|
Mef989 posted:Unless you are Dark Angels and draw the card saying everything over 12" is -1 to hit. Plasma was super fun to use that game. And at that point you're no worse than if you were in a regular game!
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Mef989 posted:Unless you are Dark Angels and draw the card saying everything over 12" is -1 to hit. Plasma was super fun to use that game. Conversely, how excited would you be if you're Raven Guard
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:I really like the Star Wars legion squad movement (though the bendy movement stick is completely lame and stupid for infantry imho). Not quite sure how it'd interact with the rest the 40k rules, but it's so simple, intuitive and most importantly fast as hell, to just move one dude, and the rest have to be around him within a couple of inches - literally impossible for 40 man squads though and it seems a little gamey to scoot the normal guys as far forward as possible and so on, but so is 40k movement, so whatever. You could just have a set of radii for different squad sizes. 10 man and below is 4", 10-20 man is 6 inches, 40 man is 8 inches (or whatever, those sizes sound really big to me).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
The most distant models in the same unit can be no further than X" away from each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:The most distant models in the same unit can be no further than X" away from each other. That can require a lot of measurements. The Warmahordes way of handling squad coherency is pretty good. It also ties the maximum distance from the squad leader to leadership value, which gives it a lot more meaning than it has in (most editions) of 40k.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Maneck posted:That can require a lot of measurements. What happens when the squad leader dies first though, I assume you'd have to make it so you can't do that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
The main change I'd like to see in squad cohesion is that if you are daisy chaining multiple objectives and you remove stuff from the center to keep the objectives but break cohesion, that unit can no longer score objectives until it regains unit cohesion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:What happens when the squad leader dies first though, I assume you'd have to make it so you can't do that? How can the enemy force the squad leader to die?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
NovemberMike posted:How can the enemy force the squad leader to die? The enemy can't, but the defender can when allocating wounds
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:What happens when the squad leader dies first though, I assume you'd have to make it so you can't do that? Wound allocation rules mean that you could very easily make a rule that states "the squad leader must always be the last to die". I really like the idea of making squad leaders the focal point of each unit. It gives you opportunities to significantly speed up movement while also abstracting a lot of the more finicky bits of 40K. - Change all aura effects so that in order to affect an entire unit the Squad Leader must be within the aura range. Model-based auras still stay the same. - Movement and charges are based on the squadron leader. If a squadron leader gets within 1" of an enemy model then the unit is considered engaged. Consolidation and sweeping advances all apply to the leader, with aura movement applying beyond that. - Within assault all models must maximize the number of models they are engaged with while staying with the command range of their leader. - At the end of every movement phase all models must maintain coherency while remaining within a radius equal to the leadership of the leader. Zuul the Cat posted:The main change I'd like to see in squad cohesion is that if you are daisy chaining multiple objectives and you remove stuff from the center to keep the objectives but break cohesion, that unit can no longer score objectives until it regains unit cohesion. Since wound allocation is based on the player, I'd rather see a rule that states that any models that are not in coherency with the rest of the squad are destroyed at the end of the Movement phase. If the squad gets split into two groups then you have to pick one to remove.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:The enemy can't, but the defender can when allocating wounds Then who cares? If the squad leader dies let the squad die or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:The enemy can't, but the defender can when allocating wounds In legion the squad leader has to die last, if by some weird miracle he doesn't die last, by a weird rules-interaction or something, another model else becomes the leader (you replace the model with the leader model). Every system has downsides, but (again, aside from the stupid movement-stick for infantry) I think legions version is really elegant, simple and fast, while still retaining a lot of tactical nuance and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Wound allocation rules mean that you could very easily make a rule that states "the squad leader must always be the last to die". Apparently AoS 2.0 does this after the morale phase. Models not in coherency with the main group are removed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Giant Isopod posted:What happens when the squad leader dies first though, I assume you'd have to make it so you can't do that? In Warmahordes, a new model becomes the squad leader. This can mean the troopers find themselves out of coherency. They can't do anything but move to get back into coherency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:Apparently AoS 2.0 does this after the morale phase. Models not in coherency with the main group are removed. I like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Artum posted:I like this. Incentivising the practice of checking coherency for 40 cultists. Per squad. Each turn. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Artum posted:I like this. I'd actually really like this in conjunction with changing wound allocation for assault- ignore the fact that I was complaining about how it used to work yesterday for those paying attention. Being able to focus your assault troops on opening a wedge in the middle of a big group of enemy models to cause massive losses would be incredibly cool and would add some really interesting decisions related to positioning for both players. There would be very real advantages and disadvantages for spreading your unit out at max coherency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
