|
 Every time a new edition of Warhammer 40,000 drops a bunch of lamenting and gnashing of teeth can be found on various forums and discussion boards. From nerfed units, to whole new game phases, each new edition is somewhat broken in it's own special way. Because of this some players decide to tinker with and try to improve the system. These house rules are typically only used among a small group of friends or within a single store or game club. What this thread is seeking to do is go beyond a single group or geographical location and create a Community Edition of Warhammer 40,000; in the same vein as YakTribe Gaming which is a tabletop wargaming community built by fans of Necromunda, Gorkamorka, and Mordheim which supports the creation and distribution of Community Editions of tabletop skirmish wargames.  Edit: Moved up for greater visibility  BRAINSTORMING! Use THIS BRAINSTORMING DOCUMENT to share your ideas in a collected space, and talk about them here. The rules for the thread are fairly simple. 1. All standard Traditional Games rules apply. Most importantly the piracy rule. Just because we are re-configuring a rule set doesn't mean you should post or link to complete rule books. One table or one page should be fine, but no out-and-out piracy. If the rule book in question is long out of print it may be worth asking the mods for clearance, but mostly, no full rule sets. 2. Don't be a dick. Try and be respectful about whatever is being discussed, even if the suggestion is "broken as hell" or "pants on head retarded" don't just post that, try and logically refute the rule being discussed so we can either come to a consensus and either reject it, or modify it until it does work. 3. Don't be a lazy critic or a lovely troll. A bad habit occurs whenever anyone posts a thread about a homebrew project or setting, they will repeatedly post with unhelpful advice like "That sucks" or post outlandish rules that are meant to incite rage from those trying to get stuff done. Neither lazy criticism or lovely trolling will be tolerated. 4. No ad hominem attacks. Just because you don't like [Insert Forum Member Name] don't automatically shoot down their suggestions because they are a(n) [Insert Expletive]. But isn't this violating Copyright or Trademark or something? Copyright Copyright protects printed works of artistic expression. You do not have to register a work for copyright protection, nor are you required to put a copyright notice on your work. You are automatically protected when your work is published (i.e. offered to the public). Games however, have virtually no coverage under US Copyright Law. According to the U.S. Copyright Office: "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable. Trademarks Thematic elements of games can be trademarks, names, character names, or even fictional tech terms. Examples include Star Wars, Pokemon, or even the word "Droid," which you may have noticed in recent Verizon commercials. Also, MTG Mana and Tap symbols are Trademarks of Wizards of the Coast. The name of the game can also be a trademark which is why MtG is called "Magic the Gathering" and not just "Magic". From the U.S. Government: "A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others." Give credit where credit is due and don't try to sell the Community Edition for profit and we should be fine. EDIT: Boosted from Tuxedo Jack's post Our Goals! 
Our primary goals right now should be to hammer out a system in which to generate good, balanced rules. We need a way to vote on them, a way to playtest them, and a way to bring in outside help. We will never, ever be able to please everyone, however, with compromise, we can generate some band-aids and fixes to rules that could have been tighter to begin with. With a little bit of effort (and NO naysaying!) we can at least create a set of GOONHAMMER House rules, that will be less daunting and miserable for new players than getting stuck with a handful of garbage cards. The 40k Community (and tabletop wargames in general) on SA is quite accomplished, if you haven't seen the OATH threads, then you obviously have no idea that some of the best painters and players in the world are members of this forum who frequent and post all the time. So Let's start by nominating a small committee of Goons to act as a bullshit test for some of our theorycrafting. Five to six dedicated players should suffice. You can nominate someone HERE.We also need a concise list of what needs fixed, and its priority level. For now, the following list is just for your consideration, but in the future, I will edit this post to list major milestones and priorities determined by the community. BRAINSTORMING!  Use THIS BRAINSTORMING DOCUMENT to share your ideas in a collected space, and talk about them here. Please don't vandalize this document, but feel free to add columns if you need them. The committee will use these ideas to address issues by item. Please don't post anything NSFW on this document, as many players may be visiting it from work, and it will be preserved as a timeline of whatever product we end up reaching. If you notice that someone has defaced this document or changed someone else's content, simply roll the revision back, don't just delete stuff. PRIORITY LIST!  This Priority List will be controlled by the Rules Committee once they're in place. I've filled it with some of my own bullshit until they are installed. This thread is also a safe place to post your game groups house rules and share them with the community at large. If you're posting your house rules, be sure to add and bold so it doesn't get lost, and I'll try to add links to them here in the OP. I'll revisit this post when we've hammered a clear process for House Rule consideration out. I will help the committee by updating this OP as required, however I will be stepping back from the process and simply helping brainstorm and playtest once the committee is installed. So: Nominate Goons Brainstorm Ideas Come up with Priority List. GO! Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 15:07 on May 30, 2014 |
