PDA

View Full Version : Advanced 40K



Katastrophe
22-06-2006, 17:54
Some friends and I have recently picked 40K back up since putting it down about a year ago. One of the things that we did was tamper slightly with the rules in order to make the game more "fun". A few of the things that we did made me wonder about some changes that need to be made to game in order to make it more tactical for the veteran gamer.

1. movement values were added back in. ie Eldar moved back to 5", humans/orks moved to 4", Nids changed to 5/6". Fleet was simplified into extra movement value rather than an extra move.

2. Turn sequence was drastically changed to from u move they move. The first person to move in a turn was determined by strategy rating for the general or roll off modified by the highest leadership value in the army. We allowed all units 2 actions, except heroes who got 3 actions. Each unit could take an action. a) shoot, b) move, c) assault, d) use an ability. Each turn was interactive in that units were moved alternatively so that we would have a similar number of movements. If I had 8 units to your 4 then i'd move 2 you'd move 1. If you moved subsequent to shooting, you could only move half distance. One thing that we did notice, which was pleasant even though it was inadvertent, was that shooting was ALOT more deadly and more useful since people got to do more of it (a direct result of decreased movement values resulted in an increase in range for all weapons). This was a very welcome change as many units either double moved to reach a target or fired at oncoming assaulting models. We also allowed units that had not moved but were being assaulted to react by firing at a -1. We played around with a flee reaction to assault but didnt much like how it played out as we did not add the double assault distance that exists in fantasy (though we did contemplate it over some games, particularly with Guard and Tau). All HTH was fought after all the units had completed their actions.

3. though we continue to dislike the armor system, we left it alone as the extra shooting that was occurring more than made up for the impenetrable armor values of some troops (ie MEq). Also, we saw an inadvertent increase in weapons with high fire rates even though their penetration wasnt increased at all.

4. We reintroduced shooting modifiers and dropped cover saves altogether. -1 for soft cover, -2 for hard cover, -1 for shooting after moving, -1 for being assaulted. These applied to vehicles as well (both being shot at and shooting). However, troops shooting from a vehicle did not receive the negative for moving. We also disallowed rapid fire in the "second" shooting phase. We reinstituted the +1 to hit for Large Targets (anything larger than Ogryns basically) inclusive of vehicles.

5. We also changed the line of sight rules a bit, models needed to be able to see their target in order to target it. Everyone can see large targets unless they are obstructed by terrain or another large target. models, friendly and enemy block lines of sight (we based this on the actual model not the unit of models, ie in order to block line of sight to a model other models must obstruct the view rather than a unit in coherency.)

6. Reserves were rolled for each unit at the end of the full turn and placed in leadership order. This turned out to add a particularly nasty twist to games, particularly since marines and nids dropping into the middle of the table were very dangerous. We limited reserves to 1 action at drop and allowed them to assault. This made them well worth taking and changed the dynamic of many games, as would be expected.

Those were the major changes that we made. It resulted in a very different game than we had played previously (all of us had been around since 2nd ed.). it was very tactical and required lots of thought and consideration before making any moves for any units. we also found that units that previously got very little use all of a sudden became very powerful (swooping hawks). Interestingly one of the armies that we kinda forgot would get a big boost was sisters of battle, they became a very agile and hard hitting shooty army (seraphims became very deadly with those plasma pistols). Every game was interesting and a couple movement mistakes wasnt catastrophically game ending. Also, after the first game or two, noone wanted to commit troops to open fire because of the mass of fire units took, footslogging. Everyone either used transports or cover or both or used transports as cover which made for some interesting maneuvering on all sides.

What are your thoughts????

DogmaRaider
22-06-2006, 18:01
2. Turn sequence was drastically changed to from u move they move. The first person to move in a turn was determined by strategy rating for the general or roll off modified by the highest leadership value in the army. We allowed all units 2 actions, except heroes who got 3 actions. Each unit could take an action. a) shoot, b) move, c) assault, d) use an ability. Each turn was interactive in that units were moved alternatively so that we would have a similar number of movements. If I had 8 units to your 4 then i'd move 2 you'd move 1. If you moved subsequent to shooting, you could only move half distance. One thing that we did notice, which was pleasant even though it was inadvertent, was that shooting was ALOT more deadly and more useful since people got to do more of it (a direct result of decreased movement values resulted in an increase in range for all weapons). This was a very welcome change as many units either double moved to reach a target or fired at oncoming assaulting models. We also allowed units that had not moved but were being assaulted to react by firing at a -1. We played around with a flee reaction to assault but didnt much like how it played out as we did not add the double assault distance that exists in fantasy (though we did contemplate it over some games, particularly with Guard and Tau). All HTH was fought after all the units had completed their actions.

