|
For better or worse (as this will likely all fall apart) - go use this poll to nominate for the committee, which I will help organize and then recuse myself from, to maintain some semblence of fairness. http://goo.gl/NKkrAA And if this all goes tits up, so be it. But its worth a shot. We will need at least 5 goons familiar with multiple codices, as well as multiple editions and other games. Think of who you know thats been around the longest, is a good player, knows the fluff and any other relevent and important qualifier for someone helping determine a concise set of balanced "House Rules" - and remember, they may not want to take part...
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Can I vote for Noctis?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of some idealised pan-forum Council of the Spergers to produce a workable, streamlined, fun revision for 40k. Even less so that it would gain any sort of acceptance within the community. Furthermore I think it is, frankly, stupid to be proposing it as a reaction to a new set of rules that has been available for all of five days.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm sorry, but I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of some idealised pan-forum Council of the Spergers to produce a workable, streamlined, fun revision for 40k. Even less so that it would gain any sort of acceptance within the community. Ok, cool.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm sorry, but I have absolutely zero faith in the ability of some idealised pan-forum Council of the Spergers to produce a workable, streamlined, fun revision for 40k. Even less so that it would gain any sort of acceptance within the community. Most of seventh edition has been out for years, it was just called "sixth edition".  e: Also, fair to say, I'm already working on a ruleset for lapsed local players who look at seventh edition and just laaaaaaugh because they remember the last time the game was like it is now. This is just for local people who own models and want to use them more, so I'll write more, get some games in and get back to people about it if they're interested. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
I dunno about the committee thing, but I do know I'm not reacting to one edition. I'm reacting to 40k's publishing history, and the lack of improvement in recent editions. 7th just being 6.1 is only one element of the greater suckitude.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
For me, 6th was pretty drat good until they went mental with supplements and data slates and all that stuff. All it really needed was sorting assault and it would have been fantastic.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Yeah I feel the same. Apart from assault being wonky, it was by far and away the best edition they've released.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
While I'll be watching with interest to see what comes out of this, I can't help but be pessimistic as to its chances of actually getting adopted. That's the existing problem with just having houserules, or for that matter switching to a (relatively) less-played game like Kings of War or something: at the end of the day, you want to be able to get a pickup game or quickly play with new people at the club, and having something that nobody's really heard of is a pretty big barrier in the way of that. I think that trying to keep the changes as limited as possible, so that it really is just sort of a playtested, standardized houserule set (oxymoron alert), is a better approach than trying to reinvent the game. If it can get some "brand awareness" on the internet, so to speak, you can get people to try it the same way Magic players tried 5-Color or EDH, and it's a lot easier to sell people on it when it's still the base game they're familiar with, just with different rules for running and assaulting and maybe some non-retarded points costs. Basically this: Tuxedo Jack posted:If its a new game, yes. If we're house ruling 40k, and its free, then we can use their USRs and just say "X is no longer applicable, Unit Y gets Z" And here's another thing: have the goal be to make it usable with a 6E rulebook. This will help immensely in making it a way to play 40K if you're pissed off at GW. If you want to bring in ideas from 7E like fortification hull points or the psychic phase, figure out some way to write them into the house rules that won't get you C&Ded. Also yeah 6E was pretty cool in most regards and 7E seems like it would have been cool too if it were a free update or available as a $10 cheat sheet. Which is basically the idea behind this as I understand it, that you can put a relatively minor patch on 6/7E and have a good game.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Are the missions in there any good? Depends on what you mean by "good". Are they fun? I think so. Some more than others. There are a few I don't care for. Are they perfectly balanced? Some yes, some no.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:For me, 6th was pretty drat good until they went mental with supplements and data slates and all that stuff. All it really needed was sorting assault and it would have been fantastic. I'm pretty sure I made this same post a month and a half ago god dang.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
