Homebrew 40k Ruleset: 40k Gothic

[Wishing]

Hello all, I am posting just to see if anyone would be interested in reading these alternate rules me and a friend of mine have written, and share any thoughts about things that seem to not make sense or could be done better. We have played quite a few games using these rules, but mostly from memory, so it is possible I've written stuff down wrong. That's what help would be good for! I quite enjoy the rules this way, so comments of "this is crap, just play normal 40k" are of course allowed but are unlikely to be heeded! It goes without saying that the most helpful replies would be suggestions for improvement.

Hopefully the introduction in the PDF should explain what the idea is. This is just the core rules, most of the army lists are done but aren't ready to be put up just yet. The name just comes from the fact that I love Battlefleet Gothic and wanted to offer it a tribute. When it comes to weapon stats, it will probably be clear that I don't follow the normal codexes when it comes to naming guns. I mainly played during 2nd ed when all the weapons were imperial weapons, and since neither me nor my friend much cared about finding out what the Ork or Eldar guns are called nowadays, I just wrote them up from memory and made up the rest.

Anyway, here they are. I will put up a selection of codex documents when I am able.

[One Man Assault]

It is a nice set of rules. Seems to take most of 2nd ed and uses the vehicle and close combat rules of 3rd ed, whilst streamlining equipment and unit abilities.

Two things stood out though.

1) Only one modifier for cover, rather than a hard and soft or two categories dependent upon level of concealment. These would add a bit more depth to terrain. More importantly, currently all cover is at -1 to hit whereas (in my experience at least) 2nd ed 40k terrain was hard cover, meaning typically cover meant -2. For cover to play a realistic role, I think it should be -2 as standard, unless of you foolishly take cover behind a hedge! Admittedly, this was probably the major difference between 2nd and 3rd ed so it is a matter of taste. If you want the game to be space WW2 then you need -2, if you want space Napoleonics -1 is fine.

2) Am I correct to say that charging gives you an extra attack? This is missing from the combat section but stated later. However, that extra attack comes only after the higher initiative fighter attacks, so the charger might not be around to benefit from it. Personally, I'd give a choice when charging of having an extra attack or extra initiative, +1 or +2 perhaps. So that when there is huge disparity of initiative the faster sides always goes first, say genestealer VS guardsmen. However, I'd like a situation where my terminators could charge the genestealers and attack first/simultaneous but sacrificing the extra attack to do so. Or my guardsmen charge the eldar but once again loose the attack. This would give a bit more tactical flexibility when two close combat specialists face each other or two none close combat troops face each other. Currently, I'd be wary to charge my CC specialist into the enemy CC specialist if they had higher initiative.

Look forward to seeing the codexes.

[Wishing]

Hi One Man Assault! Thank you so much for reading, and your comments are really great. Let me address them.

1) You are very correct, I specifically took away the -2 modifier for hard cover that used to be standard. My reasoning for this is that in my view, cover was much too important in 2nd ed, especially so in Necromunda. I found it much too hard to kill things with shooting because everything was hiding behind corners or barricades, meaning that a normal trooper needed 6's to hit, and then to wound, and then to get through the save. I find that with a flat -1, cover still improves survivability, but an armoured unit in cover isn't quite as invulnerable as it otherwise would be. Others might disagree, but I always found how hard it is to inflict casualties in 40k to be a bit frustrating. As you say, I guess it is a matter of taste.

2) I really needed help with this part so these comments are brilliant. My original idea was to stick with the basic +1 attack bonus for charging, which is the standard nowadays and my older friend tells me was standard in rogue trader too. However, I really do like the concept of chargers striking first that we know from WHFB, so I was very torn about this. Most recently I made it so charging gave both +1 A and +1 I, but I like your idea of allowing the chargers to choose between them much better. +2 I is probably not too bad, as a compromise between +1, which is a bit mewling, and a flat "always strike first", which is a bit harsh against someone like Harlequins that really rely on very high I to win combats. So charging troops can pick whatever is most useful to them - Eldar can get extra attacks, and Orks can get higher initiative. I think that's a great solution. Thank you!

