Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,689
Reputation: 19
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
it's a real light "7" pages, I could probably condense it into 3 or 4, but I have it set up that way for any potential changes/additions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbatte
if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement
|
|
||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
View Post
Just because I'd like to see some change to 40k, I'll post a PDF of what changes that I would like to see changed.
NOTE: if you plan on actually reading the PDF I highly recommend for you to have the 7th ed BRB out with you, because for several changes it only changes a single sentence or so (LoS for example)
I hate the current version of the Psychic phase, I have to some degree completely retooled that phase.
I omitted my "erratas" to the codexs because 1) half of them were out dated/got a new codex 2) I generally do not find much issue with the codexs themselves - in view of CAD/Force Org requirements styles for the game 3) I don't like formations and I don't want to fuck with them/piss a bunch of people off.
----
Lastly please note that this is very much rough drafty, I personally do not play a whole lot of 40k anymore and this has been my pet "project" whenever it has excited me, and it hasn't really be play tested.
If anyone does play test these and would like to tell me their findings - feel free to PM me your results and thoughts; besides that - please enjoy and comment.
NOTE: if you plan on actually reading the PDF I highly recommend for you to have the 7th ed BRB out with you, because for several changes it only changes a single sentence or so (LoS for example)
I hate the current version of the Psychic phase, I have to some degree completely retooled that phase.
I omitted my "erratas" to the codexs because 1) half of them were out dated/got a new codex 2) I generally do not find much issue with the codexs themselves - in view of CAD/Force Org requirements styles for the game 3) I don't like formations and I don't want to fuck with them/piss a bunch of people off.
----
Lastly please note that this is very much rough drafty, I personally do not play a whole lot of 40k anymore and this has been my pet "project" whenever it has excited me, and it hasn't really be play tested.
If anyone does play test these and would like to tell me their findings - feel free to PM me your results and thoughts; besides that - please enjoy and comment.
I looked at your document with an alert brain.
mostly liked the ideas in there...
would like to see a fatter band of 3's in the weapon skill to hit in assault.
for fear, i would think pinned with failure within 6" is best.
I like the overwatch.
would like to see a similar treatment with charges.
I would like to see the chance to charge any direction for instance to take a hill or an objective,
or as an orderly redeployment, with the caveat that the unit cannot charge the next turn.
Look out sir should be within 2", imo.
Psychic powers should be once per turn per power up to mastery level.
No overlimit nonsense...
The skyfire thing is weird...
difficult terrain test failure is immobilized.
If you wanna add that the crew (not embarked troops, but otherwise invisible crew, can try to un-immobilze it at a 4+, suffering a hull point on a roll of 1.
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,689
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jin
View Post
I looked at your document with an alert brain.
mostly liked the ideas in there...
would like to see a fatter band of 3's in the weapon skill to hit in assault.
for fear, i would think pinned with failure within 6" is best.
DERP (HARDCORE DERP) After this whole time I never noticed that I never filled in all of the default "4+" things that were meant to be "3+" I just read it since I understood what I meant!
I like the overwatch.
would like to see a similar treatment with charges.
I would like to see the chance to charge any direction for instance to take a hill or an objective,
or as an orderly redeployment, with the caveat that the unit cannot charge the next turn.
Hmm...I personally think that is sorta already taken into account for it with the "Run ability" - IIRC you could not "Run" until 5th ed. No need to add more movement that is NOT in the movement phase. If you wish to write up something that is balanced and can do this then success... I would probably have to stipulate that if I wrote one myself that "The unit has forgone and voluntary action that it chooses to make for the next turn (move, shoot, react(overwatch), and charge). Since it can be a pretty big power play.
Look out sir should be within 2", imo.
Simply keeping that status quo as it is in the rulebook, just tried to rewrite the rule so that people were less careless about it.
Psychic powers should be once per turn per power up to mastery level.
No overlimit nonsense...
It's the only way I could think of with getting maximum output of a psycher and not have it be broken towards a single faction *cough* Eldar/Tzeentch Demons. Since every faction could go "over the limit" as much as they desired to, simply taxing a psycher's brain and increasing potential psychic backlash.
The skyfire thing is weird...
Seeing how currently RAI weapons that have "Skyfire" cannot even shoot at non flying units. I wrote this as a "welp, no idea how useful this hydra's weapon will be against a truck full of orks, but I'd rather try than have to deal with orks" and make it seem that it's a "this gun is not designed/troops are not trained to use the weapon against normal ground targets, hence their loss of aim.
difficult terrain test failure is immobilized.
If you wanna add that the crew (not embarked troops, but otherwise invisible crew, can try to un-immobilze it at a 4+, suffering a hull point on a roll of 1.
So give every vehicle the "Rhino Repair" rule effectively, roll a "6" (or is it a "1"?) and un-immobilize your vehicle.
mostly liked the ideas in there...
would like to see a fatter band of 3's in the weapon skill to hit in assault.
for fear, i would think pinned with failure within 6" is best.
DERP (HARDCORE DERP) After this whole time I never noticed that I never filled in all of the default "4+" things that were meant to be "3+" I just read it since I understood what I meant!
I like the overwatch.
would like to see a similar treatment with charges.
I would like to see the chance to charge any direction for instance to take a hill or an objective,
or as an orderly redeployment, with the caveat that the unit cannot charge the next turn.
Hmm...I personally think that is sorta already taken into account for it with the "Run ability" - IIRC you could not "Run" until 5th ed. No need to add more movement that is NOT in the movement phase. If you wish to write up something that is balanced and can do this then success... I would probably have to stipulate that if I wrote one myself that "The unit has forgone and voluntary action that it chooses to make for the next turn (move, shoot, react(overwatch), and charge). Since it can be a pretty big power play.
Look out sir should be within 2", imo.
Simply keeping that status quo as it is in the rulebook, just tried to rewrite the rule so that people were less careless about it.
Psychic powers should be once per turn per power up to mastery level.
No overlimit nonsense...
It's the only way I could think of with getting maximum output of a psycher and not have it be broken towards a single faction *cough* Eldar/Tzeentch Demons. Since every faction could go "over the limit" as much as they desired to, simply taxing a psycher's brain and increasing potential psychic backlash.
The skyfire thing is weird...
Seeing how currently RAI weapons that have "Skyfire" cannot even shoot at non flying units. I wrote this as a "welp, no idea how useful this hydra's weapon will be against a truck full of orks, but I'd rather try than have to deal with orks" and make it seem that it's a "this gun is not designed/troops are not trained to use the weapon against normal ground targets, hence their loss of aim.
difficult terrain test failure is immobilized.
If you wanna add that the crew (not embarked troops, but otherwise invisible crew, can try to un-immobilze it at a 4+, suffering a hull point on a roll of 1.
So give every vehicle the "Rhino Repair" rule effectively, roll a "6" (or is it a "1"?) and un-immobilize your vehicle.
On Vehicles and Difficult Terrain; it should have been two choices on how to write the rule, not a choice that the player makes in game.
It have been:
If you roll 1 on the difficult terrain test, you become immobilized - but with no loss of hull points. (Driving into a tree doesn't hurt the vehicle that badly - so it is still a potential danger to enemies)
OR
If you roll 1 on the difficult terrain test, you lose 1 Hull Point and stop your movement and consider the vehicle has moved at Cruising Speed (Or whatever the fastest version of speed is now) for this turn.
----
I lifted the second rule from one of @neferhet 's posts a year or so ago - as I thought it was a pretty neat idea.
----
I shall attach my ever so slight changes to my Errata/FAQ/FIX-THIS of 40k.
Thanks @jin for reading and the feedback.
IF anyone else wishes to read and comment I will do my best to reply as quickly as I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilbatte
if you squint the Sigmar stuff doesn't all look like the love children from a Necron and Blood Angel orgy.
Last edited by Fallen; 02-19-16 at 06:42 AM.
|
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 205
Reputation: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallen
View Post
My mistake on a couple of things, again - mostly because I know what I'm reading (mostly because I short handed it and just didn't notice - as this is the first "public" viewing in a long while)
----
I shall attach my ever so slight changes to my Errata/FAQ/FIX-THIS of 40k.
Thanks @jin for reading and the feedback.
IF anyone else wishes to read and comment I will do my best to reply as quickly as I can.
----
I shall attach my ever so slight changes to my Errata/FAQ/FIX-THIS of 40k.
Thanks @jin for reading and the feedback.
IF anyone else wishes to read and comment I will do my best to reply as quickly as I can.
i will check out your most recent composition once i get this first paper in a series of three solving the hard problem of consciousness sent to the editor...deadline is in hours. shall see what happens
|
|
| Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
||||||
| Tags |
| 40k , broken , itc , rules |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| Posting Rules | |