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Some existing House Rules for 40K culled from the internet: The Assault Phase- If you finish the phase by either causing a unit to retreat or a sweeping advance and your consolidation would put you into base contact with another enemy unit, you may make a disordered charge into the enemy unit. Charges- You can charge 2D6 or choose to charge 6", but you must choose which before rolling. Deep Strike- Instead of the standard disembark/shoot standard, allow a single "phase". The unit may move, shoot, OR assault (with a disordered charge though). Through playtesting, it was found this made assault units much more effective for their point cost and much more balanced for 6E's heavy emphasis on shooting. Random Generation- One of the more odd changes in 6E was the random generation of psychic powers and warlord traits. It doesn't support the narrative play style conducive to an entertaining game. Variant 1)For psychic powers, choose a single discipline. You know all the powers but can only use as many as your warp charges allow. For warlord traits, choose one from your army's codex or the main rulebook. This will hopefully re-introduce a bit of flavor into your armies. Variant 2) Roll the D6 first, then choose the table. Since there are 3 tables in the BRB you can choose from 3-4 different traits where some will always help you instead of having a single bad roll that screws with your plans. It's less random but still random enough for a tabletop wargame. Not very narrative though. Variant 3) Use universal upgrades Preset warlord trait: 25 pts Choose warlod trait before deployment: 40 pts Preset psy powers: 10 pts +5 for each mastery level Chose psy powers before deployment: 20 pts +10 for each mastery level One extra power: 5 pts Other random pre-game rolled poo poo (Penal legion, Daemonic gifts) - +1 for each 10 points of affected unit cost, or for each 5 pts if the chart have a "bad" results. Edit: I haven't looked closely at Waffle Edition 40K but here it is to be picked over for parts http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Waffle_Edition_40K Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 03:09 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Something I see discussed a lot in the other thread I'd like to weigh in on: random movement. You need some uncertainty in moving units around the board. If all movement is fixed values based on "difficult/not difficult" then you remove a huge aspect of risk management in the game with premeasuring. If you can measure at the start of your turn, say "I can move six, then assault six, and you are 11 inches away" that is actually a pretty big negative to the gameplay in my opinion. It also leads to cases where the enemy will position themselves 12.1" away from a unit to avoid being charged, then shooting and charging themselves if they move closer. The second especially breaks the game for armies based on assault like Orks and Nids. Either you need premeasuring to go away, or charges need to be random. You can't have both and have a healthy game in my opinion. Feel free to shoot this apart, but it's definitely not going to be as simple as what everyone was saying about just removing random runs/charges and calling it a day. Something would have to be altered to fix the above issues. Risking moves to try for a decisive assault is a big part of the maneuver aspect of the game, and it shouldn't be so easily calculated in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Something I see discussed a lot in the other thread I'd like to weigh in on: random movement. You need some uncertainty in moving units around the board. If all movement is fixed values based on "difficult/not difficult" then you remove a huge aspect of risk management in the game with premeasuring. If you can measure at the start of your turn, say "I can move six, then assault six, and you are 11 inches away" that is actually a pretty big negative to the gameplay in my opinion. It also leads to cases where the enemy will position themselves 12.1" away from a unit to avoid being charged, then shooting and charging themselves if they move closer. The second especially breaks the game for armies based on assault like Orks and Nids. Either you need premeasuring to go away, or charges need to be random. You can't have both and have a healthy game in my opinion. I think you can but only if you make some significant (possibly fundamental) changes to the way range works. Having range be a target difficulty instead of a fixed limit (I'll give an example of this in a second) or having potential negative consequences attached to movement that increase with distance moved that don't directly hamper movement. Example of the first: To hit, roll equal to or over distance to target. Something like a Bolt Pistol has an X4 modifier, something like a Heavy Bolter has an X12 modifier, BS is a static positive modifier. Example of the second: Move 6+X", where X can't exceed 6. Roll XD6; every "6" adds a markerlight-style token to the unit that the opponent can use to do funky poo poo. I don't think either of these are especially good changes if you want 40k to be a heroic company-scale game, but they're (very quick, top-of-my-head) examples of how you can introduce tension and risk and choice while still making distance and speed themselves absolutely reliable.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Our Goals!
Our primary goals right now should be to hammer out a system in which to generate good, balanced rules. We need a way to vote on them, a way to playtest them, and a way to bring in outside help. We will never, ever be able to please everyone, however, with compromise, we can generate some band-aids and fixes to rules that could have been tighter to begin with. With a little bit of effort (and NO naysaying!) we can at least create a set of GOONHAMMER House rules, that will be less daunting and miserable for new players than getting stuck with a handful of garbage cards. The 40k Community (and tabletop wargames in general) on SA is quite accomplished, if you haven't seen the OATH threads, then you obviously have no idea that some of the best painters and players in the world are members of this forum who frequent and post all the time. So Let's start by nominating a small committee of Goons to act as a bullshit test for some of our theorycrafting. Five to six dedicated players should suffice. You can nominate someone HERE.We also need a concise list of what needs fixed, and its priority level. For now, the following list is just for your consideration, but in the future, I will edit this post to list major milestones and priorities determined by the community. BRAINSTORMING! Use THIS BRAINSTORMING DOCUMENT to share your ideas in a collected space, and talk about them here. Please don't vandalize this document, but feel free to add columns if you need them. The committee will use these ideas to address issues by item. Please don't post anything NSFW on this document, as many players may be visiting it from work, and it will be preserved as a timeline of whatever product we end up reaching. If you notice that someone has defaced this document or changed someone else's content, simply roll the revision back, don't just delete stuff. PRIORITY LIST! This Priority List will be controlled by the Rules Committee once they're in place. I've filled it with some of my own bullshit until they are installed. This thread is also a safe place to post your game groups house rules and share them with the community at large. If you're posting your house rules, be sure to add and bold so it doesn't get lost, and I'll try to add links to them here in the OP. I'll revisit this post when we've hammered a clear process for House Rule consideration out. I will help the committee by updating this OP as required, however I will be stepping back from the process and simply helping brainstorm and playtest once the committee is installed. So: Nominate Goons Brainstorm Ideas Come up with Priority List. GO! Tuxedo Jack fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Example of the first: To hit, roll equal to or over distance to target. Something like a Bolt Pistol has an X4 modifier, something like a Heavy Bolter has an X12 modifier, BS is a static positive modifier. Move 6+d6 is not particularly different from 2d6, though, you just alter what ranges are risky or not. You're still going to have people complaining they failed that 8" charge because of "bullshit" random charge distance when they roll a 1. Edit: basically, the complaints are about it being random at all it seems like, not about how random it is. I think a big part of it is that distances that don't really seem that great on a 2d6 are actually really unlikely. Trying for an 8" charge is not likely to work, and a 9" charge is about a 1:4 chance of success, while those numbers don't really seem that big. Even a 7" charge is only barely over a coinflip for success. 5" is generally going to work. It makes me wonder how many people regularly go for long charges and fail then rage about random dice rolls while ignoring the odds. Granted, needing to know that sort of info is awkward for the players. ALSO, WHFB has used random charges for 8th edition and there's been almost no complaints about it in that thread since early on in the edition. They do have the benefit of getting a Movement+2d6 charge which prevents very short failures, but close combat is also vastly more important and decisive in that game. All just more food for thought, not trying to shoot down the idea presented, just putting this all out there for others. Slab Squatthrust fucked around with this message at 03:35 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Move 6+d6 is not particularly different from 2d6, though, you just alter what ranges are risky or not. You're still going to have people complaining they failed that 8" charge because of "bullshit" random charge distance when they roll a 1. I'm not sure I made myself clear--in my example, the model absolutely gets to move 12" no matter what, but the farther it moves, the higher the chance that it's seriously exposed to shooting. (Also I was envisioning this more as a Run replacement than an Assault fix.) Applying the same idea to Assault, though: "Assault up to 12"; every 2 partial inches beyond 6" is +1 to Overwatch snap shots." (Again, completely off-the-cuff, and probably way too clunky for this scale.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
A question for 40k people: Is it not about time to do away with "I Go, You Go"? It seems every other skirmish game alternates activations (DZC, Malifaux) or has something the inactive player can do (AROs in Infinity) and it seems generally agreed upon that just sitting there and watching your opponent shoot his entire army at your's is kind of boring and lovely for losing 1/3 of your force before you get to do anything.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I'm not sure I made myself clear--in my example, the model absolutely gets to move 12" no matter what, but the farther it moves, the higher the chance that it's seriously exposed to shooting. (Also I was envisioning this more as a Run replacement than an Assault fix.) Yeah, didn't read it like that. That makes sense, but I think you're right saying it's too complex for 40k. Something like that might be more interesting/managable for Necromunda or Kill Team style skirmish games though! MisterShine posted:A question for 40k people: Is it not about time to do away with "I Go, You Go"? I really, really enjoy DZC's system. Alternating by battlegroups, which are subsections of your army. So you can spread units into lots of battlegroups to have lots of activations (and thus move/shoot later in the turn to avoid retaliation) or clump them up (so each activation is moving and shooting more units in an attempt to deal damage before they respond). It makes for complicated armybuilding, but it's very neat. Slab Squatthrust fucked around with this message at 03:39 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Time to sit down and write out the problems with Assault, I think. Analysis of problems can help.