I should be able to post some codexes tomorrow, so if there is any requests, let me know. I think that Marines and Chaos are fully ready (these are the armies we most usually play with), and Sisters, Imperial Agents, Orks and Daemons should also be presentable. The rest (and more!) are in various stages of construction.

[Wishing]

OK, here is an updated version of the core rules and also the first (obviously marine) codex. The changes made in the core rules are mainly to implement the charging suggestion above and to make overwatch a little less powerful. I also renamed heavy close combat weapons to great close combat weapons to follow the convention in WHFB. I also recently realised that I can check up on weapon names on the Lexicanum site, so I will be adjusting the made-up weapon names to their modern appropriate equivalents at some point.

[Wishing]

After some quick tidying, here is the Sisterhood codex as well. If you are wondering why there are no Rhinos in these lists, it is because models that can be included in more than one list type are found in the Imperial Agents codex.

[Lyynark]

Regarding overwatch, you've made it so that its more or less pointless. Why would a squad of soldiers, who eschews movement to take the time to setup and wait for the enemy not be able to fire their heavy weapons? This makes OW more or less worthless for taking out enemy vehicles Also why are they not allowed to fight in CC, that makes charging a unit in OW a very sweet deal indeed which might be the exact opposite of what was intended.

A better solution is to have a unit on OW have a fixed firing arc. The simplest solution is probably use the squad leaders (or some other model if no leader exists) LOS but limit it to his frontal 90 degree arc. That way OW fire can be avoided through some careful manouvering by the opponent. Regarding CC the unit on OW can suffer a negative modifier to their combat capabilities if charged from outside their firing arc. If charged through their firing arc they are most likely more than prepared to receive the charge.

The most controversial change is probably the change of Marines having their original base Toughness of 3, which is based on a notion that T4 should be reserved for creatures that have some external physical reason for being extra tough. like Orks. Marines, no matter how gritty and well trained, still have soft human skin, and should therefore have the same T3 as all other humans in my view. Their power armour and ability to fight while broken gives them plenty of resilience.

Controversial indeed, and I wonder what your reasoning really is? Have you read about the physical qualities of the Space Marines?

Space Marines are by the fluff the very definition of superhuman. They are not merely gritty and well trained, they are genetically modified to be towering hulks of muscle and bone. They have hardened bones, a fused ribcage, secondary hearts and superhuman strength. The power armour offers great protection but is does not detract from the fact that Space Marines, even without their armour, can withstand injuries that would kill or cripple an ordinary man.

[Wishing]

Regarding overwatch, you've made it so that its more or less pointless. Why would a squad of soldiers, who eschews movement to take the time to setup and wait for the enemy not be able to fire their heavy weapons? This makes OW more or less worthless for taking out enemy vehicles Also why are they not allowed to fight in CC, that makes charging a unit in OW a very sweet deal indeed which might be the exact opposite of what was intended.

A better solution is to have a unit on OW have a fixed firing arc. The simplest solution is probably use the squad leaders (or some other model if no leader exists) LOS but limit it to his frontal 90 degree arc. That way OW fire can be avoided through some careful manouvering by the opponent. Regarding CC the unit on OW can suffer a negative modifier to their combat capabilities if charged from outside their firing arc. If charged through their firing arc they are most likely more than prepared to receive the charge.

Thanks for these comments. The fact that I changed OW shows that I am not entirely sure what to do about it. I don't think that it necessarily needs to be in the game, but I think it adds an interesting dynamic. I just don't want a situation where you cannot approach or assault a heavy weapons unit, because as soon as you do you will be blown to smithereens - and rapid-firing bolters create a similar situation. Imagine a marine tactical squad on (traditional) overwatch - assaulting them means taking 20 (-1 to hit) bolter shots to the face, and then the marines get to attack normally in close combat for another 10 attacks. It seems a bit extreme to me (and has been very brutal in the games I've played with it). I like the firing arc idea, but it might be a bit clunky to define facing as you say. I will ponder more, but I will definitely allow the unit to fight in close combat if nothing else as you suggest.

Controversial indeed, and I wonder what your reasoning really is? Have you read about the physical qualities of the Space Marines?