xtothez posted:Anyone doing this needs to read through the Epic: Armageddon rules first. That's a great example of tight design that gradually scales up in complexity to larger games. The game was intended for competitive play, so the emphasis is more on what you do rather than what units you pick. That way everything has a role. This. E:A is a super tight set of rules that works really well for what it is, and 40k as a whole could learn a lot from it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
My non-forums member buddy hasn't piked up the 7e books yet and was asking about ways to defend against psykers as Dark Eldar. I told him that I didn't know much about DE, besides some of their basic builds, so I'd ask the forums. I basically said to take allies that are, themselves psykers, like Farseers and whatnot, but he only has DE, surprisingly as his first army (And even more surprisingly, is quite decent with them). Any tips?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
RE: DE. The Crucible Of Malediction hasn't been very good since 3rd Edition when it was scary as heck. However, now that netlist psychic defense may be swinging toward, "Take poo poo tons of psykers," the Crucible has an exceptional chance to do at least some damage. Other than that ... you can always ignore the psychic phase by taking no psykers and buying more things that shoot or stab them. That stupid voodoo doll is merely a toy to reroll who gets to pick the deployment zone, right? Lungboy posted:Can I vote for ***? There are two or three posters in this thread whom I like very much who are in the middle of total meltdowns, now you post this. Please, don't mention that name! / 
Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 21:55 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Dump_Stat posted:My non-forums member buddy hasn't piked up the 7e books yet and was asking about ways to defend against psykers as Dark Eldar. I told him that I didn't know much about DE, besides some of their basic builds, so I'd ask the forums. There's not much, but Lady Malys and her unit are immune to psychic powers, and I suppose shadowseers are ML1, so they should add to his DtW dice. Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Yeah I feel the same. Apart from assault being wonky, it was by far and away the best edition they've released. This is how I felt as well.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for the tips.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Can I vote for Noctis? Only if I can vote for that guy that use to come up with 40k rule sets for Power Rangers and the Incredible Hulk.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I can't believe people are actually getting mad about other people talking about writing house rules to play 40k. Edit: Can't we all just chill out a bit and enjoy talking about plastic spacemen together? 7th edition is tearing this family apart! 
Moola fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Fumble posted:Only if I can vote for that guy that use to come up with 40k rule sets for Power Rangers and the Incredible Hulk. Lmao what was his name? He posted a thread doing the same poo poo in GBS(1.0) and I think he eventually got banned because of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Sure, and it'll be a good idea when they do that. It's too bad they didn't come packed in with the $230 munitorum edition though! $340, and worth every penny.  My least favorite thing about 7th so far is that the new missions are based around having six objectives, and I only made five of my stupid Deep Strike Mishaps. The bullshit about drawing multiple cards for the same objective, that you can very well already be parked on top of, is second. The objectives might be better if they were drawn at the beginning of, and toted up at the end of, game turns instead of player turns, or if the same set of objectives was shared between players - just something that gives the other player a chance to keep me from scoring a point for something I've already done. I do like that "blindly run forward into no-man's land" isn't the default strategy now, though I was two turns into my first game of 7th before I realized there was no particular point preemptively running to objectives. I definitely need to get some bikes assembled or something, the lack of mobility is a much bigger part of the game now. Which owns.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I think that trying to keep the changes as limited as possible, so that it really is just sort of a playtested, standardized houserule set (oxymoron alert), is a better approach than trying to reinvent the game. If it can get some "brand awareness" on the internet, so to speak, you can get people to try it the same way Magic players tried 5-Color or EDH, and it's a lot easier to sell people on it when it's still the base game they're familiar with, just with different rules for running and assaulting and maybe some non-retarded points costs. I'd second this. Don't start all over from the ground up, just fix the egregious problems and make it a set of easily applied house rules that makes the game faster and more enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:For me, 6th was pretty drat good until they went mental with supplements and data slates and all that stuff. All it really needed was sorting assault and it would have been fantastic. I dunno, that harks back to the days of White Dwarf including rules, and although it's both less wallet friendly (because GW overcharges like hell for ebooks) and more player friendly (because they're always available online), it's a good thing that they're willing to do variant armies/smaller allies lists. That they seem to overfocus on Imperium is dumb but that's par for the course, really.