PDA

View Full Version : What could be new innovative rules ?



Xelloss
17-02-2009, 08:50
I've heard recently (probably somewhere in the IG rumors) that IG could be able to decide once per turn to shoot in their opponent shooting phase. This is really interesting because it could open new opportunities in tactic/strategy.

So, what other rules you think can be created that is not just "better stat" or "better stat in assault", but open new way of leading an army (for exemple rules like tau units that can move instead of assaulting) ?

feelnopain666
17-02-2009, 08:56
I'm thinking in a awareness table. In that way a unit can spot more easily a enemy that have fired, than a enemy that stay the turn stationay.

Koryphaus
17-02-2009, 09:24
I think that a new innovative rule would be for the imperial guard to actually use the little Ld stat on the profile, unlike the other armies out there.. Oh, wait, they already are pretty much the only army to use it..

Jimbobjeff
17-02-2009, 09:29
I think there needs to be better rules for supression, I know for a fact that if there were olter shells flying around I wouldnt want to stick my head up. Something like "every weapon causes pinning with a negative modifier of the number of casualties the target has taken this turn" weapons that already cause pinning should double the modifier.

Penitent Engine
17-02-2009, 09:31
Because then the mob of 60 gretchin that loses 2 members would spend the turn pinned :wtf:

Tarax
17-02-2009, 09:34
How about: If hit by Ordnance, the unit is automatically Pinned, as the shockwave will hurl people backwards, even Terminators.

BTW shouldn't this be at the Rules forum?

Carlos
17-02-2009, 10:20
Its only a small thing but I would add the following to the movement phase:

A unit may declare it is going to move 'Cautiously', in which case it may only move 3" in the movement phase. The unit ignores all difficult terrain when doing so, as it can be imagined the squad is spending time hacking down branches in a jungle or a tank slowly negating rubble. This option is not available to models subject to 'Slow and Purposeful'

carldooley
17-02-2009, 10:27
the only thing that I would want in the game is AP working to negate saving throws equal to or greater than the AP for instance, a boltgun vs. a terminator - the terminator would save on a 2, 3, or 4, but 5 & 6 would be negated.

Emperor's Avenger
17-02-2009, 15:56
How about Imperial players having the option to shout Exterminatus at any point per game, resulting in an automatic draw.

Master Stark
17-02-2009, 16:00
Alternating unit activation would be a good place to start

Sholto
17-02-2009, 16:06
Alternating unit activation would be a good place to start Agreed, but then you might as well start playing Urban War and be done with it :)

I think what the OP was getting at was not new innovate rules, but new innovative ways to break existing rules. Most armies in 40k do this to one extent or another, and that is what gives them their unique feel and playstyle and is hopefully what the new IG codex will accomplish once again.

Sholto

Toe Cutter
17-02-2009, 16:27
the only thing that I would want in the game is AP working to negate saving throws equal to or greater than the AP for instance, a boltgun vs. a terminator - the terminator would save on a 2, 3, or 4, but 5 & 6 would be negated.

This would change the terminators save from a 1 in 6 chance of failing to a 1 in 2 chance of failing. Perhaps a little over the top?

Save modifiers, which used to be used in 40k, and are still used in necromunda, would be a better idea.

Dr.Clock
17-02-2009, 16:56
Such a rule WOULD, however, open the door to multi-roll saves again, without being horribly broken. Terminators would probably have to have at least a 5+ on 2D6... or they would be going with the invulnerable save (or cover) every time against heavy bolters??

It is an interesting idea, but the AP system is tuned according to a yes/no system... not a modifier system

I think you'd probably want to work cover(range) and armour into a single save... and that means headaches for all. Also, codex balance would be thrown off... high AP weapons would get considerably better.

As already stated, I think the OP was looking for 'special rules' for upcoming codecies that fall outside the 'Universal Special Rules' system.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

Lord Cook
17-02-2009, 17:21
Ordnance weapons should inflict D3 wounds on multi-wound models, rather than just one. So if a battle cannon shell hits a carnifex, rolls a 2+ to wound, the carnifex should take D3 wounds.

Laser guided fanatic
17-02-2009, 17:31
Ordanance ignores covers because it blows it apart.

Bunnahabhain
17-02-2009, 17:49
Units can split their fire.