I'd be pretty happy with "models in a unit most be within Ld" of the unit's leader". Give high leadership models something to be useful for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Pendent posted:I'd actually really like this in conjunction with changing wound allocation for assault- ignore the fact that I was complaining about how it used to work yesterday for those paying attention. Being able to focus your assault troops on opening a wedge in the middle of a big group of enemy models to cause massive losses would be incredibly cool and would add some really interesting decisions related to positioning for both players. There would be very real advantages and disadvantages for spreading your unit out at max coherency. Wounds from assault must be allocated to things in base contact first, y/n.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Strobe posted:I'd be pretty happy with "models in a unit most be within Ld" of the unit's leader". Yeah this is a decent idea. Does Mob Rule increase leadership directly, or only for the purposes for morale checks? I guess there isn't much (Any?) difference in todays rules but obviously you would want to word it to not allow 30" daisy chains or the rule is moot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Strobe posted:I'd be pretty happy with "models in a unit most be within Ld" of the unit's leader". And it makes -Ld effects more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Strobe posted:I'd be pretty happy with "models in a unit most be within Ld" of the unit's leader". I like it, but how would you modify that to work with factions that don’t take leaders in their troops, like Necrons? As it stands I can stretch out the full 20 Warriors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:
I like this much better than my idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
Merton Blask posted:I like it, but how would you modify that to work with factions that don’t take leaders in their troops, like Necrons? As it stands I can stretch out the full 20 Warriors. yeah I've been chuckling at all the "leader" talk in the thread because it's so space marine-centric
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:yeah I've been chuckling at all the "leader" talk in the thread because it's so space marine-centric See I see this as a potentially interesting way of making the more alien factions work in interesting, alien, ways. Like if little bug units were always in cohesion for Tyranids if they were within X inches of a synapse unit, and they can just relocated however they like in that bubble. Or if necrons aren't focused around any particular point so you pick one model each time you move the unit to be the leader, or whatever. Obviously not finished rules and would need a bunch of playtesting but that could be enormously cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Wound allocation rules mean that you could very easily make a rule that states "the squad leader must always be the last to die". I was wondering about this one. In theory if I have a squad of 5 hellblasters rapid firing and overcharging - technically shouldnt you roll two dice at a time for each model/roll the sgt seperately as if you fail that model is slain?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
Soggy Chips posted:I was wondering about this one. In theory if I have a squad of 5 hellblasters rapid firing and overcharging - technically shouldnt you roll two dice at a time for each model/roll the sgt seperately as if you fail that model is slain? Yes, that's exactly what you're meant to do. Buy some different-coloured dice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:
This is a new rule in AoS 2.0
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
If only there was some way for the attacker to force which models are removed from play. Wouldn’t that be grand
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Hixson posted:If only there was some way for the attacker to force which models are removed from play. Wouldn’t that be grand The trick is to kill them all in one go #justdarkeldarthings
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
'Bout to Necron-spread and flex on these Imperials  wit dat LD10
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:Yeah this is a decent idea. Does Mob Rule increase leadership directly, or only for the purposes for morale checks? I guess there isn't much (Any?) difference in todays rules but obviously you would want to word it to not allow 30" daisy chains or the rule is moot. Mob rule increases leadership directly, which is dumb as gently caress. It does make a difference, because it means you can daisy chain mob rule. If you have 2 units of 30 boys and kill 20 from the first unit, they're still immune to morale since they're using the leadership from the other squad, which is increased to 30.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
There is a couple answers to the idea being 'space marine centric'. One could just be as simple as instead of distance from squad leader, simply make it max distance between any models to maintain coherency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
death jester special rule is that the attacking player gets to pick which models are removed if i remember right too bad they are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Since we're asking for unicorns and rainbows I'd like some kind of alternating phases or delayed model removal or anything so games aren't won or lost by the seize the initiative die roll. Whatever mitigates one gunline army going before another and just straight nuking the poo poo out of the other guaranteeing they will never have to worry about return fire, making the rest of the game a formality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Badcast: I've never listened before. I just listened to your latest episode. That was drat good. Thanks for calling people on their crap. I'll listen from now on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Since we're asking for unicorns and rainbows I'd like some kind of alternating phases or delayed model removal or anything so games aren't won or lost by the seize the initiative die roll. Whatever mitigates one gunline army going before another and just straight nuking the poo poo out of the other guaranteeing they will never have to worry about return fire, making the rest of the game a formality. This is called terrain and deployment
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
General Olloth posted:There is a couple answers to the idea being 'space marine centric'. One could just be as simple as instead of distance from squad leader, simply make it max distance between any models to maintain coherency. You could also apply that rule to any unit without a leader, or simplify it to say that measurements are always performed from the model with the highest leadership. That also works thematically with swarms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Booley posted:This is called terrain and deployment In addition to their models, a wise player always brings a few large terrain pieces to mitigate against losing first turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Raphus C posted:In addition to their models, a wise player always brings a few large terrain pieces to mitigate against losing first turn. I realize you're being sarcastic, but fortifications are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 20:24
|
|