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Epic: Armageddon is an amazing ruleset and the community that's been keeping it alive and updated has done a fantastic job. It, BFG and Blood Bowl have (or had) great fan support that evolved the rules rather than re-wrote them. Anyone remember the leaked 6th (or was it 5th? gently caress I'm getting old) edition stuff that turned out to be completely fake, but everyone was excited about? I want something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I'd second this. Don't start all over from the ground up, just fix the egregious problems and make it a set of easily applied house rules that makes the game faster and more enjoyable. This is what my group is doing, it works fine. Here's an example of what we did to psychic powers: 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
spacegoat posted:Epic: Armageddon is an amazing ruleset and the community that's been keeping it alive and updated has done a fantastic job. It, BFG and Blood Bowl have (or had) great fan support that evolved the rules rather than re-wrote them. Anyone remember the leaked 6th (or was it 5th? gently caress I'm getting old) edition stuff that turned out to be completely fake, but everyone was excited about? I want something like that. If you want that as a starting point, I still have a copy of it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
spacegoat posted:Epic: Armageddon is an amazing ruleset and the community that's been keeping it alive and updated has done a fantastic job. It, BFG and Blood Bowl have (or had) great fan support that evolved the rules rather than re-wrote them. Anyone remember the leaked 6th (or was it 5th? gently caress I'm getting old) edition stuff that turned out to be completely fake, but everyone was excited about? I want something like that. Epic: Armageddon is a ruleset that makes sense for its scale. 40k is basically a 15mm game played with 28mm miniatures, so the rules are pared down to a level where there isn't much to do tactically. 2nd edition had a better-unified rule/scale structure, and I would probably actually enjoy a reworked 2nd edition.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Moola posted:This is what my group is doing, it works fine. So you can't Focus powers that are Warp Charge 1?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Assuming this House Rule Edition goes somewhere - what are the top priorities for fixing? Allied Matrix - Space Wolves and GK do not like each other, etc. Allies & FOC Limitations & balancing Mission Cards - limiting random outcomes by removing cards or changing draw/decks available - truly forge a narrative versus "Simon Says" Eternal War Mission Inclusion Assault - limit randomization while allowing failure Psychic Abuse - preventing abuse without nerfing altogether Psychic Focus - Picking & Purchasing Psychic Powers Tyranid/Ork Psyker fix Tau/Necron Denial fix Knight/Super Heavy inclusion & Balancing (D Weapons?) edit: This is NOT a ground up game, this is fixing 7th for a wider audience. Tuxedo Jack fucked around with this message at 23:07 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
perhaps some sort of comp system to discourage people from bringing overpowered units
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:So you can't Focus powers that are Warp Charge 1? I'm guessing they meant equal or lesser. Also, it reads as though you give up all your rolls, even if you have 3 or more rolls, for one focused power. That seems a bit bad or at least a disincentive to take higher mastery levels; I'd prefer a clarification/modification to where you can trade rolls for focus at a 2:1 ratio and then take any rolls you haven't "spent" in this fashion. Just saying, not trying to poo poo on what Moola posted. I think it's a fine experiment! Tuxedo Jack posted:Assuming this House Rule Edition goes somewhere - what are the top priorities for fixing? I think that the mandate w/r/t assault should be broader than that. Basically, just buff assault to where it's an option on par with shooting/artillery. Maybe the way to do that is by reducing randomization; maybe it's by nerfing Overwatch a little, maybe it's by allowing assault from outflank/deepstrike. Also, I can't stress enough that I feel these houserules should explicitly be intended to be playable with 6E as well as 7E. A significant portion of your "target audience," so to speak, will be people who do not want to buy the 7E rulebook, at least in its current form, in the first place. Since 6E and 7E are so similar it should be eminently doable to make this a patch that works with either one.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I think that the mandate w/r/t assault should be broader than that. Basically, just buff assault to where it's an option on par with shooting/artillery. Maybe the way to do that is by reducing randomization; maybe it's by nerfing Overwatch a little, maybe it's by allowing assault from outflank/deepstrike. 6E and 7E are virtually indistinguishable, aside from the stuff we're fixing, so, as far as I'm concerned, this will be modular enough to be compatible with both... But it'll boil down to whoever ends up in charge, I'm just trying to get a task list going and organize a field for the committee to work on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Well, it's not Epic, but Panzer Corps:40k Edition sounds like a game worth trying.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