Add to as required.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
My idea is that the Primaris psychic power should just be 1 power on the table that you choose, and then after that you just roll on the table per normal. It would really be more balanced than the current scheme, where the primaris power really defines how good a psychic discipline is, and also whether you actually get to build an army around it (e.g. Divination), or just don't.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:A question for 40k people: Is it not about time to do away with "I Go, You Go"? 40k is too big a scale game in its current form to get really fancy with things. You have to be able to accomodate 200 boyz, and that puts some fairly tough limits on how important individual model positioning as well as activation can really be. Warmahordes gets away with a lot of individual model complexity because it has a significantly lower model count than most 40k forces.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:A question for 40k people: Is it not about time to do away with "I Go, You Go"? Warmachine doesn't. If you alternate activations, you increase the value of individual high-power models, which leads to stuff like Rambo-ing in Infinity, which isn't inherently a bad thing but it's a big change. One thing I like about 40k and Warmachine is that you have lots of different modules that all have substantial inherent value irrespective of whether there are five big ones or ten little ones. I kind of like how X-Wing does it, though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Warmachine doesn't. Bolt action, which is one of the bigger alternating activation games heavily favors trying to jack up your activation count, though I think Warmahordes players are also realizing the value of increasing activation counts in their armies, as both games use individual unit activations, though Bolt action also uses a randomized alternating activation system.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Long story short I think if we're not completely rewriting 40k, stuff like Overwatch and Armor Saves is probably enough interaction during the opposing turn, and it would be difficult to suture on a well-scaling alternate-activation system. If we are completely rewriting it, then personally I think we talk about scaling down to platoon-level combat anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Individualized unit activation wouldn't have to be too bad. The main problem would be making assaults work, assuming you'd want assaults to work like they do now. You could have something like this: Activation phase: You activate one unit at a time and complete its movement, shooting and assaulting. Assault Phase: Resolve all currently active assaults in play. Put the psychic phase first or drop the psychic phase entirely/roll it into activation 6e style and you could have a pretty workable hybrid: Move and act with each unit at a time, then do all the assaults after. It would open up possibilities like shooting and then moving, cleared-up timing of special abilities and reacting to events as they occur.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
You guys are thinking really big right now, I think we need to tackle the low hanging fruit first, and clean up the easy stuff before we start burning down the house to build a new one...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
One way to split the difference between IGOUGO and individual activations is to keep IGOUGO, but do it phase-by-phase: I move you move, I shoot you shoot, I assault you assault.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Something I see discussed a lot in the other thread I'd like to weigh in on: random movement. You need some uncertainty in moving units around the board. If all movement is fixed values based on "difficult/not difficult" then you remove a huge aspect of risk management in the game with premeasuring. If you can measure at the start of your turn, say "I can move six, then assault six, and you are 11 inches away" that is actually a pretty big negative to the gameplay in my opinion. It also leads to cases where the enemy will position themselves 12.1" away from a unit to avoid being charged, then shooting and charging themselves if they move closer. The second especially breaks the game for armies based on assault like Orks and Nids. Either you need premeasuring to go away, or charges need to be random. You can't have both and have a healthy game in my opinion. I agree that having threat ranges able to be premeasured and not random has negative ramifications, but I think you are concerned about the wrong side of threat ranges. Other than pure assault units, the threat ranges of most units is determined by the range of their gun, not their base movement. Example: a Wave Serpent, one of the faster weapon platforms in the game, has a threat range of 48" - 36" gun, 12" movement. Even if movement is randomized, the 36" gun makes it trivially easy for the Wave Serpent to outrange other units with premeasuring. If reducing the range of guns is not an option, premeasuring would be another candidate to bite the dust.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Something I see discussed a lot in the other thread I'd like to weigh in on: random movement. You need some uncertainty in moving units around the board. If all movement is fixed values based on "difficult/not difficult" then you remove a huge aspect of risk management in the game with premeasuring. If you can measure at the start of your turn, say "I can move six, then assault six, and you are 11 inches away" that is actually a pretty big negative to the gameplay in my opinion. It also leads to cases where the enemy will position themselves 12.1" away from a unit to avoid being charged, then shooting and charging themselves if they move closer. The second especially breaks the game for armies based on assault like Orks and Nids. Either you need premeasuring to go away, or charges need to be random. You can't have both and have a healthy game in my opinion. It's important to understand that Flames of War has premeasuring and all distances are fixed. The assault phase is not really busted in that game because the things that almost always defend against assaults can't risk moving around everywhere lest they be shot up(infantry needs to stand still and be dug in or they end up being more vulnerable to machine gun fire and assaults become unnecessary). The game uses seperate phases and since movement comes first, then shooting, then assault, you may be committed to an assault by having moved, regardless of how your shooting goes, and assaults most definitely need preparation in that game as defensive fire has full effect normally.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I haven't really played an alternate-activation game with an experienced opponent (except Infinity, if you can call Infinity an alternating-activation game, and I was very inexperienced, so)--does it tend to take substantially longer than it would with bulk turns? I assume that it would, because the constantly shifting situation keeps people from settling on plans ahead of time and magnifies analysis paralysis (that's how I've always seen it shake out in RPGs), but my bias is showing and I might be seriously overestimating the drag it introduces.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I haven't really played an alternate-activation game with an experienced opponent (except Infinity, if you can call Infinity an alternating-activation game, and I was very inexperienced, so)--does it tend to take substantially longer than it would with bulk turns? I assume that it would, because the constantly shifting situation keeps people from settling on plans ahead of time and magnifies analysis paralysis (that's how I've always seen it shake out in RPGs), but my bias is showing and I might be seriously overestimating the drag it introduces. Yeah, I think it would be an impossibility to do that in a currently 40k scaled game because you'd have to accomodate armies of 30+ unit activations as well as commander-unit joining rules which could get messy. Also, I think one of the things that would increase the viability of assault in this edition would be to cut the ranges on normal dude guns significantly. When everyone's gunshots bottom out at 24" range, it's very difficult to get across the board normally without getting wiped. Shorter weapons ranges would put more of the table in play and force a bit more maneuver. Also, range would be a more interesting balancer for things like mortars and heavy bolters, weapons that get lost in units that already kill what these things kill. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 04:07 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, I think it would be an impossibility to do that in a currently 40k scaled game because you'd have to accomodate armies of 30+ unit activations as well as commander-unit joining rules which could get messy. Okay, that's what I thought. I don't hate the idea, it just seems sort of masturbatory given that it's a solution in part to a (very understandable and legitimate) complaint that turns take too long. I definitely wouldn't want to make a 2000-pt game of 40k take any longer, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Getting back to Jack's point, what is busted in 6th/7th edition? Assault - How can it be made effective again? Assaulting from reserves - Can it be reinstated without becoming OP? Psychic Powers - Can they be made more balanced rather than the Imperium gets access to everything and Xenos can suck it? Objective deck - Can it still be random without being face palmingly random? Random charge distance- does it need fixing? Shooting- would random shooting distance be of any use at all? What else? Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 04:21 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
I was out of the game for all of 5th and most of 6th, so a lot of this is second-hand: -Walkers are too slow, and lots of other vehicles feel too vulnerable (at least in 6th) (although a lot of this is related to the much deeper issue that high S solves essentially every problem) -Formations and datasheets add a lot of power without any real cost (except in real-world dollars) -Certain models/modules are virtually invulnerable to all but a small handful of specialist answers -Randomization of Warlord traits and Psychic powers isn't fluffy / is a bummer And then there are a lot of interactions that just need rulings. Sulecrist fucked around with this message at 04:28 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
40k is already pretty set-up for alternating battlegroups, like Dropzone does. Activate your fast attack group, opponent activates their troops, etc. Its just to cut down on getting hit by literally everything your opponent has in their arsenal. Don't see how it would make power units any more of a problem, they'd still be hitting you at the same time in normal 40k anyway. As for HQs/IC: just have them activate with the units they join, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I think we should consider how much we're willing to change. Do we want to just do FAQ-level changes to codexes, or will we be altering point costs, statlines, wargear, etc.? Same for USRs, really. I don't think we can fix all these problems with simple FAQ-level changes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
