PDA

View Full Version : So what mods for a standard game?



Ananiel
27-05-2014, 04:03
So what mods for a good old game of 40k in 7th edition?

I am thinking:
1 FOC
1 Ally/Detachment
No Superheavies
No D-Weps
No Demonic Magic (Sanctic & Malefic)

I am going to hold off capping ML as I hope the limit on FOC's is sufficient to stop too much shenanigans. Invisibility doesn't seem game ending again with ML's limited by FOC limits.

Thoughts?

Ananiel

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 04:28
The rules have gotten so bad that to make it work you would have to almost completely re-write them to make a fun game. Which is exactly what I'm doing right now.

If I were going to play along though:

No Allies
No Formations
No Super-Heavies
No D-Weapons
1 Detachment only
Psychic Mastery Levels for the player with more capped at twice whatever the player with less has, or 4 for an opposing army with no psykers.
0-3 limit on Flyers or FMCs
0-2 limit on anything that isn't a Troops selection

That's what I got off the top of my head.

Loopstah
27-05-2014, 10:10
I'd use:
Summoned daemons can not pick Daemonology. (Summoning is fine, exponential summoning is probably a bit wonky.)

Everything else is fine and makes the game interesting.

I'm not WAAC though so I don't mind losing sometimes and thus feel no need to cripple the game to boost my chances.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 10:22
I'm not WAAC though so I don't mind losing sometimes and thus feel no need to cripple the game to boost my chances.

Pray tell what you mean by this? Because it reads like you think wanting to add more structure to the game = both WAAC and wanting to 'cripple' other peoples' fun.

shandy
27-05-2014, 10:28
I plan to play a few games of pure 7th before making any decisions around rules etc. To be honest with two read throughs under my belt it looks fine and fun (not saying its perfect). There may be stuff that will house rule but I want to try it out pure before making any decisions around that.

What I will probably do though is take a all comers force and then a version of it to play against opponents who bring a superheavy etc if I am looking for a pick up game.

Felwether
27-05-2014, 10:30
I think I'm most concerned about summoned daemons being able to summon more daemons.

Also, dedicated transports shouldn't be able to score and they certainly shouldn't be able to get objective secured. I shouldn't be able to capture objectives with a drop pod.

IAMNOTHERE
27-05-2014, 10:37
When do you roll for psycic powers? If its at the start of the game then units that get summoned might not get any.

Felwether
27-05-2014, 10:46
When do you roll for psycic powers? If its at the start of the game then units that get summoned might not get any.

Don't have my book to hand but I'm pretty sure you roll when the unit is successfully summoned. The only restriction currently is that the summoned unit can't manifest conjuration powers on the turn that it itself is summoned.

duffybear1988
27-05-2014, 10:48
I would go with -

Maximum of 1 ally, but the minimum number of Troops for allies is increased to 2. The exception is the Inquisitor who doesn't need Troops.
No Formations.
No Super-Heavies.
No D-Weapons.
1 Detachment only.
Maximum of 12 dice in the psychic phase.
0-3 limit on Flyers or FMCs.
0-2 limit on anything that isn't a Troops selection.
Sniper rifles gain pinning.
Heavy vehicles don't have to snap shot other weapons when also firing ordnance.
You can assault on a turn you disembark from a non open topped transport as long as it hasn't moved before you disembark.
All missile launchers (and Eldar missile launchers) come with flakk missiles as standard for free.

Loopstah
27-05-2014, 10:52
Pray tell what you mean by this? Because it reads like you think wanting to add more structure to the game = both WAAC and wanting to 'cripple' other peoples' fun.

People seem to ban things because it's easier than figuring out how to beat them. "Unbalanced" is often a synonym for "difficult to beat". For example why no LoW? Why limit to 1 FoC? I can't think of a reason to ban allies or formations beyond the fact people want to win all the time and playing with these in the game makes that harder. Or is it the case that people don't have formations or LoW themselves so don't want to let others use them either out of spite.

I honestly don't understand these widespread cries to ban or limit stuff.

MiyamatoMusashi
27-05-2014, 11:01
Observation: there is a difference between "wanting to win all the time" and "not wanting to lose, by turn two, without achieving anything at all, every time".

For the most part (I'm sure there are exceptions) the people proposing these changes aren't WAAC players. They are trying to protect themselves against WAAC players.

Wolf Lord Balrog
27-05-2014, 11:12
People seem to ban things because it's easier than figuring out how to beat them. "Unbalanced" is often a synonym for "difficult to beat". For example why no LoW? Why limit to 1 FoC? I can't think of a reason to ban allies or formations beyond the fact people want to win all the time and playing with these in the game makes that harder. Or is it the case that people don't have formations or LoW themselves so don't want to let others use them either out of spite.

I honestly don't understand these widespread cries to ban or limit stuff.

Way to psychoanalyze people through forum posts. You win the Gold Medal in the High Jump to a Conclusion.


