Age of Strife

In my bid to dominate this sub-forum, I've been thinking about how I'd mod 6th Ed to make it something I'd like.

Assume 6th Ed rules in place unless otherwise stated, some starters for 10

IGOUGO - replaced with the Warpath activation system. Short version is that the player with initiative uses a unit. If they want to consecutively use a second unit they need to roll a 3+ (fail = unit can't act this turn, other player now uses a unit), and a third unit is 5+. Ofc there may be unintended or complex side effects (how it interacts with CC requires some thought)!

Wound allocation - similar to old Torrent of Fire. Owner chooses casualties freely, except all unsaved wounds beyond the number of models in the unit are allocated by the firer for saves. Precision shots would survive in some form, less sure about whether they would make the cut for CC. Models out of LoS eligible to receive wounds (so no scoping).

Overwatch/random charges - if a unit that hasn't been used is charged then it can give up it's action for the turn to shoot at the charging unit with similar restrictions to current (D3 Template hits, no blasts) at full BS. Charges would revert back to previous edition rules to compensate for the full BS change. May include a Ld test in order to allow the Overwatch.

Flyers - Act like a skimmer but with minimum move and better save as a result of moving. May add some sort of strafing run rule similar where they enter and leave the table in the same turn but can only appear every other turn.

Characters/MCs - some sort of "wounded" status as they are currently the only models whose performance doesn't suffer as they accumulate damage.

Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers - no longer random

Saves - classify non-armour saves as Field, Cover, Jink, Agility (might be possible to have Jink and Agility the same, need to review), Psionic so that they are specifically affected by certain things. (Template weapons ignore Cover and Agility, Turbo-penetrator ignores Field and Cover etc).

Vehicle Damage - possibly replace the tables with staged damage based on HPs lost.

Challenges - add Overkill rule.

Baragash wrote:
IGOUGO - replaced with the Warpath activation system. Short version is that the player with initiative uses a unit. If they want to consecutively use a second unit they need to roll a 3+ (fail = unit can't act this turn, other player now uses a unit), and a third unit is 5+. Ofc there may be unintended or complex side effects (how it interacts with CC requires some thought)!

Way to make the game longererer?

Baragash wrote:Overwatch/random charges - if a unit that hasn't been used is charged then it can give up it's action for the turn to shoot at the charging unit with similar restrictions to current (D3 Template hits, no blasts) at full BS. Charges would revert back to previous edition rules to compensate for the full BS change. May include a Ld test in order to allow the Overwatch.

Why would a unit not shoot in its turn.. to shoot whilst being charged.. it can move 6, shoot 12..18" kill zone.. compared to guy moves 6 inches is within 2d6 and has limitless range.. I don't see a massive difference between one turn at full bs at further range then bs 1.. vs sitting still then shooting at full bs at closer range.. What situation do you invisage this happening.. For it to work you need something they want to do, which isn't their entirety which is a dilemma which they choose to give up (tokens a % of their ability).. e.g may only fire bolt pistols in their round.. may then fire bolt pistols again when charged at full bs.

.

Baragash wrote:Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers - no longer random

Would have to be rebalanced to address this.. e.g. telepathy has 3 really awesome powers and 3 gash powers.. divination is a 'safe bet' but with nothing uber.. some warlord powers are awesome whilst some crap.. if you make them a choice they'll need to cost a proportionate amnount of points to just stop people saying 'I take only the awesome stuff'
you'd also need to points rebalance those guys who are chosen/picked specifically because they can choose/come with a trait.

Baragash wrote:Saves - classify non-armour saves as Field, Cover, Jink, Agility (might be possible to have Jink and Agility the same, need to review), Psionic so that they are specifically affected by certain things. (Template weapons ignore Cover and Agility, Turbo-penetrator ignores Field and Cover etc).

Are you talking about a further split so that they stack with armour, or are you talking about readressing each one by one to emphasis its importance.. thus adding loads to the ruleset?

Baragash wrote:Vehicle Damage - possibly replace the tables with staged damage based on HPs lost.

So they get cumulatively worse with more hits..interesting.. my shorthand quick fix would be +1 to the table with each roll. but i think generally this will favour weaker vehicles disproportionately and they do fairly well in 6th when you take a cluster of them.. MR6 (still only 2-3 games in) was giving me the mech are dead speech.. and a ran some quick maths on how many str 7-8 weapons it would take to actually glance to death 5 waveserpents in nightfighted cover..before they dump their cargo.
Modding cover AND the table makes me leary.

Baragash wrote:Challenges - add Overkill rule.

I don't really see a need. Support your big baddasses.