I've always wondering if making this change would be good for the game and I still think it would be good. It prevents your army from getting wiped out or severely crippled before you can take any actions. Also it seems more natural that perform an action and your enemy then responsed at the squad level. Almost like check where you only move one piece at a time. I'm going to try this with my gaming club and see how it goes. I'm encouraged now to try it more often.

Katastrophe
22-06-2006, 19:15
Yes, that is me. I read here all the time, just not much interesting to post as of late. I took a look at your game idea, pretty good. I have been thinking of giving it and CVTs game a go when I get a few free moments. I looked at several of the other modifications and found many of them to either be 2nd redux (which I do still prefer to either 3rd or 4th). We actually just tried to make some simple changes to 3/4th that would allow for a tactical game, which is very much missing currently without changing all the rules.

Steeple_jackuk
22-06-2006, 20:53
Hi I like these ideas have you written them out in full anywhere?

Nice.

Sj.

Katastrophe
22-06-2006, 22:36
we havent really run into any major bugs. The advantage is that most of the units play like you imagine that they should play. Points costs arent really an issue because most units roles havent changed because of some rules change. Some units became a little better at what they do but that all seemed to be relative to the marine, oddly enough. Marines didnt get all that much better and other armies didnt get all that much better overall. Some things did require a little thought as to allowing them to just use the rules as written even where it broke our changes (tau jump packs) but those actually still performed about as well as they had previously.

We tried not to make alot of wholesale changes to the rules (except the turn sequence) and we had a great deal of experience playing GW games (over 15 years (wow Im old)) and that allowed us to really see what minor rules tweaks would make the game much more fun (ie dropping cover saves and creating to hit mods).

we basically thought of things that would have tactical implications and saw how they worked. changed them so that you have to use some foresight and so that all actions had a consequence (no more no brainer just run out in open, absorb fire, assault). Now every unit, no matter how good, has to consider what will happen if they move here, choose to fire rather than assault. Another thing that we saw really start to disappear was small units of marines that were meant to get into combat, the fact that you ran the risk of getting fired upon, even when offloading from a landraider, required folks to actually buy units that could take some concentrated fire from guard or guardians.

Also, i forgot, we also got rid of the mixed armor rules and invisible sargeant rules, they were just dumb. We allowed units to direct attacks at any model but no wounds carried over to other models of a different type. In addition, we added the challenge rule from WH, it seemed appropriate to the way that 40 seems to operate.

Commissar von Toussaint
23-06-2006, 01:54
As far as fixes go, this one seems pretty solid.

Some of you will remember that I spent quite a bit of time trying to bend 3rd ed. into something close to a decent game. Eventually I just switched back to 2nd and I've been pretty happy ever since. My gaming group has followed me and we are all quite content. It does amaze me how solid that system was and how little GW needed to do to improve it. Oh well.

I don't know if you looked at VOID, but they had an interesting solution to the problems posted by a 40k-style universe. They used alternating activations and got around the cover save/AP issue by making armor rare but powerful with armor negation equally rare.

To hit mods are out there, but they are few and cover isn't one of them, just saves. And yes, you can layer saves (which is how it should be if you are giving a cover save).

So killing the guys in exo armor in heavy cover is kinda tricky.

There are a lot of things I dislike about the current version, but one of the big ones is the way big monsters can shrug off heavy weapons. Having just finished a game where I one-shotted a carnifex, I have to say I really enjoy the enormous lethality of the old weapons. Unless that was fixed, I'd be hard pressed to come back.

Nice to see you again, Kat. You power gamer you. ;)

Katastrophe
23-06-2006, 19:07
Glad you like. I actually thought that the 2nd ed. rules were not that bad and only required a little tweaking in order to really make sense. Actually, limiting the psychers as they did in 3rd would along with modifying the overwatch rules would have gone a long way in fixing the 2nd ed. system. I still feel that it isnt necessary to have multi-wound weapons, though we could make some weapons 2 wounds rather than 1 when they wound.

I did look at void a while back, but we just stuck with playing 40K in a way that actually required some tactics. Most folks already had models and the books so all that was required was to make some small changes to the way the game played. Fortunately, all of us were pretty experienced with gaming and we are extremely competitive so lots werent about how the game felt but rather how the game played.

Powergaming and Proud to the end.