MisterShine posted:As for HQs/IC: just have them activate with the units they join, problem solved. The problem with that is HQs could activate themselves, join a unit, then double-activate by having the FOC slot for the unit they joined activate.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think we should consider how much we're willing to change. Do we want to just do FAQ-level changes to codexes, or will we be altering point costs, statlines, wargear, etc.? I agree. Before we break down lists of problems to solve, I think we need to figure out what we want the game to look like when we're done with it. A necessary part of that is marking out lines we don't want to cross.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
In addition to a lot of the issues that have already been raised, I would like to see a particular look taken at jump infantry, because they seem to almost uniformly be bad/overcosted in practice. This could be done just by reducing their costs, but it might also be a chance to make them distinctive in some neat way. Spitball ideas (one or more): Assault from reserves [if we don't give this generally] - they "hit the ground running" so to speak in a way that e.g. teleportees don't Deep strike without scattering / with "safe scattering" like drop pods - flying in with an eye on where you're going ought to be more reliable than blindly teleporting Deep strike on a chosen turn without rolling for reserves - ditto Jink saves if they do a jump pack move
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Someone in the old thread suggested that jump troops should be able to assault flyers, which I think is awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Without a singular voice to direct the effort, we're just pissing in the wind. I suggest we nominate and elect a small group of players to act as the spearhead of this effort. Until then, we're literally just throwing ideas at each other without a catch all. Please refer back to my post that has the spreadsheet for brainstorming ideas, and use it to capture the stuff that you think is important, so that it can be addressed by everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:
The thing is, we need to know what the effort is about before people can really step up and lead it. I don't think i'd want to lead an effort to just make a community FAQ, for example, but I know that's what some people would like to do(not that it's a big deal, but the leadership kinda needs to be buying into the project).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
The Gate posted:Move 6+d6 is not particularly different from 2d6, though, you just alter what ranges are risky or not. You're still going to have people complaining they failed that 8" charge because of "bullshit" random charge distance when they roll a 1. As a Tyranid player, I was horrified when I saw that 6th edition reduced the threat range of Hormagaunts from 19-24" down to 8-18". I've had several charges fail because dice, and being able to not charge something that's 4" away from you is a pretty crap feeling, especially when you get shot at a whole bunch as a penalty for rolling bad. I think Fleet allowing run+assault should come back, and the idea in the previous thread about 'powerful charges'; passing by a certain amount (let's say 3" for now), giving the assaulting unit a bonus. The bonus could be debated and brainstormed, but stuff like not suffering overwatch (might be too powerful), rerolls to-hit or even +1S, +1I or +1A would be a cool bonus. That way there's an actual benefit for rolling good on the charge roll, because at the moment you either flub the charge and get shot at a whole bunch or your unit follows orders. Having a unit have to roll dice to see if it's allowed to actually do anything reminds me too much of this skirmish game I saw where you have to make a dice roll to activate your unit, which is how charge rolls feel in 6th/7th. Assault from Outflank would make Genestealers not useless anymore which would be pretty grand, and it wouldn't be buffing many current deathstars because hardly anything can outflank. I'm at least pretty sure that White Scars bikerballs aren't that great a deathstar, not like the Iron Hands equivalent.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The thing is, we need to know what the effort is about before people can really step up and lead it. I don't think i'd want to lead an effort to just make a community FAQ, for example, but I know that's what some people would like to do(not that it's a big deal, but the leadership kinda needs to be buying into the project). We're talking about a major redesign of some major elements, like Assault and the Psychic Disciplines, the stuff that's clearly not working in 7th. After that's complete, more can be done, but a large-scale "FAQ" style House Ruleset is the primary objective. Once that's complete, a ground up redesign, or "mod" of the game can be started. But let's find a process that works first, and attack this the right way. If we bite off too big of a piece, it will fall apart really quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
I think a workflow should look like this: Fix a unit by adjusting points -> Fix a unit by changing the unit (Adding/removing rules) -> Fix a unit by adjusting its Codex -> Fix a unit by adjusting core rules. This should help to mitigate changes meant to fix individual units in turn breaking other units.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