As per normal.. I liked the rest i guess.

Baragash wrote:IGOUGO - replaced with the Warpath activation system. Short version is that the player with initiative uses a unit. If they want to consecutively use a second unit they need to roll a 3+ (fail = unit can't act this turn, other player now uses a unit), and a third unit is 5+. Ofc there may be unintended or complex side effects (how it interacts with CC requires some thought)!

Not sure on this - IGOUGO is fairly ingrained in the 'feel' of 40k. But I'm not set against it - I think this won't work at all with the rest of the rules though. This is possibly the most fundamental rule change it's possible to make...

Baragash wrote:Wound allocation - similar to old Torrent of Fire. Owner chooses casualties freely, except all unsaved wounds beyond the number of models in the unit are allocated by the firer for saves. Precision shots would survive in some form, less sure about whether they would make the cut for CC. Models out of LoS eligible to receive wounds (so no scoping).

I think it's ok at the moment, just get rid of challenges & Look out sir (maybe keep one or both for HQs?) - both are pointless complexities. Tactical movement is important - agree with removing Line of sight per model - if you can see the unit, you can kill anyone in the unit - cover saves should applky per unit, not per model, which at this scale is unwieldy and annoying.

Baragash wrote:Overwatch/random charges - if a unit that hasn't been used is charged then it can give up it's action for the turn to shoot at the charging unit with similar restrictions to current (D3 Template hits, no blasts) at full BS. Charges would revert back to previous edition rules to compensate for the full BS change. May include a Ld test in order to allow the Overwatch.

I think this only works if you scrap IGOUGO. I quite like overwatch as a laugh, but I'd say it should be a "veteran upgrade" or something you can buy. Charge ranges are too random at the moment, maybe 3" (or 6", or whatever) + best one of 2D6 roll, prefer not random at all though.

Baragash wrote:Flyers - Act like a skimmer but with minimum move and better save as a result of moving. May add some sort of strafing run rule similar where they enter and leave the table in the same turn but can only appear every other turn.

Like.

Baragash wrote:Characters/MCs - some sort of "wounded" status as they are currently the only models whose performance doesn't suffer as they accumulate damage.

Meh.

Baragash wrote:Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers - no longer random

Agree, but add a points cost to each.

Baragash wrote:Saves - classify non-armour saves as Field, Cover, Jink, Agility (might be possible to have Jink and Agility the same, need to review), Psionic so that they are specifically affected by certain things. (Template weapons ignore Cover and Agility, Turbo-penetrator ignores Field and Cover etc).

Too much bookkeeping for my liking.

Baragash wrote:Vehicle Damage - possibly replace the tables with staged damage based on HPs lost.

Quite like this - increase HPs a bit, and a penetrating hit can be 2HPs, maybe AP1 weapons are +1 HP each or something... Noth thought about it really.

Baragash wrote:Challenges - add Overkill rule.

Meh, just get rid of it, it just slows everything down for minimal effect (maybe keep on HQs/special characters or something).

killmaimburn wrote:Way to make the game longererer?

I didn't complain about game length And not really, in a six turn game, each unit gets 6 potential opportunities to act (barring dying ofc), same as currently. 40k is a primarily shooting game, having one side do everything, then another side do everything is a darling that needs to be exposed to the warp in it's rawest form IMO.

killmaimburn wrote:Why would a unit not shoot in its turn.. to shoot whilst being charged.. it can move 6, shoot 12..18" kill zone.. compared to guy moves 6 inches is within 2d6 and has limitless range.. I don't see a massive difference between one turn at full bs at further range then bs 1.. vs sitting still then shooting at full bs at closer range.. What situation do you invisage this happening.. For it to work you need something they want to do, which isn't their entirety which is a dilemma which they choose to give up (tokens a % of their ability).. e.g may only fire bolt pistols in their round.. may then fire bolt pistols again when charged at full bs.

Each unit gets one action per game turn (there are no player turns). It's just an option that a unit getting charged that hasn't acted yet has to choose from (versus using CC attacks), either the unit has shot in the game turn and can't Overwatch, or it hasn't shot and can (maybe other conditions eg running unit = penalty/not allowed). I think without it the balance would make a heavy swing towards assault by switching to AA from IGOYGO, particularly fast assault units so allowing the unit to spend it's action as an interrupt is there to try and maintain the current shooting/assault balance (or at least prevent it swinging too far towards assault).

killmaimburn wrote:Would have to be rebalanced to address this.. e.g. telepathy has 3 really awesome powers and 3 gash powers.. divination is a 'safe bet' but with nothing uber.. some warlord powers are awesome whilst some crap.. if you make them a choice they'll need to cost a proportionate amnount of points to just stop people saying 'I take only the awesome stuff'
you'd also need to points rebalance those guys who are chosen/picked specifically because they can choose/come with a trait.