How bad would it be to let people consolidate into combat, but it doesn't count as charging and it's not rolled or resolved until the next turn? Or else you just grant cover saves to units that have just finished combat, abstracted as there still being survivors or people running away that impede the line of fire or make friendlies reluctant to shoot.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:So you can't Focus powers that are Warp Charge 1? You can focus a WC 1 power, but that drops you down to ML 1. Added that in there so you can't take loads of really cheap ML1 Psykers and just focus all the poo poo you want. They gotta be ML2 to even have the ability to focus. JerryLee posted:I'm guessing they meant equal or lesser. Also, it reads as though you give up all your rolls, even if you have 3 or more rolls, for one focused power. That seems a bit bad or at least a disincentive to take higher mastery levels; I'd prefer a clarification/modification to where you can trade rolls for focus at a 2:1 ratio and then take any rolls you haven't "spent" in this fashion. Yeah this is it. The intent is to let you pick a power you really want at a price, but if you want to take advantage of having more MLs then you gotta roll random dawg! Also it's cool don't mind criticism.  Might try that idea you posted, we just wanted something a bit more restrictive than 'pick whatever you want'.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Magni posted:Well, it's not Epic, but Panzer Corps:40k Edition sounds like a game worth trying.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
If I were going to shake up 6th Edition Psychic Power generation but wanted to prioritize GW's apparent design goal of preventing players from cherry-picking their favorites, I'd consider giving psykers all of the powers in a single discipline, but making all non-Primaris powers one use only. Maybe with some kind of recharge mechanic. I haven't tried this out, though, and I'm sure there are specific characters or relics that would screw with it. Also I'm sure some people really like taking powers from multiple disciplines (maybe for purely fluff reasons) and I wouldn't want to completely shut that down.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:If I were going to shake up 6th Edition Psychic Power generation but wanted to prioritize GW's apparent design goal of preventing players from cherry-picking their favorites, I'd consider giving psykers all of the powers in a single discipline, but making all non-Primaris powers one use only. Maybe with some kind of recharge mechanic. I haven't tried this out, though, and I'm sure there are specific characters or relics that would screw with it. Also I'm sure some people really like taking powers from multiple disciplines (maybe for purely fluff reasons) and I wouldn't want to completely shut that down. This could possibly work but you'd also want to rewrite the disciplines so that they all had six good powers (or the same number of good powers, at least). Otherwise you make a discipline with 2-3 good powers really lovely compared to one with 5-6.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:Panzer Corp is a fantastic game (especially if you enjoy the old Panzer General series) which I have a ton of hours logged into. Should be a solid little game when it comes out - and knowing that company's model, if it sells well, we can expect buckets of DLC for it down the line. (There's like eighty bucks of DLC for Panzer Corp alone.) I'm def grabbing this motherfucker on release. Good setting as well!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
If you make assault easier to get into, you need to make it less deadly/one-sided. For all everyone's bitching, they don't seem to mind when their 200 point lovely assault unit wipes out a 250 point shooting unit in one turn with no casualties.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:If you make assault easier to get into, you need to make it less deadly/one-sided. For all everyone's bitching, they don't seem to mind when their 200 point lovely assault unit wipes out a 250 point shooting unit in one turn with no casualties. How often does that happen compared to the gunline more or less devastating the assault army before it can get into combat? Are you talking about cases where the assault army actually wins the game, or are you talking about the feelbads from one "lovely" assault unit wiping out one shooting unit whilst the shooting/artillery army still has the overwhelming advantage in controlling the board and executing their strategy? Like, I thought that assault being underpowered in 6E/7E outside of maybe certain very specific situations was something that was generally agreed upon, and the conversation is about how to bring them to parity without overcompensating too much. We don't need to give the shooting army anything in compensation for making assault easier to get into unless we make assault too much easier to get into, and if we do, that's the problem. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 23:49 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:45
|
|