Space Marines are by the fluff the very definition of superhuman. They are not merely gritty and well trained, they are genetically modified to be towering hulks of muscle and bone. They have hardened bones, a fused ribcage, secondary hearts and superhuman strength. The power armour offers great protection but is does not detract from the fact that Space Marines, even without their armour, can withstand injuries that would kill or cripple an ordinary man.

I’m happy to explain my reasoning! Mainly, I liked the fact that marines had T3 in rogue trader, I think it makes them a bit less superhuman and more relatable, which appeals to me. I like that they aren’t better than, say, orks, in every possible way, but actually have a weakness. They are tough and gritty badasses, but they don’t have skin made of steel. Also, my goal isn’t to represent the official 40k fluff/approach in every detail, so no matter how much the fluff may go on about how tough marines are nowadays, in my interpretation of them, they have T3 as standard.

My opponent-friend, who is a die-hard marine fan and has only ever played marines, was a bit uncomfortable at first with this interpretation, but after a few games, he had to admit that the toughness reduction didn’t seem to affect their survivability that much – I still threw almost half my ork army’s firepower at his terminators and only managed to kill one at the end of the game, and the rest of his squads were mostly intact too. So it seems to work out well for us. And since I play chaos marines myself, it’s not just a result of me wanting to take my enemy’s army down a peg!

Ultimately, it boils down to personal preference obviously. If my friend had really wanted them to be T4, I would be happy to tack on a few points and give them their +1T back.

[Lyynark]

Thanks for these comments. The fact that I changed OW shows that I am not entirely sure what to do about it. I don't think that it necessarily needs to be in the game, but I think it adds an interesting dynamic. I just don't want a situation where you cannot approach or assault a heavy weapons unit, because as soon as you do you will be blown to smithereens - and rapid-firing bolters create a similar situation. Imagine a marine tactical squad on (traditional) overwatch - assaulting them means taking 20 (-1 to hit) bolter shots to the face, and then the marines get to attack normally in close combat for another 10 attacks. It seems a bit extreme to me (and has been very brutal in the games I've played with it). I like the firing arc idea, but it might be a bit clunky to define facing as you say. I will ponder more, but I will definitely allow the unit to fight in close combat if nothing else as you suggest.

I think overwatch is a great mechanic and the one rule I miss the most from 2nd ed. 40k (I actually miss most of 2nd but that another story). It gives players an additional tool and makes the game less about "I move my gribbly dudes here, shoot you and stuff, and then I kill you dead in close combat" and more about manoeuvring. With OW you can, depending on the threat level give your opponent some serious issues to consider. But care should be taken so that it doesn't devolve into a OW-fest where no-one moves.

I’m happy to explain my reasoning! Mainly, I liked the fact that marines had T3 in rogue trader, I think it makes them a bit less superhuman and more relatable, which appeals to me. I like that they aren’t better than, say, orks, in every possible way, but actually have a weakness. They are tough and gritty badasses, but they don’t have skin made of steel. Also, my goal isn’t to represent the official 40k fluff/approach in every detail, so no matter how much the fluff may go on about how tough marines are nowadays, in my interpretation of them, they have T3 as standard.

My opponent-friend, who is a die-hard marine fan and has only ever played marines, was a bit uncomfortable at first with this interpretation, but after a few games, he had to admit that the toughness reduction didn’t seem to affect their survivability that much – I still threw almost half my ork army’s firepower at his terminators and only managed to kill one at the end of the game, and the rest of his squads were mostly intact too. So it seems to work out well for us. And since I play chaos marines myself, it’s not just a result of me wanting to take my enemy’s army down a peg!

Ultimately, it boils down to personal preference obviously. If my friend had really wanted them to be T4, I would be happy to tack on a few points and give them their +1T back.

During the RT era Power armour conferred only a 4+ save. Also, space marines where little more than drugged up rapists, murderers and other violent delinquents.


While I haven't read through all the rules in detail there is one thing that stood out. Why on earth do you still have the clunky, tacked on AV system for vehicles?

[Wishing]

I think overwatch is a great mechanic and the one rule I miss the most from 2nd ed. 40k (I actually miss most of 2nd but that another story). It gives players an additional tool and makes the game less about "I move my gribbly dudes here, shoot you and stuff, and then I kill you dead in close combat" and more about manoeuvring. With OW you can, depending on the threat level give your opponent some serious issues to consider. But care should be taken so that it doesn't devolve into a OW-fest where no-one moves.

Yeah, that's what I am trying to achieve. I guess I will go back to the original version, and see if the 90 degree angle thing will help. My main issue I guess is that I like close combat armies, like khorne daemons, and it feels like overwatch is very harsh on these guys especially.

Would it make any sense to add an additional -1 to hit for overwatch attacks firing at more than half the weapon's half range, a bit like the short/long range modifiers in 2nd ed?

During the RT era Power armour conferred only a 4+ save. Also, space marines where little more than drugged up rapists, murderers and other violent delinquents.

I'm OK with that! And this T3/3+ version is a compromise between RT and 2nd ed then.

While I haven't read through all the rules in detail there is one thing that stood out. Why on earth do you still have the clunky, tacked on AV system for vehicles?

Good question, to which I will answer that maybe it's because I'm not familiar with a better one? 2nd ed had a terrible system, and the one I use here is just the standard system I know from 3rd ed. I don't see a problem with it as such, I quite like that vehicle armour follows different rules to infantry toughness, unlike in Warmachine where all model types have the same profile. The idea of giving vehicles toughness and wounds has always seemed very very wrong to me in a 40k context, even though I cannot explain exactly why...

[Wishing]

Here is the next codex in line, Chaos Marines. I'm quite happy with the wide selection of daemonic gifts and the like in this one, and with the rules for Khorne "Sorcerers".

[yabbadabba]

Not had a chance to have a good look at this yet - its that time of the year when we entertain all the nephews and nieces. I'll pick it up next week!

[Lyynark]

Yeah, that's what I am trying to achieve. I guess I will go back to the original version, and see if the 90 degree angle thing will help. My main issue I guess is that I like close combat armies, like khorne daemons, and it feels like overwatch is very harsh on these guys especially.

Would it make any sense to add an additional -1 to hit for overwatch attacks firing at more than half the weapon's half range, a bit like the short/long range modifiers in 2nd ed?

Close combat troops that charge heedlessly into a waiting enemy deserves no less than getting punished. It should not be a matter of point and click with assault units. Especially not on a battlefield where ranged combat is the norm.

Regarding a range modifier I'd say that most troops would wait until the enemy is within nominal range before firing. But why not just borrow something straight from WHFB? There a unit who does a stand and shoot reaction (i.e. shooting at an enemy that is charging them) suffers an additional -1 to hit. That way there is no double penalty for taking shots at units that aren't "direct" threats to the firing unit.

Good question, to which I will answer that maybe it's because I'm not familiar with a better one? 2nd ed had a terrible system, and the one I use here is just the standard system I know from 3rd ed. I don't see a problem with it as such, I quite like that vehicle armour follows different rules to infantry toughness, unlike in Warmachine where all model types have the same profile. The idea of giving vehicles toughness and wounds has always seemed very very wrong to me in a 40k context, even though I cannot explain exactly why...

Actually, giving vehicles T, W and AS would go a long way to harmonize the rules (yours and GWs). The difference in rules makes for some rather funky situations where a weapon is excellent at taking out vehicles but very poor at taking out armoured infantry (Venom cannon and Auto cannon spring to mind). I mean, if a weapon can punch a hole in a tank it shouldn't have any problem punching holes in infantry body armour, right?

At the end of 2nd ed. GW actually playtested vehicle rules where they used T, W and AS for vehicles and they seemed to like the idea at the time (this was published in Citadel Journal).

[Bubble Ghost]

You wouldn't even need to use wounds for vehicles, you could just go toughness, save, damage chart. That way you iron out the inconsistences Lyynark mentions, where a Guard sergeant with a power sword can easily cut down a single-seater Eldar jetbike but can't damage a two-seater one; but you also get to keep the idea that a mechanical thing with no central nervous system and crewed by multiple individuals responds differently to a single creature when 'injured'.

