Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Fox Of 9's 7th Edition Modifications & House Rules

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #2
    Chapter Master Fox Of 9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    One with the shadows
    Posts
    1,528

    Re: Fox Of 9's 7th Edition Modifications & House Rules

    Having it been a few days since I posted this, and because I have a half hour or so free, I thought I'd talk about why these specific house rules came to be.

    For us as a gaming group, over the years of playing 7th Edition, came to the conclusion that the edition had three glaring issues. The first was the whole potential mess Detachments and Formations could be. The second was how neutered assault units and the Assault phase in general felt. And last but not least was the issues Vehicles had, with them either being glanced to death by poor AP weapons or special rules, or dying horribly to the overabundance and overeffectiveness of Graviton weapons.

    The first issue has never been something our group has had to deal with as we all know each other pretty well and will often discuss and talk about how narrative or competitive we want a specific gaming evening to be. Otherwise known as the 'Don't Be an ********' rule. I know it's not an actual concrete fix to the issues the edition had in that regard, but to be honest, if someone is being an absolute power-gamer and not abiding by the 'Don't Be an ********' rule, they're probably not someone worth keeping in your hobby group.

    When talking about the second issue, I feel it is important to look at the Assault phase and assault units felt underwhelming, with only Deathstar style units being able to find viability, such as Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield Terminators. Most - if not all - other assault units just felt like they didn't have a place in the edition. This was due to a factor of reasons; the variable assault range, certain Detachment's Overwatch abilities, the prevalence of And They Shall No Know Fear, and the fact that winning an assault you launched was an undesirable outcome. The last reason, especially, was something we all found frustrating. Winning an assault in your turn was always an undesirable outcome, as more often than not, it left your expensive assault unit high-and-dry in the midst of the enemy's lines, all their guns trained at them and ready to fire. It was much more beneficial to win the assault in your opponent's turn, and be able to manoeuvre and declare charges freely. From this frustration, we came up with the Unbroken Charge, Overrun and The Rout rules. Not to mention the buffs to certain unit types' ability to consolidate.

    Unbroken Charge and Overrun were designed as overall buffs to most, if not all, assault units. Rewarding players and units that could conduct brutal and effective charges that overwhelmed the opponent's defensive line and increased the amount of disruption dedicated assault units could cause. In addition, because of Overrun, we then had to create a contingency for when a unit won combat in the first round and broke their opponent, failed to catch them with their Sweeping Advance, but was able to Overrun into the fleeing unit. In this case, we didn't want the fleeing unit to just be removed, as it would be like giving the victorious unit a second (more effective) Sweeping Advance. So we settled on it being akin to charging an already fleeing unit, where they had a chance to pass their Leadership test and fight, or fail it and be removed as a casualty. Striking a balance between Sweeping Advances and Overruns.

    Unlike the other additions, The Rout rule was intended to more be a buff to certain specific units that while ferocious in close combat, lacked the durability to withstand the ensuing all-out assault of ranged weaponry in the opponent's ensuing Shooting phase. Giving them at all times what was effectively a 5+ cover save (the same as from Intervening Models) when they had successfully defeated an enemy unit. We debated making the modifier only apply half to Monstrous Creatures and Walkers, but in the end, decided a straight Yes or No rule was easier to understand and remember, not to mention less complicated, with Gargantuan Creatures and Super-heavy Walkers being the only ones excluded from benefiting. Which I think we can all agree makes sense due to their size. With it only being a cover save modifier, it also had the effect of not really applying any benefit to those units that had already achieved viability as assault units due to their durability (such as the aforementioned TH/SS Terminators and other Deathstars besides). A fun, unintended, consequence of this all was how effective it made certain assassin-like units some Codicies had access to, the units' natural stealthiness (due to preexisting cover save modifiers) turning them into menaces in the opponent's backline. I'm looking at you, my Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapons Space Marine Scouts.

    Vehicles were a sore spot for a decent chunk of our gaming group, most of us having been introduced to the hobby during the tail end of 4th Edition or right when 5th Edition was released. We wanted vehicles to have an increased level of viability, but not the point where they dominated the tabletop as they had done in earlier editions. For this, we looked at what we perceived as the two main issues: High Strength/AP weapons, and special rules such as Gauss and Graviton.

    Reducing the potency of Graviton weapons for us as a gaming group was already partly solved by the 'Don't Be an ********' rule, for the rest we made a very simple change of rewording the Graviton special rule so that a roll of a 6 no longer automatically Immobilised a vehicle and removed a Hull Point and instead caused a Weapon Destroyed result and had the vehicle to lose a Hull Point, removing the possibility for a lucky double 6 roll to instantly remove a 3 Hull Point vehicle off the tabletop and decreasing the overall effectiveness of weapons with this special rule.

    For the High Strength/AP weapons glancing vehicles to death issue, we introduced the Glancing Hit table. On this, a result of a 1-2 basically negates the Glancing hit making it as if nothing had happened. With a result of 7+ inflicting what is basically a Crew Shaken result. This has the result of reducing the effectiveness of AP3, AP4, AP5, and AP6 weapons against non-Open-topped vehicles. While improving AP1 and AP2 weapons average effectiveness against all vehicles, as they can now cause a Crew Shaken result off of a Glancing hit, and are less likely to suffer a result of a 1 or 2 on the Glancing hit table due to the modifiers they benefit from. Which we all thought made a lot of sense, after all, those AP1 and AP2 weapons were and are armies' dedicated anti-tank weaponry, so it made more sense for them to be more effective, even when landing Glancing hits.
    Last edited by Fox Of 9; 25-08-2021 at 22:36. Reason: Spelling errors
    "We are the Emperor's sword! We are humanity's vengeance!"
    - Knight-Paladin Michael Gabriel at the Defense of Hive Galatea

    "No redemption. Only vengeance."
    - Excerpt from the Angels of Vengeance's Catechism of Purpose & Duty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •