Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
While there are several great changes in 5th edition, there are also several that my gaming club has considered flops. Instead of continually dealing with these problems and griping about it, we've chosen to compile a master list of house rules that we can point to as one would use an errata. I figure others might be in the same predicament, or perhaps might want to try playing their game in a new light, so I'm going to share this list.
Here is the link:
ACCD House Rules 40K - Google Docs
Enjoy! And let me know here if you find any problems that need to be addressed, or if there is a 5th edition rule that you think should be included.
Found some of those rules interesting. Others I didn't really see the point with.
The one I like is: The night fight rules.
Area terrain is interesting. Worth to think through.Likewise with Insane Heroism.
The ones I don't like: Consolidation. There is a reason why that rule was changed, I believe. When my daemonettes got into the line of armys like Imperial guards and such, there was nothing that would stop them from wiping a whole army. I believe same goes for Orks and Tyranides. And I don't know if alittle gun power which they even can shake off would help.
More missions is always fun, and I think that with this edition, it could even be encouraged. However, missions like Take the field might be worth to look over, it there might not be alittle too many objectives out there. Atleast when only troops can catch them.
I see a few rules which I would like an explonation for, why you decided to have them that way.
Those are: The 6+ range for being higher than your target.
I take it that you mean Go to Ground when you talk about pinning as a normal action. And wonder why you have to take a LD test for that.
Why use granades with S in close combat? It feels like close combat is where you don't want to drop a granade.
Myself, I think 40K miss rules like Fear and terror. I find it hard to believe that every race and individe in the far future is insanelly brave or insanelly stupid (might buy the later one of course). But that would mean to go through every unit to see if it needs to be modified.
Thanks for the response. I understand some people don't want consolidating into CC back. My club does, and has found getting shot between each assault (exempting situations where you finish in the opponent's turn) to be too powerful for shooters, especially since they can shoot you all day long before you get to them. On the other hand, not getting shot at all is too great for assault armies, so the middle ground seemed to be that roughly 50% of the firepower would come to bare in time. It's still undergoing lots of playtesting.
The 6+ range rule is meant to give purpose to finding high ground. It also allows relatively short-ranged units to be useful if you put them on top of building roofs (where they would normally lose range do to being about 12" above the ground).
Leadership. The traditional 2D6 creates a bell curve where 6s and 7s are MUCH more common than 9s or 10s. Using the three dice method (which simulates a D12), creates a linear probability such that every result has the same likelihood. This allows Ld to slide down two points (so that failing is a more common occurrence). The original method has most units passing Ld almost every time, which is why CC results became so brutal. At the same time, falling back and being pinned are both lessened in intensity to allow you to still pull out a victory with some good tactics. You just have to deal with the fact that units aren't close to fearless (generally), which seems more realistic and fair.
Yes, actions should be available to any unit that has gone to ground. Will change that. The Ld test represents that the unit has taken heavy fire, and has to push through the fear of getting shot and follow orders. So you're not going to be able to take actions all the time, and that makes pinning weapons still retain their core function of slowing the opponent down.
Grenades are used in assaults against vehicles and walkers. Monstrous creatures are strangely immune while dreadnoughts are not, and that just didn't seem right.
A thought on a way to rewrite the consolidation rules you came up with to make them read much more elegantly, though it does change the nature of the rule a bit:
- Units that wipe out all opponents in the Assault phase gain a 4+ invul save against shooting until the beginning of their controller's turn.
This way, it allows the person on the receiving end to shoot with more than just the unit the enemy would have consolidated into, but mostly it just condenses the spirit of the rule into one line. You still wouldn't have consolidating into close combat, but at least now the assaulter doesn't have to pray to end combat on their opponent's turn to get a chance at another charge.
This is a little difficult to explain fluff-wise, but I could see it being justified as the shooters still having to aim around their allies as the last of them are being cut down.
That's a nice attempt to simplify, although it feels arbitrary as you said. One of the goals of these rules has been to make the game play according to common sense. If the written rule itself must be more complex to make the game run more in line with what people expect, so be it. One other problem though: using a 4+ invulnerable save makes this rule only good against low AP strategies, while shot spamming is relatively unaffected. That's why the 4+ roll is before taking saves, so that the number of shots goes down and all shooting is affected equally.
Suggestion: All saving rolls (armour, cover, inv etc.) are taken before rolling to hit, its a lot more fluffy but still gives you the same statistic.
It also means that for rules like intervening models you can say that a passed cover safe is allocated to the other unit which makes more sense. Area terrain saves passed could attack the area terrain (you'd have to work out whether area terrain is like a vechile, infantry or needs a new way to be hurt).
Otherwise most of the rules make a lot more sense than GWs.
Good ideas Sancraer. I didn't change the order of when to roll saves, as I figured why change something if it doesn't affect the game? But if that's how you prefer to do it, I don't see why you shouldn't.
I have actually gone through the same sort of concept for intervening models as you have. However, what I settled on instead was a BS test. Rolling equal or under this stat to not hit an intervening model has a certain elegance that is easy to understand, and it allows us to figure out exactly where the shots are going right off the bat (or gun barrel in this case). Then it's a simple matter of resolving the hits & wounds normally as we've been doing already. Using the cover save as the decider is the same concept, but with some confusing consequences, such as "What if they don't want to use a cover save?" or "When should an added cover save be taken to best continue play?" If you follow that inquiry to it's logical conclusion, you will find the cover turns into a form of rolling to miss instead of hit, and a BS test captures that idea perfectly while keeping it separate from when you are actually trying to hit the intended target.
With that mechanic, it is possible to determine hits on intervening terrain, but I've so far found playing out effects on terrain ends up slowing down the game dramatically and muddies up the cover mechanics in general. So I've elected to keep cover saves as they are for now. They're not perfect, but they seem to work fairly well for the purposes of the game. If you find a way to do this that is just as fun and fast as normal play, please let me know. For now, I think it could be used in custom, but only for special pieces of terrain where both players know beforehand what the effects will be (such as an explosive chemical tank or a building on the verge of collapse).Forgot to respond to this one. Under Victory Conditions, it says all units can capture/contest, pretty much just like 4E, but without the 50% rule. So capturing is more open to the entire army, and troops are still more worth it because a squad of 30 is still useful down to the last man. So Take the Field is all about jumping out there and grabbing as many points as you can each turn while blasting the enemy to pieces so they can't do the same. One change I should have written in was that points aren't accrued until the end of each game turn (now done).Originally Posted by JeanyVixen
Last edited by Krovin-Rezh; January 22nd, 2010 at 22:15.