Totally, for Psychic Powers. I think Warlord traits is less of an issue in that if everyone's picking a trait that suits their list then broadly speaking veryone is probably seeing a similar benefit, and anyone choosing a character with a fixed trait is probably playing to their style or also list optimising anyway.

killmaimburn wrote:Are you talking about a further split so that they stack with armour, or are you talking about readressing each one by one to emphasis its importance.. thus adding loads to the ruleset?

Same method, just think it allows some effects or granularity that you can't get under the current set up. (See, I'm not against flavour or granularity in general )

killmaimburn wrote:So they get cumulatively worse with more hits..interesting.. my shorthand quick fix would be +1 to the table with each roll. but i think generally this will favour weaker vehicles disproportionately and they do fairly well in 6th when you take a cluster of them.. MR6 (still only 2-3 games in) was giving me the mech are dead speech.. and a ran some quick maths on how many str 7-8 weapons it would take to actually glance to death 5 waveserpents in nightfighted cover..before they dump their cargo.
Modding cover AND the table makes me leary.

Not planning to mod actually cover atm, I only mentioned it above for completeness (it's a non-armour, fixed save). Units degrade in a structured manner as they lose models, my concept for MCs/characters will be similar, I'd like more structure to vehicle degredation.

Baragash wrote:

killmaimburn wrote:I don't really see a need. Support your big baddasses.

Because challenges are meant to be about heroic combat, at the moment, and WHF has a similar issue, it's basically for one side or the other to throw a Champion to the wolves to keep the kill count down. So real use versus intended use are galaxies apart. CC took enough nerfs without an auto one-round combat character delay that costs a fraction of the character to thrown on top. WHF had no Overkill rule for a few editions until they realised it was used in exactly this way, it beggars belief that it isn't in 40k.

----------------------------

Damn, Ljund made this into an epic reply as I was replying

Ljundhammer wrote:Not sure on this - IGOUGO is fairly ingrained in the 'feel' of 40k. But I'm not set against it - I think this won't work at all with the rest of the rules though. This is possibly the most fundamental rule change it's possible to make...

The more I play AA, the more I think IGYGO is not right for a shooting game on a large scale. I do realise that it can potentially break everything - certainly resolving CC and units locking in combat is a big flag of "does it need changing?".

Slight benefit I've noticed is that it does sort of address the the whole squads (Eldar!!) in transports disembarking and not being able to assault issue. If you disembark them late in game turn 1, then both you and your opponent have to evaluate in game turn 2 how early to assault them/shoot at them (+ the proposed overwatch rule preventing it swinging back to disembarking unit advantage). It could swing it too far back to 5th ofc.

Ljundhammer wrote:I think it's ok at the moment, just get rid of challenges & Look out sir (maybe keep one or both for HQs?) - both are pointless complexities. Tactical movement is important - agree with removing Line of sight per model - if you can see the unit, you can kill anyone in the unit - cover saves should applky per unit, not per model, which at this scale is unwieldy and annoying.

As much as I'd like taking challenges out, I just can't find a good reason not to have rules for calling people out in the game, but LoS! would not be needed any more. Wound allocation is the rule I hate the most in 6th Ed so status quo is a non-starter, and as I've said before, I don't agree that individual model placement = tactical movement in a squad-based battle game.

I need to think about cover saves, as I quite like the Focus Fire rule. Currently pondering if the old 50% of unit in cover = unit is in cover and the Focus Fire rules can live in the same space.

Ljundhammer wrote:Too much bookkeeping for my liking.

I don't think it amounts to much change at all. You already have weapons that ignore cover, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, rules that modify Jink saves, weapons that ignore the cover save a vehicle gets from moving fast, rules that specifically affect Daemon saves, rules that modify cover saves etc. Mostly it would just formalise the language a bit more.

Baragash wrote:As much as I'd like taking challenges out, I just can't find a good reason not to have rules for calling people out in the game, but LoS! would not be needed any more. Wound allocation is the rule I hate the most in 6th Ed so status quo is a non-starter, and as I've said before, I don't agree that individual model placement = tactical movement in a squad-based battle game.

I need to think about cover saves, as I quite like the Focus Fire rule. Currently pondering if the old 50% of unit in cover = unit is in cover and the Focus Fire rules can live in the same space.

Well, we're at polar opposites here! There's only one way we can sort this out:
Two nerds enter, one nerd leaves!