Just as an example, one idea I had ages ago was a system where the damage chart roll was also the saving throw roll, and you applied the result only if the save was failed. So only a weapon with a high AP could destroy a tank in one hit, since against low AP weapons, the vehicle would "save" the upper end of the damage chart. It can be done without using wounds, is what I'm saying.

I've only skimmed this so I hope this is relevant, but: you still have the problem where people actually want to fail morale tests in close combat. This is absolutely unforgivable in 40K, there is no reason at all why you should replicate it. I can also see the fact that you only take morale tests in your own turn, but fight in close combat in both players' turns, causing some weirdness. You seem to have peeled everything back to operating entirely within your own player turn, which is one way of getting rid of some of 40K's stupid inconsistencies, but you haven't quite finished the job as long as units are able to fight in the opposing turn. If you want to restrict morale tests to your own consolidation phase, you might want to say that only the player whose turn it is fights in close combat, essentially just becoming that unit's attack for the turn. And then allowing a unit locked in combat to intentionally retreat if they want to, to get rid of stupid situations where you are hoping for cowardice so as to make the enemy easier to shoot.

EDIT: also, I really, really dislike the idea of customisable charge bonuses. The idea of any kind of charge bonus in 40K is a bit of a stretch already - the idea that of a mob of orks and a squad of Khorne Berzerkers rushing towards each other, only one will count as "charging" and thus end up with a huge advantage, is just ridiculous - it's fine in games of large-scale manoeuvre, or in games with a real reaction system, but in 40K all it really does is create the impression that one unit is standing there gormlessly and just allowing itself to be attacked. Exaggerating this effect still further with customisable types of charge is a bit silly.

[Lyynark]

The problem with the damage chart however is the fact that it is completely random (assuming single D6), it would be better to have a damage table that uses 2D6 since it creates a more even damage curve. Add wounds (or hull points if you will) to this and vehicles will be fine. You can wittle them down or hope to roll high enough on the damage table.

[Wishing]

Not had a chance to have a good look at this yet - its that time of the year when we entertain all the nephews and nieces. I'll pick it up next week!

Thanks yabba! No rush whatsoever, I've been tinkering with these rules since 2006 and there is no deadline.

Close combat troops that charge heedlessly into a waiting enemy deserves no less than getting punished. It should not be a matter of point and click with assault units. Especially not on a battlefield where ranged combat is the norm.

Isn't this a bit harsh though, in a game where entirely CC armies, with little or no ranged combat ability, do exist? CC shouldn't trump shooting, but shooting shouldn't trump CC either in my view, both should be viable tactics. The "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" mantra is a 40k classic for a reason...

Regarding a range modifier I'd say that most troops would wait until the enemy is within nominal range before firing. But why not just borrow something straight from WHFB? There a unit who does a stand and shoot reaction (i.e. shooting at an enemy that is charging them) suffers an additional -1 to hit. That way there is no double penalty for taking shots at units that aren't "direct" threats to the firing unit.

There actually is a -1 to hit modifier on overwatch already, and there was in 2nd ed too as I recall. That just doesn't seem quite enough when the firing unit is BS4 Marines with heavy weapons - they will still annihilate anything they shoot at. Warhammer would be very different if units tended to only be about 10 strong, and the models that are standing and shooting at their charging enemy are firing S7 3" blast weapons.

The thing about overwatch is that it can generally be used for two things - for general opportunity fire, and for standing and shooting against chargers. For shooting against chargers, range is irrelevant, because the unit will just (rapid) fire when the enemy is 1" away. However, for shooting at enemy models further away, that are simply advancing out from behind cover, either range penalties or range reductions will matter.

I think it will be difficult for me to find a good solution without serious playtesting, which I unfortunately don't have much time for. But I do foster a hope that overwatch can be implemented without making dedicated CC troops meaningless.

Actually, giving vehicles T, W and AS would go a long way to harmonize the rules (yours and GWs). The difference in rules makes for some rather funky situations where a weapon is excellent at taking out vehicles but very poor at taking out armoured infantry (Venom cannon and Auto cannon spring to mind). I mean, if a weapon can punch a hole in a tank it shouldn't have any problem punching holes in infantry body armour, right?