So I had an idea about how to use the Objective Cards while reducing the randomness. Battle Plans At the start of the game, after the map has been constructed, sides chosen, and objectives placed but before units are deployed, both players select seven Objective Cards to represent their plan of action for the upcoming battle. Each card must be assigned a turn number, so your cards will be assigned #1 through 7. At the end of each turn, the player reveals the card he assigned for that turn. If he achieved his objective, he scores the points for that card. If he failed, the points are lost. Note that because there are three separate "Secure Objective #X" cards for each Objective, it is possible to choose holding the same Objective as many as three times. To prevent defensive armies from dominating the game in this way, point values for Objectives are as follows: Objectives placed in your own Deployment Zone (or Friendly Zone on the map) are worth 1 point a piece. Objectives in No Man's Land are worth 2 points a piece. Objectives in your opponent's Deployment Zone (Enemy Zone) are worth 3 points a piece.  Note that random game length is still in effect. Keep in mind that Objective Cards assigned to Turns Six and Seven may never be played if the game ends at the end of Turn Five. Example: A Guard Player looks at the above map and who is deploying in the Green Friendly Zone against a Tyrannid player decides he will play defensively and chooses the following Battle Plan: Turn 1 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 2 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 3 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 4 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 5 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 6 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 7 - Kingslayer (1-3 points) The Guard player is planning for a defensive game. He hopes to use his firepower to keep the Tyrannids from capturing the Objectives in No Man's Land but is ceding any points the 'Nids choose to horde in their own zone. With his defensive plan, he is unlikely to accomplish Linebreaker (1 point), but depending on who goes first may achieve First Blood (1 point). Finally, if he manages to kill the enemy Warlord (likely a Hive Tyrant of some variety), he will score Slay the Warlord (1 point) and Kingslayer (1-3 points) if the game lasts until Turn Seven. That means the Guard player has a maximum point total point value of 12, but since the game likely won't get to Turn Seven and he's pretty much giving up Linebreaker, his likely score will be in the 5-7 range. His opponent, the Tyrannid player, is deploying in the red Enemy Zone. He plans on a rapid advance along one flank, while holding his home objectives with a couple of Biovore units. His plan is: Turn 1 - Secure Objective 1 (1 point) Turn 2 - Secure Objective 2 (1 point) Turn 3 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 4 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 5 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 6 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 7 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) The Tyrannid plan is much more aggressive. If totally successful, including secondaries, he will score as many as 18 points! However, this plan requires his push at the Guard left to succeed. If it fails, he'll rapidly fall behind. The game will be won or lost in the battle for Objectives 3 and 5. One problem with this setup is that many of the current cards in the deck will be under-used, particularly the "Kill a X by the end of your turn" cards. Even granting that knowing you need to kill some Psykers in Turn 3 will make one maneuver a certain way, the penalty for failure will likely discourage many people from trying it. Some amendment of the cards may be required. Also, something will need to be done to adjust the or eliminate the Tactical Warlord, which is currently incompatible with this scheme. There may be some way to allow Tactical Warlords to adjust their plans somewhat on the fly as the battle progresses, but I haven't really given much thought to a mechanism for such. Anyway, that's my idea off the top of my head. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I added something to the spitball sheet regarding Overwatch. Putting the idea out there that the amount of shots allowed by the unit firing Overwatch should be limited by the distance of the charge. Not sure if it's adequate, but d6+distance or d3+distance maximum shots.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
starkebn posted:I added something to the spitball sheet regarding Overwatch. At that point you might as well take overwatch out of the game because it'd be an incredibly marginal thing like it already is for your average unit. I think maybe decoupling psychic phase defensive dice from the amount of psykers the opponent has would do a whole lot to make the selection of psykers less utterlly all-or-nothing. Right now if your opponent brings a lot of psykers and you bring one or two, you've basically wasted all your points on them. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 11:35 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Firstly, nice OP, very well structured and thought out. I'm gonna add some spitball ideas to the brainstorm doc. Secondly, are we all in agreement that these rules should be an expansion to 6th, maybe taking on some good ideas from 7th, rather than an expansion to 7th?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 12:27
|
|