And to play devil's advocate, isn't the whole focus firing & cover dependent on where you place your models anyway?

Baragash wrote:

Ljundhammer wrote:Too much bookkeeping for my liking.

I don't think it amounts to much change at all. You already have weapons that ignore cover, weapons that ignore invulnerable saves, rules that modify Jink saves, weapons that ignore the cover save a vehicle gets from moving fast, rules that specifically affect Daemon saves, rules that modify cover saves etc. Mostly it would just formalise the language a bit more.

I agree - there's too many. Armour, cover, invulnerable, no more is needed.

On other matters - I agree that IGOUGO isn't perfect, but no system is. Take IGOUGO out of 40k, and you're playing infinity apocolypse. I think it needs to stay for flavour, but this isn't my project...

Challenges are an abomination. I agree about calling out your opponent - it is quite fun in theory, but space marine sergeant 73 v's IG sergeant 67834 is neither interesting, nor fun. All it does is add MOAR DICE ROLLING FOR MOAR FUN!!!111!1! Keep it for HQs if you're going to have it at all. Importing things from fantasy is a bad idea - it's an awful system (mantic's version is far superior).


The main thing is you need to wither have complex core rules & simple armies, or simple core rules and complex armies. Warmachine started well with lots of (well written) core rules & simple units (except warlocks), but has lost its way recently; KoW (when I last looked) had simple rules, but the armies were a bit too simple too, so it felt a bit lacking; WHF & 40k currently have badly written over the top core rules, and every codex has a myriad of further special rules creating a complete mess (as the rules don't interact well, or are practically duplicated with minor variences, or simply do nothing at all).

A clearly written rulebook with some actual legal language (or even having special rules in CAPITALS when they are used like warmachine) would make the whole thing less of a drudgery to play.

bara, have you played bolt action yet? I would highly recomend it as it seems it would fit in with your changes
im currently toying with adapting bolt action rules to fit with 40k models as I know some people dont like historical gaming
I dont like a lot of 6th as compared to 5th, but Im still getting some enjoyment playing it

Ljundhammer wrote:Well, we're at polar opposites here! There's only one way we can sort this out:
Two nerds enter, one nerd leaves!

Two nerds enter, 3 hours later they still can't decide if the Enterprise beats a Super Star Destroyer.....

Ljundhammer wrote:And to play devil's advocate, isn't the whole focus firing & cover dependent on where you place your models anyway?

A little bit*, but depending on how the rule applied means it wouldn't matter how individual models are placed.

*As opposed to "yes you have a point"

Ljundhammer wrote:I agree - there's too many. Armour, cover, invulnerable, no more is needed.

Saves as a result of movement should be classified differently to cover IMO, subdividing Invulnerable saves is not something I'm heavily sold on (effort of writing it) in the first instance.

Ljundhammer wrote:On other matters - I agree that IGOUGO isn't perfect, but no system is. Take IGOUGO out of 40k, and you're playing infinity apocolypse. I think it needs to stay for flavour, but this isn't my project...

EDIT cos I left it blank: I guess because I play/have played plenty of games (not just wargames) that are IGOYGO, and plenty that are IDOEVERYTHINGYDOEVERYTHING, for me it's just a thing, so I don't attach either concept to any particular game. (Which is not to say that anyone else that has played both types should not see it as more than just a thing, I just can't see a better way to phrase it!).

Ljundhammer wrote:Keep it for HQs if you're going to have it at all.

It's an option, but with characters* appearing in Elite slots and stuff, in practise the wording might need fine tuning, or characters eligible for a challenge might need a special rule indicating they can ("mighty hero" maybe).

Ljundhammer wrote:Importing things from fantasy is a bad idea - it's an awful system (mantic's version is far superior).

Single profile chariots is a win for WHF and a loss for 40k In terms of playability I'd agree. In terms of special rules their two supplements have taken a nice wander into GW territory with bad special rules. In tactical terms, I think WHF is more tactical because of the way the KoW movement phase works.

Ljundhammer wrote:The main thing is you need to wither have complex core rules & simple armies, or simple core rules and complex armies. Warmachine started well with lots of (well written) core rules & simple units (except warlocks), but has lost its way recently; KoW (when I last looked) had simple rules, but the armies were a bit too simple too, so it felt a bit lacking; WHF & 40k currently have badly written over the top core rules, and every codex has a myriad of further special rules creating a complete mess (as the rules don't interact well, or are practically duplicated with minor variences, or simply do nothing at all).

A clearly written rulebook with some actual legal language (or even having special rules in CAPITALS when they are used like warmachine) would make the whole thing less of a drudgery to play.