At the end of 2nd ed. GW actually playtested vehicle rules where they used T, W and AS for vehicles and they seemed to like the idea at the time (this was published in Citadel Journal).

I remember those rules, but as per above, they kinda freaked me out. Saying that vehicles have a Toughness score just takes me out of my comfort zone where I feel like it's not 40k anymore.

My way of trying to make weapons equally effective against troop armour and tanks is to make it all key off the Strength of the weapon, so a high S weapon will both have a high save modifier and a high armour penetration roll - so there is no (conventional) weapon that is good against tanks, but bad against terminators, or vice versa. Toughness and AV are really the same, anyway... T6 being equivalent to AV 10, since they both "wound" on a D6 roll of a 4. If AV 10-14 was changed to T6-10, the game would be the same. So in principle I do agree that having AV is redundant and just clutters up the game... but it is a bit of clutter that I accept, mainly because of nostalgia, but also because it means I can use the vehicle stats found in official 40k publications without having to convert them I guess.

I've only skimmed this so I hope this is relevant, but: you still have the problem where people actually want to fail morale tests in close combat. This is absolutely unforgivable in 40K, there is no reason at all why you should replicate it. I can also see the fact that you only take morale tests in your own turn, but fight in close combat in both players' turns, causing some weirdness. You seem to have peeled everything back to operating entirely within your own player turn, which is one way of getting rid of some of 40K's stupid inconsistencies, but you haven't quite finished the job as long as units are able to fight in the opposing turn. If you want to restrict morale tests to your own consolidation phase, you might want to say that only the player whose turn it is fights in close combat, essentially just becoming that unit's attack for the turn. And then allowing a unit locked in combat to intentionally retreat if they want to, to get rid of stupid situations where you are hoping for cowardice so as to make the enemy easier to shoot.

Hmm, let me see if I understand you correctly... the idea is that when an enemy charges one of your units, it is better for you if the enemy completely destroys your unit (by having it fail a break test) rather than get tied up by it, because if the enemy destroys your unit, you can then shoot the victorious enemy unit without penalties? I guess I see that, but maybe this can be resolved by letting the victorious unit make a consolidation move after the losing unit fails their test and is destroyed? I don't see how restricting combat to only the active player fighting making any difference in this regard. I actually wouldn't be opposed to that, I just kept the "both sides fight in the CC phase" bit because it has been like that since the earliest editions of warhammer to my knowledge, and my intent was to tweak the 40k ruleset, not completely reinvent it.

Also, about the morale/break tests: The idea is that you take the test at the beginning of your own turn, but if a unit breaks, it remains broken for an entire round. So a broken unit engaged in close combat will suffer two turns of being beaten up, first in their own CC phase, then in the opponent's CC phase. If they are still around, they can try to rally again at the beginning of their next turn.

EDIT: also, I really, really dislike the idea of customisable charge bonuses. The idea of any kind of charge bonus in 40K is a bit of a stretch already - the idea that of a mob of orks and a squad of Khorne Berzerkers rushing towards each other, only one will count as "charging" and thus end up with a huge advantage, is just ridiculous - it's fine in games of large-scale manoeuvre, or in games with a real reaction system, but in 40K all it really does is create the impression that one unit is standing there gormlessly and just allowing itself to be attacked. Exaggerating this effect still further with customisable types of charge is a bit silly.

I see your point, but I think the reason for having a charge bonus is that it adds a dramatic and cinematic feeling, not so much of the non-chargers being gormless, but of the attackers seizing initiative and getting an advantage from doing so. If you made it so that only the active player fights in close combat, then you wouldn't need a charge bonus, but then the Initiative stat would be pointless as well, and the game would be quite different (more like Warmachine, which incidentally also gives a damage bonus to a charging unit). I would be open to trying a different system like that, but it is quite a big modification that would probably take a bit of work to get right.

[Lyynark]

Thanks yabba! No rush whatsoever, I've been tinkering with these rules since 2006 and there is no deadline.
Isn't this a bit harsh though, in a game where entirely CC armies, with little or no ranged combat ability, do exist? CC shouldn't trump shooting, but shooting shouldn't trump CC either in my view, both should be viable tactics. The "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" mantra is a 40k classic for a reason...

There actually is a -1 to hit modifier on overwatch already, and there was in 2nd ed too as I recall. That just doesn't seem quite enough when the firing unit is BS4 Marines with heavy weapons - they will still annihilate anything they shoot at. Warhammer would be very different if units tended to only be about 10 strong, and the models that are standing and shooting at their charging enemy are firing S7 3" blast weapons.

Did you read my post properly? What I proposed what that shooting on OW at a charging enemy (if the unit on OW is the one being charged that is) incurs a -1 to hit penalty in addition to the normal OW penalty, for a total of -2 to hit.

I feel that getting a unit relatively unscathed into close combat should require some degree of finesse from the players, just rush headlong into a firing line should not work unless you have hordes of troops at your disposal.

[Wishing]

Did you read my post properly? What I proposed what that shooting on OW at a charging enemy (if the unit on OW is the one being charged that is) incurs a -1 to hit penalty in addition to the normal OW penalty, for a total of -2 to hit.

Ah, I didn't realise you meant in addition to the normal modifier, sorry. Hmmm. I'm not sure if having a dedicated "stand and shoot" reaction is that appropriate when OW is generally only used when units do not have LOS to each other and therefore cannot charge anyway. I'm thinking maybe saying that OW fire against an advancing enemy is -1 to hit, and against a charging or running enemy is at -2 to hit. That seems a bit easier to work with than angles or charge reactions in my view.

I feel that getting a unit relatively unscathed into close combat should require some degree of finesse from the players, just rush headlong into a firing line should not work unless you have hordes of troops at your disposal.

I'm all for finesse, but if shooting is just point and click, then I don't see why close combat should be so excessively difficult to achieve in comparison. How do you see a CC-heavy army in terms of tactics?

On that topic, I kinda like the idea of taking a leaf from WHFB 8th and making chargers move in a straight line towards their target, but get to add +1D6" to their charge movement. Thoughts? Did they put anything similar into 40k 6th?

[Bubble Ghost]

I don't see how restricting combat to only the active player fighting making any difference in this regard.

It wouldn't, that wasn't why I mentioned it. Separate issue. In this case, it just struck me as weird that sometimes you'd fight one round of combat and sometimes you'd fight two before noticing that something was wrong. You're rubbing the arbitrary nature of the turn sequence in people's faces, when it's the job of the game to disguise that as much as it can. Game turns are a measure of time, player turns are just a convenience for keeping order - when you start implying that player turns occur in chronological order, as the real 40K does far too often, then weird things like this happen.

I see your point, but I think the reason for having a charge bonus is that it adds a dramatic and cinematic feeling, not so much of the non-chargers being gormless, but of the attackers seizing initiative and getting an advantage from doing so.

If it's the "cinematic" feeling of charge bonuses you want, what's wrong with giving both sides a bonus in the first round? Assume that unless the inactive unit had previously taken some action that would prevent it - e.g. they have gone onto overwatch, dug into cover, fired heavy weapons or something, fully aware of the tradeoff they were making by doing so - then they are also "charging" as well. That way you an account for unit's actions during its opponent's turn, helping to disguise the stop-start nature of alternating player turns as I was saying above. You still have the idea of one side charging dramatically into static opponents - but only if that opponent is static because of their choice of action, rather than whose turn it happens to be.

More war, less game.

[Wishing]

It wouldn't, that wasn't why I mentioned it. Separate issue. In this case, it just struck me as weird that sometimes you'd fight one round of combat and sometimes you'd fight two before noticing that something was wrong. You're rubbing the arbitrary nature of the turn sequence in people's faces, when it's the job of the game to disguise that as much as it can. Game turns are a measure of time, player turns are just a convenience for keeping order - when you start implying that player turns occur in chronological order, as the real 40K does far too often, then weird things like this happen.

Hmm, I see what you mean, I had not thought of that. Thanks for pointing it out. The reason I put all break tests in the consolidation phase was because I used to always forget to take them whenever a squad would take 25% casualties, which could happen at various points during the turn. Other than restricting close combat attacks to a player's own turn, do you have any suggestions for improvement? I feel like I am a bit out of my depth with the turn/round issues.

