use it once per-phase but you're firing snap shots. It was nice, not too over powered, but made you think about the potential risk of a charge.


I'd take the current reactions as the base for 3,000 points and scale from there, you have three, with a limit of one per phase, then 2k-3k you get 2, 1k-2k you get 1 and below 1k you don't get any. then characters can bring in the extra ones, noting at below 1k many characters are not going to be cost effective.

then going up for every further full 1,000 points you get an extra one, with a max of two per phase (keeping the "hard limit" of 3 per phase from any source

I think they are good and allow for stuff like overwatch without every single charge facing it, provides a few more decision points
   
Made in se
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Sweden

Yeah, to clarify the idea of scaling Reaction Allowance, I believe the current Allowance is balanced for about 2500-3000p. So maybe a slight reduction for 1001-2000 and a reduction for <=1000p is what I thought. But people with insights into more games and factions would hopefully propose the amounts.

Dread fixing IMO does not need more rules complexity to be achieved, just an Errata which either ups their cost or nerfs some of their stat(s) slightly.

30k: EC, AL, IW
Epic30k: IH, House Coldshroud, Legio Metalica, IW, Legio Interfector, AL
40k: EC CSM, Orks
DzC/DfC: UCM
WW2 Battlegroup/Bolt Action 6-15-28mm: German 41-44, Soviet 41-43, French 1940

Instagram @grimdarkgrimpast
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




GW have I would say never been overly bothered with getting point values right, and each edition changes whats good to be whatever wasn't the previous one

if they were more competent they would be dangerous

thankfully for HH seems to be a lot fewer "min-max" type players
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Not exactly an "added rule", but restore the values for vehicle Obscured saves to 5++ standard and 4++ for the odd "you can only shoot the Facing that you aren't in" scenarios. Make Cover more relevant for vehicles.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not exactly an "added rule", but restore the values for vehicle Obscured saves to 5++ standard and 4++ for the odd "you can only shoot the Facing that you aren't in" scenarios. Make Cover more relevant for vehicles.


yes I have noted in the games I've had cover is of so little benefit its something I don't overly worry about, yeah ok if I can get the position I want and get cover thats good, but I'll take the position over a 6++ any day

like smoke launchers.. so I give up my shooting for a 6++? umm..

a 5++ though starts to be worth having (say 25%-75% obscured getting that) and maybe a 4++ for more than 75% cover - like literally only turret showing (and thus only turret able to fire)

though to be honest I'd rip out the entire terrain and cover system and replace it with the Lord of the Rings based system (the "in the way" test)
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

leopard wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Not exactly an "added rule", but restore the values for vehicle Obscured saves to 5++ standard and 4++ for the odd "you can only shoot the Facing that you aren't in" scenarios. Make Cover more relevant for vehicles.


yes I have noted in the games I've had cover is of so little benefit its something I don't overly worry about, yeah ok if I can get the position I want and get cover thats good, but I'll take the position over a 6++ any day

like smoke launchers.. so I give up my shooting for a 6++? umm..

a 5++ though starts to be worth having (say 25%-75% obscured getting that) and maybe a 4++ for more than 75% cover - like literally only turret showing (and thus only turret able to fire)

though to be honest I'd rip out the entire terrain and cover system and replace it with the Lord of the Rings based system (the "in the way" test)

Hmmm..... could you explain the LoTR system for myself and others who aren't aware of it? And how it could differintiate, say, infantry from Skirmish infantry and vehicles?
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




Some simple ones:

Give Krak missiles breaching (5+).

Get rid of the vehicle squadron rule, replace with the contemptor talon rule.

A unit can only make a single reaction per turn rather than per phase.

Only defensive weapons can fire overwatch.



Andover Wargaming Club, come check us out http://arbbl.com/wp/
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Bring back ramming with vehicles.

Something along the lines of Hammer of Wrath but using the distance 'charged' with your vehicle to add to the number of hits. Enemies can of course either try to brace to increase their save, or dodge out of the way, in which case they risk failing a leadership check and running.

Bonuses if you have a dozer blade.

I miss ramming with vehicles so much ;n;
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Hmmm..... could you explain the LoTR system for myself and others who aren't aware of it? And how it could differintiate, say, infantry from Skirmish infantry and vehicles?


Basically every discrete obstacle you shoot through gives a separate cover save (well, in LotR the attacker rolls to pierce each obstacle but it's the same thing just reversed)

It means you always have a chance to hit but all positioning advantages stack with each other and everything else so you don't get into this weird interaction with AP where a Marine in the open is exactly as vulnerable to a bolter than a Marine peeking through a gap between two 5 foot thick adamantium walls.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/20 23:45:36


Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in nl
Been Around the Block




drbored wrote:
Bring back ramming with vehicles.

Something along the lines of Hammer of Wrath but using the distance 'charged' with your vehicle to add to the number of hits. Enemies can of course either try to brace to increase their save, or dodge out of the way, in which case they risk failing a leadership check and running.

Bonuses if you have a dozer blade.

I miss ramming with vehicles so much ;n;


You may want to go to page 204 of the rulebook...

   
Made in se
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles





Sweden

Yeah Ramming is there, nothing stopping you.

Agree on cover, the mechanic of choosing cover or armour save is illogical and makes cover very unimportant vs most weapons unfortunately. I'd like to see it make more tactical sense to hug the terrain.

