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!
Here are just a few house rules/changes in the current rules that don't change things drastically, but more so make things a little bit more fun/realistic. I know sometimes anyone with any common sense will sometimes look at 40k rules and kind of raise an eyebrow at its curious simplicity.
Here is my proposed WS chart changes. I don't think WS differences should be AS drastic as differences in Strength and toughness, but the way they are now are ridiculous. The difference between a full blown master and a rookie are almost remote the way they are now.
- - - - - Weapon Skill Chart - - - - -
- - Minimum Roll Necessary to Hit - -
As you can see, instead of the old: One higher WS attacker gets +1 to hit, and if attacker is attacking someone with twice +1 their WS they hit on 5s. I think that is ridiculous and so vague, as NOTHING will hit on 5's except for grots vs expensive HQS.
The way it is here can be explained like this: If you are one higher WS then your enemy, you are granted a +1 to hit, he hits as normal. If you are two higher WS, you not only get a +1 to hit as before, but they suffer a -1 to hit against you. Every WS higher it alternates between a +1 to hit for you or a -1 to hit for them. This way it is not an extremely drastic dip like strength vs toughness can be, but it makes sense and makes the game fun! This also could be used for house rules at it would change the gameplay too much in someone favor, as most combat troops have WS3-5, most HQS have ws4-6. The only thing that would be drastically changed would be the avatar, as it would be very hard to kill in combat, but it is house rules and the point cost could go up if the players agreeed, etc.
Here are some other proposed changes to the rules, that once again, do not shatter the boundaries of the game, and do not change it drastically. This means that these house rules could be implemented between friends to make the game more fun and realistic, and would not tip the favours in anyones army that much.
Instead of choosing a save (armour, cover, invulnerable), I believe a unit should get all three if they have all three. It doesn't make sense that a marine in cover would promply walk out of his protective cover to get hit by bullets, and walk back in when something that would ignore his armour would hit him. That, obviously is not what happens in game, but that is a pretty sad and realistic description if one were to see the marine in real life according to the rules.
Also, having to do with the saves, they should be taken after a hit has been rolled, and before the 'to wound' roll has been made. This only makes sense as when a bullet hits, it must penetrate your armour before it 'wounds' you, and not the other way around.
Anyone, please feel free to throw out comments or opinions on these rules. I may not have been very clear about the rules, but the make sense in my mind...
that is what i never understoud about cover saves with marinesOriginally Posted by Bruiser117
I like your ideas on the saves! That does make more sense, and I never understood why you see if your armor STOPS a hit that has already wounded you :confused:
I also had considered messing with the amount of shots you can take with certain weapons. For example, bolters should be able to pump out a better number of shots, it is a machine gun after all.
I'd love to see what happens if you had to charge a unit that could shoot 50 shots at you.
The game would play faster, but still retain and even enhance the "realistic" feel. I will play a game with that adjustment, as well as some of Bruiser's, and post the results ASAP.
Just some thoughts. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I felt it appropriate to place here. If not, let me know and I will start a new one!
Well, bolters actually fire burst, and even so, most guns would fire a lot more, and that would imbalance the game because shooting would become a lot more powerful, so races like orks and tyranid would get raped.
Yeah I just used bolters as an example. I mean that any rapid fire weapon could shoot more. So every race would have higher amounts of gunfire. I'm bringing this up with my local club, we're going to try out a change to see what happens. I proposed your armor save thing too, taking them all instead of picking one. I would take them in order as well, as in cover save, then invulnerable, then armor, to represent a bullet passing through each save.
i have to say, the reason that you take saves after wounds is because the owning player makes the saves, not the attacking player. if you took saves after hits what would happen is:
attacking player rolls hits => passes dice over => owning player rolls saves => passes dice over => attacking player rolls wounds
attacking player rolls hits => attacking player rolls wounds => passes dice over => owning player rolls wounds.
there's only one dice pass now, this might not make sense but the rolls are exactly the same and the current method is just much quicker and easier.
also, about making more than one save, have any of you thought about bloodletters when considering this? do you seriously want those nasties to have an extra daemonic save on top of their armour save?
also, all those people that don't play power armour (all 2 of you) do you really want them to have another 4+ save when behind a wall?
i don't think you've thought this through. using all saves would need to make certain units a lot more expensive to keep them balanced.
You don't roll 1 or 2 dice for a rapid fire gun to represent 1 or 2 shots, they represent the statistic average of a burst of fire. Use your brain when you're criticising rules. It's an abstraction of the action in a real battle, just like models withing 2" get all their attacks because the static scene on the battlefield represents a "swirling melee". Use your imagination.
Kais Kauyon Tash'var Battle Record
Waaugh! Shizgrak Battle Record
then just roll the enemies armour saves yourself. Its dumb u have to give it to them. When the bullets are piercing their skin, you roll, but when its a roll to pierce their armour, ITS PERSONAL, and they get to roll. Takes up too much time and is too campy.
Not very superstitious, are you?Originally Posted by Bruiser117
If someone tried to roll my armor saves, I'd punch 'em. A man's gotta make his own armor saves.
Kais Kauyon Tash'var Battle Record
Waaugh! Shizgrak Battle Record
If everything in 40k was completely realistic then the entire game would be so different to play and probably not very fun either. All the rules were made for a good reason and its these rules that keep the game balanced.
One example is the range of the weapons: they are completely unrealistic and if the ranges were made realistic then you probably wouldn't have a board big enough for any weapon (even small arms) to be out of range. This would probably mean that close combat would become obslete unless there was ALOT of cover or the assaulting unit were VERY fast (like DE) otherwise they would be shot to pieces before they could get anywhere near.
Despite this, I completely agree with the saves argument and that cover, invulnerable AND armour saves should be given. However, this WOULD make some characters extremely difficult to kill even with low AP weapons so the rules would have to be adjusted slightly.
A billion chinese can't be wrong - eat rice.