I agree with Jake (Thornton) that a simple core system is the best starting point. Complexity in special rules is a marmite thing* in my experience, but personally I'm not in favour of the Ikea Sale Charge, Furious Charge, Berzerk Charge, Aggressive Charge, Slightly Peeved Charge, 40-somethings-in-the-front-row-of-a-Mark-Knopfler-gig-finale-stage-rush-Charge** (items ordered in descending order of imminent threat to life and limb).

*For example, despite Jake and I agreeing a lot on general principles of games design, we disagree that it's "acceptable" for magic (things like fireballs) to work in the same way as a.n.other shooting attack. For him it lacks flavour, for me a fireball or such like is a shooting attack so having it work the same is no biggie.

**This happened, one of the few collective mob movements I've seen that was slower than a non-Rage zombie mob.

@paulmc: no I haven't, but I'll add it to my list of rulebooks I intend to buy even though I have no intention of getting into the game, thanks

I love challenges. Especially when you have a fight and against all odds come out on top! My Ethereal is the Don when it comes to punching above his weight. One game he killed two Chaos champions in a row. Both fights They failed to hit him as he beat them down with sticks. He's even smash a Ravenwing Sargent to death with the same sticks!

A leagel language is that last thing a ruels set needs to add clarity to a game and would only make rules lawyering more prevelent.

Most of the rules changes above would just serve to add more confusion to the game with an excessive amount of book keeping. Making a game a whole lot longer and taking it far far away from that game we grew up with.

I'm not saying the rules are perfect as they are or GW have to only working format for wargameing, but the rules (especially the flaws) are what makes the game what it is. Any attampt to iron out percived flaws are only going to have a knock on effect and create larger problems down the line. One mans tightly written rules set is another mans loophole to victory.

Bara: Good points all round.

I'm abivilent on the complex rules/simple rules as I can see advantages on both sides. Taking your magic shooting for example, it can be dealt with simply in core rules with each codex having a different sub-rule for different magic attacks (to make the magic a bit special - like some have rending, or set you on fire or some wierd stuff); or you can have the GW type approach of USRs with a load of majic-specific type of shooting which the codexes simply refer to. As long as you don't have simple/simple or complex/complex in the rules/codex then it's ok by me.

As a player, I like the big core rules, if only because I only have to buy the big book & my codex, then briefly look at an opponent's list & ask which rules apply to what. Otherwise I have to know my opponent's codex leading to the old "and that does WHAT!?!?" moment we've all had in games. But that increases cost and stuff I have to carry around with my girly arms.

Darklighter: I'm struggling to be able to disagree with you more... But I think we should hug anyway!

Ljundhammer wrote:Darklighter: I'm struggling to be able to disagree with you more... But I think we should hug anyway!

If it was the game I grew up with I wouldn't be writing this But that's a discussion for a different topic so I'm going to ignore Darklighter's post, not because I don't respect it, but this isn't the topic for it

I skim-read the Dropzone Commander rulebook again last night, interesting way of handling flyers, much thought this has given me.

Is that you putting up a fence? are 40k players able to have conversations about 40k in peace without people who haven't played it crying all over the top of it.. if we leave this thread fanboiless?

If so and we can only stipulate merging of other games systems.. I request your system bring in a true fog of war system instead of every unit. treble game turn allowance.. but only let a couple of units move per turn.
Stop the mad push from 3rd onwards of everything hitting at once and all the dominoes having to line up then fall at same time.
(is that vaguely what you were talking about with the 2+ other unit scrapping of IGo, or was that about all units but using initiaive to a much greater role?)

Edit- if you were proposing the latter. limiting the active units would also limit the push to msu to get around the init problems (ala swarm blocking in star wars etc)

Good point about depth in core rules leading to simpler codexes and therefore greater knowledge of opponents army without having to buy/ read other codexes. As a business model it sux though so we won't see that. Lol

Tbh tho, their core rules are better with the expanded special rules section, so they have made a move in the direction you outlined.

But as more codexes arrive more things get added and we get grey areas and inconsistency because of army specific special rules instead of using the core stuff that exists.

Da got grim resolve special rule. Oh that sounds really cool. A new special rule for my army.. What is it. It's stubborn. Well why not just say stubborn ffs.

Challenge's- Either side can issue a challenge as per rules now, starting with chargers (or Highest Int?) either side can refuse with no penalty to combat (just cos I don't want to fight you don't mean I wont fight your mates) if the model challenged passes a Ld test (I have some self control, I am not going to throw myself to the wolves).

Edit: Failing the LD test could give a choice, take the challenge as issued or sulk at back of combat for a turn.