Observation: there is a difference between "wanting to win all the time" and "not wanting to lose, by turn two, without achieving anything at all, every time".

For the most part (I'm sure there are exceptions) the people proposing these changes aren't WAAC players. They are trying to protect themselves against WAAC players.

What the Samurai said.


I would go with -

Maximum of 1 ally, but the minimum number of Troops for allies is increased to 2. The exception is the Inquisitor who doesn't need Troops.
No Formations.
No Super-Heavies.
No D-Weapons.
1 Detachment only.
Maximum of 12 dice in the psychic phase.
0-3 limit on Flyers or FMCs.
0-2 limit on anything that isn't a Troops selection.
Sniper rifles gain pinning.
Heavy vehicles don't have to snap shot other weapons when also firing ordnance.
You can assault on a turn you disembark from a non open topped transport as long as it hasn't moved before you disembark.
All missile launchers (and Eldar missile launchers) come with flakk missiles as standard for free.

I'm honored that you copy/pasted most of my suggestions Duffy. :)

Spider-pope
27-05-2014, 12:57
Depends who i'm playing. For upcoming games i don't think we'll be changing anything, at least until we've seen how the new rules affect gameplay.

duffybear1988
27-05-2014, 13:08
I'm honored that you copy/pasted most of my suggestions Duffy. :)

Well we do agree on almost everything and I am a lazy git :)

murgel2006
27-05-2014, 15:31
We have decided to use the following restrictions for pickups:
- use the rulebook,
- think about making your army fun to play against,
- try to come up with an army that feels "realistic"

And we agreed to being tabled in round 2 is rarely fun.
All lists produced over the weekend looked great to us all.
However, we are at best semi competitive, and pickups/standard missions are a minor occurrence here compared to scenarios and campaigns.

Loopstah
27-05-2014, 15:42
We have decided to use the following restrictions for pickups:
- use the rulebook,
- think about making your army fun to play against,
- try to come up with an army that feels "realistic"

And we agreed to being tabled in round 2 is rarely fun.
All lists produced over the weekend looked great to us all.
However, we are at best semi competitive, and pickups/standard missions are a minor occurrence here compared to scenarios and campaigns.

Don't you realise you're doing it wrong? You're supposed to be making the most cheesy, broken and unfun lists possible according to the rules, and then abdicating responsibility for them by blaming GW for allowing you to do so.

On a serious note I like your ideas.

Zothos
27-05-2014, 15:49
I am going with what Wolf Lord Balrog said. Unlike Duffy, I could not even be bothered to copy and paste!

We have played with no allies, formations and stupidheavies since they came into existence. Interesting that our group has a ton of fun, and apparently many, do not.

Poseidal
27-05-2014, 15:53
I would go with -

Maximum of 1 ally, but the minimum number of Troops for allies is increased to 2. The exception is the Inquisitor who doesn't need Troops.
No Formations.
No Super-Heavies.
No D-Weapons.
1 Detachment only.
Maximum of 12 dice in the psychic phase.
0-3 limit on Flyers or FMCs.
0-2 limit on anything that isn't a Troops selection.
Sniper rifles gain pinning.
Heavy vehicles don't have to snap shot other weapons when also firing ordnance.
You can assault on a turn you disembark from a non open topped transport as long as it hasn't moved before you disembark.
All missile launchers (and Eldar missile launchers) come with flakk missiles as standard for free.

+ the following

Fox Only
Final Destination

Actually scratch that, Fox is OP and Final Destination doesn't have enough terrain.

tiger g
27-05-2014, 16:13
Play as the book has it now.

duffybear1988
27-05-2014, 16:21
+ the following

Fox Only
Final Destination

Actually scratch that, Fox is OP and Final Destination doesn't have enough terrain.

Poseidal I don't get what you mean (maybe I'm being a bit thick?).


Play as the book has it now.

Ah but you see landlubber that be the problem with the 7th edition rulebook - 'tis more of a guide than an actual rulebook. I'm reminded of the pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean when they are going on about the Pirates Code. :D

HelloKitty
27-05-2014, 16:39
It uses different rules for different scenarios. It may use lords of war in one game and then the creatures may use no allies in another.

However its group is using older edition rules for assault which has led all of its creatures fielding assault armies now and there is very little shooting in its games anymore.

It doesn't mind using some rules one game and some rules for another game because it keeps the game from getting boring or samey, but it is kind of annoyed at the older edition assault rules and it feels like it is playing warhammer fantasy creatures only its plastic things have guns that don't ever get to shoot in their filthy plastic hands.

murgel2006
27-05-2014, 20:24
Ah but you see landlubber that be the problem with the 7th edition rulebook - 'tis more of a guide than an actual rulebook. I'm reminded of the pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean when they are going on about the Pirates Code. :D

We have a name for the new book!:evilgrin:
PC or The Code

Lord Damocles
27-05-2014, 20:48
No Demonic Magic (Sanctic & Malefic)

Thoughts?
You just made Grey Knights actually unusable.

duffybear1988
27-05-2014, 21:03
We have a name for the new book!:evilgrin:
PC or The Code

I do like The Code. I may refer to it as that from now on. :)

Bloodknight
27-05-2014, 21:04
I would start with ditching allies altogether. What's the point in playing an army if you can just buy away all your weaknesses? Also, experience tells me that most allies wondrously only show up to do exactly that, I'd love to see an actual fluffy army once. The usual "this is why they fight together"-story you get told by people can only be described as needing a :p smiley at the end.

Brother-Captain Endymion
27-05-2014, 22:58
I agree with Bloodknight.

In our group, allies are really only brought for narrative games or in fluffy lists (and there are a few, at that). Don't get me wrong, there's the odd TauDar player mixed in there. But for the most part, allies are left out altogether. I think the idea of allies is great - the implementation, not so much.

Ananiel
28-05-2014, 02:54
You just made Grey Knights actually unusable.

Not sure what I am going to do here, maybe just re-roll 6's (Vortex of Doom is a non-starter) or just allow Grey knights to use any other school of spells. I usually hate playing grey knights anyways as they tend to be min/max or waac types anyway, still having GK from their OP days. (Tend to be around me, don't need a flame war)

Ananiel

NemoSD
28-05-2014, 03:06
I would start with ditching allies altogether. What's the point in playing an army if you can just buy away all your weaknesses? Also, experience tells me that most allies wondrously only show up to do exactly that, I'd love to see an actual fluffy army once. The usual "this is why they fight together"-story you get told by people can only be described as needing a :p smiley at the end.

Well now that the reserve limitations are gone I am going to start fielding my Dark Angels and Imperial Guard allied. Guard sits all in reserves and dark angels launch spearhead, grad moves up behind them and cleans up.

Poseidal
28-05-2014, 07:46
Poseidal I don't get what you mean (maybe I'm being a bit thick?).


It was from one of the Smash Bros games, as in that you had to define the rules on what you would play and it ended up in a list.

No items was quite common, combined with Final Destination which was a flat map with no terrain.

Devonian Commando
28-05-2014, 07:49
Careful now! Keith Richards might pop up in pirate garb, shoot you and remind you that "the code is the law"

Devonian Commando
28-05-2014, 07:51
Aaaannnnd, my quote and refresh clearly don't work too good on a phone. It all made sense several comments ago. :/

Hal'jin
28-05-2014, 08:18
So I see people still do not understand the detachments from the new book, when they write things like "1 FOC, 1 Ally, 1 Deatchment"

There is no FOC, each detachment has its own FOC. Your allies are also a detachment. Your restrictions make no sense. What you want to say is:

- Max 2 detachments
- Max 1 Combined Arms Detachment
- No Unbound.

A non-unbound army has to be built using Detachments. Currently we have 4 types of detachments:
- Combined Arms Detachments (just as the old FOC)
- Allied Detachments (Just as the old allies FOC)
- Imperial Knights Detachments
- Inquisition Detachments.
+ each formation is a separate detachment

You can take as many as you want and one of them has to be nominated as your Primary Detachment, which will contain your Warlord. Additional restrictions apply (Allied detachments must be different faction that primary, allied cannot be primary itself). Each detachment has some command benefits (ok, not true, the Knights at least get none), that apply ONLY to that detachment.

Back on topic, I don't care personally, I honestly do not expect demon bomb spam and billion detachments in the armies. 90% of those lists exist only in the internetcrafting space. The only thing I would possibly do is:

- Lords of War require opponents permission

Which actually already exists in the Rulebook, so no need to mod it.

Having said that the store I play in has some extra rules:
- Only BB can ally (Poor chaos guard)
- No Unbound (whatever)
- LoW require opponent permission (as above)
- This fancy AV 15 building requires opponent permission (again)

duffybear1988
28-05-2014, 08:37
@Hal'jin - when I said 1 detachment, I meant 1 combined arms detachment, I just couldn't remember what it was called at the time. I figured people would get what I meant :).

Wolf Lord Balrog
28-05-2014, 08:54
@Hal'jin - when I said 1 detachment, I meant 1 combined arms detachment, I just couldn't remember what it was called at the time. I figured people would get what I meant :).
^^What Duffman said. :)

Hal'jin
28-05-2014, 10:08
Okay, I just felt like writing it, since I have seen a lot of confusion on various forums on how this works. :) Thought it will clear it up a little bit, just in case.

duffybear1988
28-05-2014, 10:57
Okay, I just felt like writing it, since I have seen a lot of confusion on various forums on how this works. :) Thought it will clear it up a little bit, just in case.

It's cool dude - I don't own the book yet (been reading it at club instead) so couldn't flick through to find out what they were called at the time.


^^What Duffman said. :)

great minds and all that. :D