PDA

View Full Version : New rules for 40K



Leviro
29-09-2008, 14:42
Ive been thinking of new rules that would make 40K better, more realistic and/or easier to play:

1: When you have a cover save, armour save and an invulnerable save you should be able to roll all three. A chaplain in cover gets hit and wounded by a bolter, he rolls and fails his armour save, then he gets to roll a cover save, and if he fails that he gets an invulnerable save.

2: Armour saves should be modified by -1 if the shooters AP is one above there armour save, but this modified save is not negated by the AP. A Tau fire warrior gets wounded by a bolter, he gets his save as 4+ isnt negated by the AP5, but his armour save is modified by -1, giving him a 5+ save.

3: Each rule has a "priority" rating, if two rules contradict eachother, then the one with the highest is the one you go by. The rulebook would be Level 1 and the codexes level 2.



If you have any other simple ideas or rules that would make 40k better please post them.

Now ive written this I have a feeling ive posted this before, if this is the case, please close this thread.

edward3h
29-09-2008, 15:00
1: When you have a cover save, armour save and an invulnerable save you should be able to roll all three. A chaplain in cover gets hit and wounded by a bolter, he rolls and fails his armour save, then he gets to roll a cover save, and if he fails that he gets an invulnerable save.

This would benefit troops with better saves more, and therefore skew the game more in their favour. For example if you consider Marines and Orks shooting at each other in cover: in current rules Marines get their 3+ save, with your rules Marines get 3+ save followed by 4+ cover save. In current rules Orks get 4+ cover save, with your rules they still only get 4+ cover save. Extend that to Terminators or powerful characters and you end up with the best models getting more extra saves while the lesser troops gain nothing.



2: Armour saves should be modified by -1 if the shooters AP is one above there armour save, but this modified save is not negated by the AP. A Tau fire warrior gets wounded by a bolter, he gets his save as 4+ isnt negated by the AP5, but his armour save is modified by -1, giving him a 5+ save.

This one is not so obvious but I think it also provides more benefit to MEQ than others. 3+ reduced to 4+ is 25% reduction, 4+ to 5+ is 33% reduction. Also worth bearing in mind that since AP5 is very common, this would affect 4+ saves more than anything else.



3: Each rule has a "priority" rating, if two rules contradict eachother, then the one with the highest is the one you go by. The rulebook would be Level 1 and the codexes level 2.

This is basically the rule we have now, except that Codices are level 1 and the rulebook is level 2.

Leviro
29-09-2008, 17:35
The idea was for point ajustments, and a few save reductions.
the first rule is more logigal than it is at the moment, the second one needs a bit of changing (but i think its also more realistic, because a krak missile that goes straight through power armour is going to affect artificer armour aswell) The third one would have a number next to the rules if they were an exeption to that level (all rules in a rulebook would be level 1 unless stated otherwise). oh and BTW codexes are 2 and rulebooks are 1.

Fantastica
10-10-2008, 00:30
I'm starting to do a 40k 5.1 for myself and group.

the way we're looking at aproaching cover is to have it save vs the hit (ie before wound rolls are made)

it'll affect everyone equally that way, even sm's will take cover at time when NOT facing AP3 weapons

but most of all.. it makes sense

Gensuke626
10-10-2008, 00:48
why not just make soft cover (Ie Trees, and bushes) grant a -1 modifier to hit and hard cover (Ruins and the like) grant a -2 modifier to hit?

isaac
10-10-2008, 16:01
I never did understand the way they set up cover/armor/invulnerable saves in 40k. Imagine SM taking off their power armour to hide behind a wall.

Fantastica
10-10-2008, 19:12
that's exactly why I think cover should be on the to-hit.

as for the hard/soft cover modifier the problem I could see being that it wouldn't effect
armies with low BS, and that doesn't make sense..

a prime example would be the whole Ork Army, if you already need 5+ to hit.. it seems odd that your target being in a building would make them no harder to hit than behind some bushes..

unless you went past the whole 6's always hit rule, and stole the 7+, 8+ and 9+ to hit rules from Mordhiem (and maybe necromunda, I can't remember if it was printed there)

ReaperOfSouls
10-10-2008, 23:02
These modifiers for soft and hard cover are exactly the same as in fantasy actually. Ant there you might end up haveing to roll 7+ for a hit, and its solved by a simple system:

7 to hit means you need to roll a 6 followed by a 4+ on a second dice
8 to hit means you need to roll a 6 followed by a 5+ on a second dice

and so on. Quite simple and a lot more realistic in my book.

lanrak
14-10-2008, 21:56
HI.
Why did they get rid of modifiers and movement rates,
and replace them with counterintuitive dross?

Why did they use Napoleonic game mechanics to reprsent a futuristic war ?

Why not use Epic rule sets as a basis for 40k?