Most other good rulesets either modify to hit roll if the LOS is obscured, a la Bolt Action, or give you a save advantage regardless of armour save.

30k: EC, AL, IW
Epic30k: IH, House Coldshroud, Legio Metalica, IW, Legio Interfector, AL
40k: EC CSM, Orks
DzC/DfC: UCM
WW2 Battlegroup/Bolt Action 6-15-28mm: German 41-44, Soviet 41-43, French 1940

Instagram @grimdarkgrimpast
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




LotR system is actually pretty good, basically (as noted above its a sort of cover save) you have this

1. roll to hit, if you miss you miss (blast stuff would have to then scatter to see where it landed, and then follow the rest of this to see if it actually got there - stopped by blocking terrain at that point). if you hit carry on:

2. draw a virtual line between the shooting model and the target, starting at the shooting model work along that line and for any obstacle along it, roll an "in the way" test, if passed move the the next obstacle, if failed the shot hits whatever caused the test - note for terrain that usually doesn't matter but if its another unit you have now hit that unit instead

3. when you have either hit something else, or gotten to the target, resolve the hit against it.

the in the way test is IIRC a 3+ to be blocked by fortification and proper cover, a 4+ for things like other units and a 5+ for 'soft' cover

its slower but it makes a lot more sense, especially hitting intervening units.

given the weapons in 40k are more powerful I'd add a thing for if you hit a "thing" (say a wall) it modifies the attack strength, say a stone wall by -5 then the shot goes through.

e.g. a laser cannon marine fires at another marine behind that wall.

1. roll to hit as normal, no modifiers, 3+ to hit
2. assuming a hit roll to get past the wall, say a 4+, if you get past the marine takes a S9 hit as usual, if not the wall takes the S9 hit, and punches through with the marine taking a S4 hit. potentially a few such removing the wall

it only slows really if you have multiple things in the way, otherwise is basically a cover save where the value varies depending what was in the way and you can hit whatever was in the way.

they key benefits though:
- the 'to hit' roll is not modified so it works with a D6 system (I suspect this is why 40k went from hit modifiers to a cover save system in the first place)
- variable effect of cover (the current system could easily do this, but doesn't)
- multiple items of cover provide additional benefit, but through individual dice rolls not one modified roll
- weapons actually hit the thing you are hiding behind
- (with the bit on punching through a brick wall may stop small arms but not do a lot v artillery or anti tank rounds)
- your armour still matters


for blasts e.g. instead of the blast being focussed on the hapless marine or where it was aimed, its now centred on the front of the wall (unless it blasts through it)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
note the LotR mechanic doesn't specifically cover vehicles but it quite easily could do so, I would add something on needing to be at least 25% obscured to count, and unless more than 50% obscured stick a -1 on the in the way test (so more likely to hit the target)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/21 12:40:22


 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut




Berlin

I'd change line of sight.
For any area terrain like ruins, woods etc. the LOS can be traced into and out of, but never through.
So you may hide behind terrain. The cover save is a farce for many units, and tracing LOS through window, door, window makes shooting and especially long range weapons so much more decisive.

Yes, you can build special terrain to get the same result, but you could also build army lists to counter Fury of the Ancients.
But most people play with the terrain they have and that are commonly ruins.

As an aftertought:
Antigrav units should be able to move over models not only terrain. Skimmer and jetpacks can do so after all.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




we have a local house rule on terrain so its into/out of but not through for woods, ruins and similar

local shop has a lot of the old CoD ruins, most of which may as well not be there for the impact they have - one or two got modified to board up ground floor windows which helped - have seen that in even rules packs as well - all ground floor doors and windows block line of sight through the model but allow visibility to and from models within the ruin

and TBH if someone had an anti grav unit it would never occur to me it couldn't move over other models
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Sedona, Arizona

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/01/26 19:05:34


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.


ahh yes, rules that worked so well in the Cities of Death expansion, and made sense, so much so that the Errata for the book when 5th came out was to ignore that whole section and use the 5th edition lack of rules instead

*literally crying*
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Sedona, Arizona

leopard 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.


ahh yes, rules that worked so well in the Cities of Death expansion, and made sense, so much so that the Errata for the book when 5th came out was to ignore that whole section and use the 5th edition lack of rules instead

*literally crying*


Was 4th ed CoD the book with the cadians in ruins on the front, or the vostroyens fighting tau? Because I really enjoyed the Cadian book, but don’t remember the vostroyan one.

I meant BRB rules anyway.

   
Made in au
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





Vostroyans/tau. It was a very good book in general, although the missions and strategems needed some player-agreed changed to make them work with all the factions (tau and dark eldar not being able to win the building destruction mission due to lacking ordinance blast weapons for example)
   
Made in si
Foxy Wildborne







 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.

Posters on ignore list: 36

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

Radium wrote:
drbored wrote:
Bring back ramming with vehicles.

Something along the lines of Hammer of Wrath but using the distance 'charged' with your vehicle to add to the number of hits. Enemies can of course either try to brace to increase their save, or dodge out of the way, in which case they risk failing a leadership check and running.

Bonuses if you have a dozer blade.

I miss ramming with vehicles so much ;n;


You may want to go to page 204 of the rulebook...


Yup, had a rhino run over the remnants of a tac squad a couple games ago, it was glorious.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Love Ramming. Especially with my Sabres. And another vote for "4th edition LoS/terrain rules were the best".
   
 
Forum Index » The Horus Heresy
Go to: