Dumb Rules - Page 3 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-27-06, 06:36 PM
Senior Member
 
FrozenOrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 383
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarEagle
2-I want to be able to use my land raider and assault aunother tank you know plow right over that chaos rhino
Hmm. Hadn't thought about this but you bring up a good point. That would be fun.


Heresy grows from idleness.
FrozenOrb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-27-06, 09:30 PM
Senior Member
 
pathwinder14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 999
Reputation: 1
Default

GW should really remove the turn based style of play. It should be:

Both players roll for iniative. The player that rolled the highest gets to move one unit/vehicle then the other player moves a unit/vehicle until all movement is done. Shooting would work the same way. Close Combat would work teh same way; the unit that charged gets the bnonus attack.

Wisdom means having the ability to admit what you do not know. - Me

Mother nature does not give do overs. - Me too
pathwinder14 is offline  
post #23 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-27-06, 09:32 PM
Senior Member
 
jigplums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,602
Reputation: 5
Default

it would add a very different tactical element to the game

Check out my gamer Blog
http://gamergeekery.blogspot.co.uk/2...rs-in-40k.html

Jezlad "I actually commented that Jigplums list was the least scary list I faced. Then took a pasting"
http://www.coolminiornot.com/artist/jigplums
http://www.coolminiornot.com/160095
jigplums is offline  
 
post #24 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-28-06, 08:53 AM
Member
 
Badkarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Both players roll for iniative.
Our gaming group does that for BFG and it works really well. Doing it for 40k would also improve it, think we'll add that to our House Rules......which is now 4 A4 pages long.

If lifes a game where the hell is the re-set button?
Badkarma is offline  
post #25 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-29-06, 11:24 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaky
My main major gripe is the rediculous Tank Shock rules. How and why the hell can't you ram the shit out of people like in 2nd edition?
People, funnily enough, don't just stand there when a few hundred tonnes of screaming metal doom is bearing down on them. They run. And they run in an organised fashion, having been held together by the strong leadership of their immediate boss, or flee in terror and disorganisation. Funnily enough this is covered almost perfectly by the current tank shock rules.

On the other hand, I'd think ramming between things with armour value shgould be allowed, since it's much easier to just run than fire up the left track, spin it forward, spin the right track backwards, stop the engines, fire up the engines, change gear, and move forwards. It's probably just a matter fo what it'd do to already-established vehicle point costs, and the fact that GW has learned a valuable lesson in regards to single-source retonning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Sinkoran
I hate with a passion that you could field a imperial guard army with nothing but lascannons its so cheap and annoying, if i could change a rule it would be put a limit on how many you could have of a certain heavy weapon like 0-5 lascannons or 0-6 misslie launchers.

p.s. sorry if this sounded a bit ranty
Cheap, no. For that one lascannon, I could take a few heavy bolters, or a missile laucher or two, or even a half squad of guardsmen.

Annoying, no. Unless your army is Deathwing, you should hardly care. And if it is Deathwing, you should be experienced enough to avoid this problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudge
"I'm going to shoot this guy. Damn he's out of range, even though my gun is loaded still I can't shoot anyone"
WTF?
You mistake the shooting processes. The way it works, the guys aim and start shooting, represented by you declaring targets. Then, either they're within range, and get hit, or beyond effective range, and nothing really happens. You can't take back a bullet that's left the barrel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudge
"Damn I only have 7 blood claws, none of them can fight"
I don't get this one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WarEagle
why do assault marines only hit fast tanks on a 6? they arnt lnad units they can fly up to it grab hold and smake the crap out of it.
The day you can fly what is basically a rocket strapped to your back accurately enough that you can fly through the utter havoc that is war at eighty kilometres per hour, drop out of the sky on top of a vehicle that is travelling at eighty kilometres per hour and doing its level best to stop you coming close to it, with such incredible efficiency that you can do it flawlessy with but a single explosive device, is the day I give you this point.
Hint: This won't happen.


As for the people advocating a change in the turn sequence, you would be bollocksing about for no other reason than you don't feel comfortable with the concept of disassociated time. The turns of 40K are supposed to represent simultaneous movement on the batttlefield, which, as we all know, can't actually happen. The way the game's been snce creation has been player turns, and that you'd want to make such an incredibly huge change for such a simple reason indicates to me that you don't know what would happen to the entire rules system to balance this seemingly small feature. Some house rules may be close, but I've yet to see one set without a large and fairly obvious flaw.
uberschveinen is offline  
post #26 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-29-06, 03:32 PM
Member
 
Badkarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
As for the people advocating a change in the turn sequence, you would be bollocksing about for no other reason than you don't feel comfortable with the concept of disassociated time. The turns of 40K are supposed to represent simultaneous movement on the batttlefield, which, as we all know, can't actually happen. The way the game's been snce creation has been player turns, and that you'd want to make such an incredibly huge change for such a simple reason indicates to me that you don't know what would happen to the entire rules system to balance this seemingly small feature. Some house rules may be close, but I've yet to see one set without a large and fairly obvious flaw.
Excellent..!! So you've obviously tried it then...how did it go and what "Flaws" were apparent then?
To me wondering weather i'm going to win the next initative round adds more of a tactical game, as you have to postion your units whilst bearing in mind that you might not get to go first again the following round.
It means that you have to plan ahead, and Overwatch comes into it's own (we only allow rapid fire weapons to go into Overwatch).
It seems to me that you like to stick to the Rules and not deviate from them, that's fine but I would highly recommend the Iniative turn sequence to other players, after all the Rules are basic and after a while kinda boring, which has given me an idea for a new thread :D

If lifes a game where the hell is the re-set button?
Badkarma is offline  
post #27 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-30-06, 07:22 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 801
Default

My problem is that each and every house rule plays with how much certain models are worth, more so depending on the scale of the changes they introduce. Changing the turn sequence would screw around dramatically with the value of units, for little appreciable gain. At the end of the day, all you've gained from the switch is a less systematic and more luck-based turn sequence. As it is, the system is set, allowing players to make strategic decisions on their deployment and playing knowing that they or their opponent will get one movement, shooting, and assault phase before they can react. Changing the system would take the irritating uncertainty of the deployment phase, and jam it into every single part of the game. If you can present to me a reason why this is worth this cost, I'll listen. As of yet, though, I've yet to see a single positive advantage to the game itself other than shutting up the people who're too hyperactive to sit around for the unbearably long half an hour of an average turn.


As for overwatch, that's a horrible idea. This addition would make close-combat armies, quite simply, unplayable. Overwatch especially would break any game with a reasonable amount of terrain in half, and turn it into a match of 'sit and wait', oir against combat armies, 'total slaughter'. Again, like the turn sequence, it is only an advantage for those people who cannot think of time as being anything other than perfectly linear. These people, obviously, must have never touched a book, movie, or game plot in their lives.
uberschveinen is offline  
post #28 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-30-06, 08:17 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 677
Default

The tank shock rules are pretty good, but I think more carnage should happen to unit that gets hit by one. True, units don't stand there and take it, but in a massive battle, you might not see it until it's running you over through the fog and constant vibration of war. Fast vehicles even moreso. The style of turns and movement create tank shock in this way, as tanks do not launch across a battlefield without you responding though. Tank shocking other vehicles is a nice touch our old gaming club had, as well titans getting stomp attacks. I don't care how fast you are, because if a titan manages to get his foot in the middle of your unit, some unlucky bloke is gonna be pudding.

I agree that the back-and-forth movement could massively hurt some people's armies. Of course, it will also improve others. With necessary changes it could work well, but I feel it would become a game of firing at the squad that just moved or will move next.

On Overwatch, only certain squads should get them. Only few armies should be able to use it at all, as most units aren't calm and collected enough to sit there and wait. I'd say only units with 5 men or less, as most units would be participating in the battle leaving the minor ones to guard flanks, gaps, etc. I'd also say only units led by some veteran-type character or an independent character can use it. It might seem to limit overwatch, but if it isn't done like this, you'll have a Starcannon army overwatched all game, same with lascannon armies. Small units w/ someone of character leading them in almost an in-game subplot seems to fit the bill of overwatch.

-Khaine-
Wrath of Khaine is offline  
post #29 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-30-06, 08:24 PM
Slave to Heresy!
Jezlad's Flag is: United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 8,803
Reputation: 26
Default

A Challenger 2 travels just under 37 miles per hour.

If you can dodge that you probably shouldn't be in the army...
Jezlad is offline  
post #30 of 44 (permalink) Old 12-30-06, 10:59 PM
The Hebrew Hammer
 
The Son of Horus's Avatar
The Son of Horus's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,544
Reputation: 60
Default

I think the drop pod assault rules are a little on the dumb side. A landing drop pod just sort of bumps intervening terrain and models out of the way. Now, it seems to me like if a 100-ton capsule fired from orbit were to hit you, even if it's bled off most of its velocity, it'd still crush whatever it landed on top of, not just sort of bump them aside. Sometimes, there's nowhere to go, even if you do see the thing coming. They're supposed to hit the ground quite hard despite slowing down after entry anyway... seems to me like if they doubled (or heck, even tripled) the cost of a drop pod and made it so that if it lands on a vehicle it causes a penetrating hit, and on infantry it'd be S8 AP2 for any model that fits under the drop pod model itself, just as if the drop pod were an ordinance template.

IN THE US? ASK ME HOW TO GET 10% OFF GAMES WORKSHOP PRODUCTS!

My homebrew Space Marine Chapter: The Astartes Lions Rampant

The Son of Horus is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome