I’ve been digging through my Second ed 40k stuff as one of my buddies just moved back into the area. He hasn’t played since then and really likes the depth of 2nd ed over 5th. We were talking it over and he’d be willing to play 5th if we added some extra flavour back into it.
A large part of the reason I am considering doing an advanced 5th is the desire to use the current codices. Most of them are much more balanced and have new units than the 2nd ed books. Plus I don't wanna do complete rewrites for the Necrons, Dark Eldar and (damned) Tau.
Since I’m going to be working on it anyway I figured I bring it to the attention of my readers here at Galaxy in Flames and see what you guys thought of the idea.
Is there any interest out there for an advanced version of 40K?
I'll be melding the best parts of 2nd ed with 5th ed to make a more robust 40K. Adding in things like arcs of fire for infantry, throwing grenades, vehicles hit locations and damage charts, to hit modifiers from 2nd. Keeping the assault phase, weapons AP system and the balance of 5th not affected by the second ed additions.
The close combat and psychic phases were by far the worst parts of 2nd ed and must go. IMHO
I am also tossing around some ideas for keeping overwatch, but limiting it to support units like heavy weapons squads. Then adding something similar to the defensive fire rule from Flames of War; this would let the defender shoot as they are being assaulted for non-support units; this added to limited fire arcs will make flanking in assaults a viable tactic.
The main goal I'm after is to add tactical depth back into 40K without making it overcomplicated. I'd still like to keep the average 1500-2000 point game around 2 1/2 to 3 hours.
So would you guys be interested in me posting something like this up here and maybe helping out with some playtesting?
The first thing to say is that it's your game, and you should do with it whatever you (and your friends) like, changing whatever you want to change.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would be quite sceptical about making an 'advanced' 40k. The current rules are simplified to allow more models and a faster game. If you add a lot of the options you've suggested back in, I think it would only work if you went for a game size more like 2nd ed. 30-60 figures to a side, rather than 50 - 150.
Also; some of the simplifications are there to do what the old modifiers did. i.e. the cover save replaced the hit modifiers. So if you add hit modifiers back, will you keep the cover saves as well?
If I was to go to the effort of re-writing the rules, I would want to do make the game much more elegant. eg. change all of the numbers on the profile to the 'base' number. So instead of BS4, you'd have BS 3+. I would also scrap the toughness stat. I would roll the hit and wound rolls into one dice roll. I would also change the turn order so you alternated moves, rather than had the whole I-go, You-go system.
However, if there was just one, single, change I would make to the current rules (rather than re-writing them), I would bring back save modifiers. I would keep all the old -1 guns as -0. i.e. Bolters, lasguns etc would have no save modifier. Only quite special weapons with significant stats would warrant a save modifier.
It would make guns work against a range of targets like they're supposed to. It seems weird to me that when faced with heavy armour, you're better off shooting light weapons than heavy weapons. In other words, firing krak (i.e. anti-tank) missiles at a terminator is a waste, as you're using points on an ap value that is useless. But firing a lasgun is a good idea, as you're not wasting anything.
If you do go for it though, I would love to know how it goes.
Angelic Despot
I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. Fire arcs might be a good idea as it would bring in a level of tactical maneuvering that isn't present in the current game. As said above, having to hit modifiers as well as cover saves will make firing almost completely redundant as it will then be even more difficult to hit and then they end up getting saves from cover.
ReplyDeleteFor overwatch, you could limit it to heavy support choices only, and defensive fire could perhaps only be for pistol and assault weapons as they would be the only types of weapons that you could fire quickly enough to challenge a charge.
Do post it as I'd definitely be interested to see. Also, you could start out by having a look at fluid 40k from the dice like thunder boys as that may have done some of the things you are considering.
bG
Thanks for the comments guys, I'll come back little later today and address some of your specific points.
ReplyDeleteThe only point I'll cover now is the misconception that adding to the rules will add substantial game length, unless the games are smaller PV.
I agree that if too much detail is added it will mke the game take longer, but most of what I've suggested so far are small changes, they probably won't add more than a half hour to the average games length.
I was talking with my buddy about the cover save issue last night, it is an interesting dilema.
We've got a few ideas to test out this week.
Look forward to hearing about your testing
ReplyDelete