PDA

View Full Version : Proposed 5th Edition Vehicles Rules



Dooks Dizzo
04-04-2008, 22:40
Sadly I KNOW that the 5th edition rules are effectively set in stone at this point and that GW is not and will not listen to community suggestions but it's a worthy discussion topic anyway. I guess.

I made a comment in the defensive weapons thread that got me thinking. Does a vehicles HAVE to move for it's entire turn?

My idea is to not make vehicles rules so complicated that they slow down game play but at least give players the option of using their tanks in different tactical situations.

Here's how my idea would work:


*************
At the end of the owning players movement phase they MUST declare whether the vehicle will stop or continue to move.

If the vehicle stops it may fire all of it's weapons normally (as if it had not moved) as well as disembark troops, following all the normal movement rules for disembarking.

If the vehicle elects to continue moving it benefits from a cover save.

Normal vehicles = 6+ cover
Fast vehicles = 5+ cover

If it continued to move:
A normal vehicle that moved 12" or more in its movement phase may not fire.
A fast vehicle that moved 12" or more in its movement phase may fire 1 main weapon and all defensive weapons.

Troops may not disembark from a vehcile that is continueing its movement.

If a vehcile elects to stop at the end of its movement phase it counts as stationary for the pruposes of assault. (S4 defensive)

If it elects to continue moving at the end of its movement phase it can only be hit on a 6+ in the assault phase.
*****************

Obviously needs a bit of polishing but I think the idea is solid.

Parak
05-04-2008, 02:27
I actually quite like this idea. I just worry if it might be just a little too advanced for the standard rules. GW seem to dislike introducing rules that effect other turns, which I think is why the got rid of overwatch and the like. It is a cool rule, but as you said it needs a little polishing.

Nexto
05-04-2008, 09:58
Well if you look for complicated rules, you just created one ;)

I think your suggestion doesnt seem to "fit in" in the rules system, it destroys the "terminated" nature of the game turn. Normally, effects only last for your turn and some also for the enemys turn, not longer.

Its complicated because you have to remember the current state for every vehicle for quite some time, you could also forget to mention a state for a vehicle alltogether, which just cries for unnecessary discussions at the table.

The second thin is that it feels quite strange for me, to elongate actions from the past turn to the following turn, wh40k is round based.

Mireadur
05-04-2008, 12:30
Just use markers. Lots of games use them.

Dooks Dizzo
10-04-2008, 13:07
I think it's interesting that in the same breath 40K players will complaing about the game getting dumbed down and then complain that a very simple rule is too complicated.

Buggus
10-04-2008, 23:43
The over all idea is something to talk about but you are stilling giving a big bonus to fast moving vehicles. I dont mind at all adding some flavor to the game to help it a little because we all enjoy that what if type of game.

You not only get a five plus save but you also get a glancing hit and you get to fire all your weapon?

Dooks Dizzo
11-04-2008, 14:12
No glancing hit.

mr_gosh_the_return
01-05-2008, 15:21
OOhhh!!! I feel all 2nd edition, march rules, wargear cards and such...one step forwards 15 years back :(

SanguinaryDan
01-05-2008, 15:43
Yeah, that's kind of my feeling as well. Going back to Speed markers just doesn't seem like the sort of thing they'd consider.

Not saying it's a bad idea, it's not, just that it's not the way they've been evolving the rules.

Joewrightgm
01-05-2008, 16:33
No. Vehicles will be fine. I know my Predator with Lascannon Sponsons and Twin-Linked Lascannon Turret is going to be fine with sitting in cover and denying lanes of advance.

eriochrome
02-05-2008, 03:42
I personally really hate the distinction between fast and normal vehicles for shooting. Just because you can more faster does not make you able to shoot better at speed. Do not give me the fast movers have better tech. Space Marines have both tanks and fast skimmers. If you want to fire everything sit still. Move 6 shoot the main weapon. Move more than 6 no shooting. Simple, clean, fair.

Gensuke626
02-05-2008, 03:51
Its complicated because you have to remember the current state for every vehicle for quite some time, you could also forget to mention a state for a vehicle alltogether, which just cries for unnecessary discussions at the table.



Simple solution: If you don't put a "Continuing to Move" marker by said vehicle, you assume it stopped. If the owning player didn't want it to stop, oh well...he should have remembered to mark it.

Valerian
02-05-2008, 19:17
I've got an even simpler rule that I think will work even better. It'll probably be my first House Rule:

"All vehicles can fire all of their weapons while moving up to their maximum speed."

There you go, vehicles that combine mobility with firepower and armored protection, just as they were intended.

Regards,

Valerian

scientist tz
02-05-2008, 19:35
I think 5th edition will be a good foundation for a project I've wanted to take on for a really long time:

A "Battle Book" complete with dozens of new missions, mini-campaigns, game types (new kill team stuff, Space Hulk, etc) macro-campaigns, and house rules.

mr_gosh_the_return
12-05-2008, 13:20
I loved 2nd ed, i just lover 3rd ed more. Even Pre codex. Then again i only have a few hours for battles, not a full day. I hate having to check rules and have a laptop nearby to check faq's. If gw continually tried to refine one ruels set the game balance would work better. Still at least i get titans now