The squads lascannon has been told to look out for armour, and can engage it, even if the squad are firing at infantry- victory for common sense

The left sponson can't see the target the right sponson is firing at, so picks another one...

etc etc.

within reasonable bounds- probably just copy paste the bit from 2nd ed on this, ie "operators of heavy and special weapons are often given standing orders to engage threats they're equipped to deal with, and the rest of the squad isn't"

Earlydawn
17-02-2009, 19:17
I really like a lot of the ideas in Flames of War (http://www.flamesofwar.com/) - Infantry entrenching rules, vehicles can assault (treads hurt!), hitting is based off of the other guy's skill, a much better and more consistent LOS and cover system, etc. Beyond a complete rules re-write, I'd love to see charge reactions, an actual psyker phase (with the equivalent of lores - biomancy, divination, pyromancy, etc), expanded morale rules (viable pinning).. but more than anything else, I want to see more in-game choices. I feel like 40K is played all-too-often in the army composition phase. I'd like to see more choices that aren't special rules.. generally, every infantry besides the "crazies" (daemons, necron, 'nids) should be able to dig in. Things like that.

Radium
17-02-2009, 19:54
I really like a lot of the ideas in Flames of War (http://www.flamesofwar.com/) - Infantry entrenching rules, vehicles can assault (treads hurt!), hitting is based off of the other guy's skill, a much better and more consistent LOS and cover system, etc. Beyond a complete rules re-write, I'd love to see charge reactions, an actual psyker phase (with the equivalent of lores - biomancy, divination, pyromancy, etc), expanded morale rules (viable pinning).. but more than anything else, I want to see more in-game choices. I feel like 40K is played all-too-often in the army composition phase. I'd like to see more choices that aren't special rules.. generally, every infantry besides the "crazies" (daemons, necron, 'nids) should be able to dig in. Things like that.

I second this completely.

A return of the Psychic phase would be awesome, and would bring about a lot of potential tactics. Although it would be fantasy with guns then.

Ravensgard
17-02-2009, 20:02
Although it would be fantasy with guns then.

Isn't that what 40k is all about? fantasy but with guns and tanks ? lol

Hellgore
17-02-2009, 20:05
Alternating unit activation would be a good place to start

Sic! I have played Contemptible Little Armies which has many things in common with 40k. It was so much more tactical because the units were always activated in alternation and this as well in movement, shooting and cc. We want to try this kind of approach in our gaming group just as a test.

Radium
17-02-2009, 21:02
Isn't that what 40k is all about? fantasy but with guns and tanks ? lol

It sure is, and that's why I'd support the change. Also, making it more like fantasy (with advanced rules for things instead of just slapping 3 USR's on each unit) would make for a better game. Why not just play fantasy? I don't like the setting nor the armies.

vardald
18-02-2009, 04:43
I'd like all blast weapons to count as coming from the centre of the blast marker for cover purposes, as it just makes no sense that that shell can land behind the enemy but they still get cover from a wall in front of them, particularly now that everything scatters. BS modifiers for different ranges would also be good, possibly for different sized targets as well, as it's alot easier to hit say a Land Raider than a grot.

As both of those things awould require a rules re-write, a simpler thing would be to give chain weapons a bonus, such as a strength increase to represent the fact that spinning chainsaw blades have got to do more damage than your standard infantry's pocket knife, or whatever they've got.

Gray Hunter
18-02-2009, 05:39
I've heard recently (probably somewhere in the IG rumors) that IG could be able to decide once per turn to shoot in their opponent shooting phase. This is really interesting because it could open new opportunities in tactic/strategy.


Interesting thread, but for the record I'd like to say that this isn't really a new and innovative rule, since it is essentially a toned-down version of the Overwatch rule from second edition. Mind you, I'm happy to see it return in this limited fashion.

Earlydawn
18-02-2009, 05:41
Here's another one. I can't claim credit for it.. came from Wargamer on the Tau Online forums; give tanks a 360-degree fire arc for ALL weapons, so long as the vehicle remains stationary, simulating the crew focusing on the vehicle rotating pursuant to targeting. I'd go a step further and combine this with a shift back to 4th edition vehicle movement rules.. vehicles are still mobile and shooty, but can park it and be very effective bunkers.