I've got some we've used, and some I've thought of but we don't use.
1. Barrages: I don't like the rules for placing a single template and
using that to measure the troop density for an entire detachment. I
know it can be most accurate (if a detachment moved through a narrow
area and then spread out), but it is more often picking the maximum
density and applying it to a much more spread out detachment. It also
bugs me that the targets don't have to be in the densely packed group
that generated the fp, anyway. I originally wanted to use barrages
separately, and have them only affect units under the templates. But
I've decided to compromise and ignore the second problem. This just
addresses the first.
Each barrage places a separate template. These may not overlap
(I don't care if the cardboard overlaps, you just don't get to
add firepower twice) unless all targets in the detachment are
covered.
This has the same problem for a single barrage, but as you add more
barrages, the measurement of troop density gets better.
2. Strategy Ratings: If two armies have equal strategy ratings, why
should a single die roll hurt one or the other all game?
If the sides have equal strategy ratings, but 3 initiative counters
for each side into the cup.
Here's one I'm not using. The "problem" seems less for bigger games,
though we've had several turns where one side removed just about
everything and the other kept all their blast markers.
3. Blast markers: I don't like how the number of blast markers that come
off at the end of a turn is linear from 0 to 5. Although it is easier
to remove all of 2 blast markers than it is to remove all of 5 blast
markers, it is just as easy to remove 0 as it is to remove 5. (Elias is
concerned that this doesn't provide for 0 blast markers to be removed,
thus the addition for double 6.)
Instead of removing d6-1 blast markers, roll two dice and remove
a number of blast markers equal to the lower die. (Maybe double
6s should count as 0.)
4. Line of sight and terrain: Although I like the overall simplified
game of Epic 40K, I think they went a bit overboard here. I like
determining LOS from looking from a certain angle, as opposed to saying
you can see over any terrain that is lower than you. I also think the
rules for woods and such are weird, being able to see all the way into
woods but not through them.
Line of sight is determined by looking from the firer to the
target (or vice-versa). This is easily "common-sensed",
especially with detachment fire. Units do not block LOS.
Units just inside the edge of woods (and such) are in cover.
Units further inside the terrain or behind it are out of LOS.
I'd also consider:
War Engines and Vehicles block LOS, not infantry.
5. Skimmers: I've never liked the bit about skimmers being able to
pop-up to an infinite height and see everything on the board. I've
found the following very easy to implement.
Skimmers pop-up 25 cm (I'd prefer 15) from the ground, and
line of sight is determined from that point.
I feel some need to compensate skimmers for this, so:
Skimmers may stop over dangerous or impassible terrain.
They must move on the next turn.
This is because it seems odd that jetbikes can fly over them, but if the
turn happens to catch them in flight, they have to scramble to get back
on the ground. Sorta like "musical chairs"--when the music stops, you
have to be on the ground.
I don't know that the second sentence is necessary. I think the idea is
to prevent them from being immune to assault.
6. Vortex Missiles/death strikes: d6 death rays under the template is
just too much. I like the suggestion to make that d6 AT shots. On the
other hand, isn't this just a one-shot pulsar? For big things, you'll
only get one under the template, and for small things, you won't really
need the d6 AT. Maybe 1DR and d6-1 AT? I'd also like to have one that
is just d6 heavy barrages. This doesn't make sense with the official
barrage rules, but if you place separate barrage templates, it's better.
Slightly different topic, inspired by house rule to lessen power of a
weapon:
Is use of an Ordinatus automatically assumed to be cheesy by people
here? The thing is in the rules, after all. I've got two (don't
remember which kind), just because they looked cool, though I haven't
put them together yet. (Not sure whether I want to paint them first or
put them together first.) I've never seen the White Dwarf rules for
them in 2nd edition, so I certainly wasn't motivated by the possibility
of blowing my opponent off the board with one.
One of anything should never be called "cheesy", in my opinion,
including the unadjusted vortex missile (though I'd prefer to adjust
it). But it seems odd that people build it (ordinatus) up as something
people are trying to cheese with, and then (maybe other people) point
out how vulnerable it is to suppression. I'm looking forward to using
mine someday.
andy
--
Andy Skinner
askinner_at_...
Received on Thu Mar 26 1998 - 13:51:38 UTC