If it's the "cinematic" feeling of charge bonuses you want, what's wrong with giving both sides a bonus in the first round? Assume that unless the inactive unit had previously taken some action that would prevent it - e.g. they have gone onto overwatch, dug into cover, fired heavy weapons or something, fully aware of the tradeoff they were making by doing so - then they are also "charging" as well. That way you an account for unit's actions during its opponent's turn, helping to disguise the stop-start nature of alternating player turns as I was saying above. You still have the idea of one side charging dramatically into static opponents - but only if that opponent is static because of their choice of action, rather than whose turn it happens to be.

More war, less game.

Hmm, interesting. I see the point about realism, but it feels like it would take quite a bit of excitement away if it was irrelevant which side moved into combat, and it would give you no way to improve your odds in CC of your own accord. Every GW game that I know of has always had charging give some kind of advantage, to reward you for being proactive rather than letting the enemy come to you. That doesn't mean it's the only thing to do, but it would take some getting used to to get rid of it...

[Bubble Ghost]

Hmm, I see what you mean, I had not thought of that. Thanks for pointing it out. The reason I put all break tests in the consolidation phase was because I used to always forget to take them whenever a squad would take 25% casualties, which could happen at various points during the turn. Other than restricting close combat attacks to a player's own turn, do you have any suggestions for improvement?

Not off the top of my head, no. As logical inconsistencies go, this would hardly be any bigger than some of the doozies caused by this very mechanic in real 40K, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I do like the idea of the morale tests always being done at the same time because that irons out some of the weirdness caused by all the out of sequence moves you end up doing in 40K.

On the other hand, you do lose some of the drama of that moment that caused the morale failure, especially as far as combat results go. There's something satisfying about determining the winner of a fight then having a tense dice roll there and then. Of course, it would be even more dramatic if 40K's rules didn't mean that "failing" morale tests is actually an advantage half the time...

Every GW game that I know of has always had charging give some kind of advantage, to reward you for being proactive rather than letting the enemy come to you.

The Lord of the Rings SBG doesn't, except a special rule for cavalry. And it's by far the best 25-28mm wargame rule set they've ever made...

The problem is how you're defining charging. It's fine that charging gives a momentum advantage, that's entirely appropriate. The problem is the assumption that only the side whose turn it is is doing the charging, because this creates the impression that only the side whose turn it is is doing anything at all. It seems as though the two armies are literally taking it in turns to move, which is just absurd.

But you don't have to get rid of charge bonuses completely, or even mostly - just allow for what a unit is doing during the opponent's turn. I mean, the movement actions you've used are a gift for this - you could just say that a unit which charged in its most recent movement phase gets a charge bonus in the first round of a combat. Because, well, a unit which charged in its own turn is still charging, isn't it? They don't stop and stand still while the enemy have a go.

So that would mean that a unit which advances or runs will be caught on the hop if charged, but one which charges itself isn't depending on the turn sequence to swing the fight in its favour. This would, of course, be a gamble, not a freebie bonus, because you're completely committing to close combat - the unit you're rushing towards might just stand still and shoot you instead. So you ARE being rewarded for "being proactive rather than letting the enemy come to you," it's just that you are no longer confined to this reward occurring in your own abstract "turn." This is more or less exactly how the game is now, it just reduces the influence of the turn mechanics and gives more power to the decisions of the players. Like I said, more war, less game.

But I'm getting carried away here, this is all just examples. I'm just trying to explain what I'm talking about, and how it doesn't necessarily mean you have to drop the idea of big dramatic charges (which I agree are a cool thing in 40K).


(In the interests of full disclosure, given that I've spent a few posts panning 40K, it's worth saying at this point that 6th edition's 2D6" charge distances and overwatch rule are a great step forward on this front. There is now an element of judgement in launching assaults and consequences for failure, much as might be experienced by your troops on the ground, and which makes the idea of one side getting a bonus a lot easier to rationalise. It still seems a little too abstract for a game that works on 40K's scales of time and distance - it feels like a dynamic that would apply over much greater distances that it does on the tabletop. But then I guess you could say that about weapon ranges too. Don't listen to people who moan about random charges, they don't know what they're talking about.)