HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Tounguekutter
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 356
Join date : 2014-05-18
Location : Springfield, Virginia

PostSubject: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 02:29

I'm flirting with the idea of writing a fan edition of the main rulebook. I'm thinking of doing some fairly radical changes that just make sense to me as a sort of cathartic/creative exercise.


Here are a few of some of the changes I'm considering implementing:

WS and BS use the same comparative chart as S and T

Fast vehicles must now move fast in order to receive Jink but receive it automatically

Different saves stack

An "Evasion level" that is what you compare your BS when you determine what you need to roll to hit, and it is this characteristic that is improved by cover/stealth, etc.  

A damage table for Monstrous Creatures

Tweaking the odd special rule like Fleet (always add 2" every time you move on foot)


Suggestions?

_________________
I love 8th edition, and I love Dark Eldar in 8th, but I still can't wait for fluffy Kabal rules to drop in our dex.  I have written multiple Dark Eldar fan codexes (3 and a "mini-fandex" which was totally ridiculous), the latest of which (for 7th edition) can be found here.  I also created a Blood Angels 7th edition fan codex for 7th (and I'm taking ideas for a Blood Angels chapter trait to fan-rule in while my girlfriend and I wait for a full codex), and I have used the Age of Sigmar Kharadron Overlords battletome to create a 40k squat army codex complete with a bunch of Stratagems.
Back to top Go down
Squidmaster
Incubi
avatar

Posts : 1502
Join date : 2013-12-18
Location : Hampshire, England

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 09:52

WS and BS use the same comparative chart as S and T
For WS, this is already bthe case.
For BS, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would a persons marksmanship be effected in any way by his targets?

Fast vehicles must now move fast in order to receive Jink but receive it automatically
This just makes Dark Eldar vehicles worse, and our guys are already handicapped in that regard. I may be biased, but I hate this.

Different saves stack
As in you get all saves possible (Armour, then Cover, then Invulnerable) or saves just add to one overall save? Either way, I think it just makes things more complicated. Some things (RIptides, Stormsurges, etc) have multiple saves, and this would just make them even harder to kill.

An "Evasion level" that is what you compare your BS when you determine what you need to roll to hit, and it is this characteristic that is improved by cover/stealth, etc.
I think you're just overcomplicating things really.

A damage table for Monstrous Creatures
I could see this for Gargantuan, but Monstrous are too common for complicated things like this to be added.

Tweaking the odd special rule like Fleet (always add 2" every time you move on foot)
More info would be needed on the tweaks, but the one you suggest for Fleet is frankly weak. As a player of any army with Fleet generally, changing it to just 2" would be worse. MUCH worse.

_________________
Kabal of the Eternal NightModelling Blog
The Squidmaster DistractathonNotes on being an RPG Gamesmaster
Back to top Go down
http://www.escelionfilms.com
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6626
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 09:57

I'm a bit of a rules addict myself but if re-writing the main rulebook I would start at the most basic level by changing the dice used. D6 is far too restrictive. D10 would be my preferred option. This does however mean changing pretty much everything, including stats for all models. Not yet had time to put too much thought into it but scratch out a few ideas every now and then.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Wych
avatar

Posts : 538
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 10:04

Some of the suggested changes are ok, others less so, but it all depends on implementation.

But considering the impact of those changes point cost and stats would have to be adjusted as well, which means redoing all the codexes as well you want to use, and at that point it might be easier to start from scratch and make your own game.
Back to top Go down
Tounguekutter
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 356
Join date : 2014-05-18
Location : Springfield, Virginia

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 22:11

Squidmaster wrote:
WS and BS use the same comparative chart as S and T
For WS, this is already bthe case.
For BS, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would a persons marksmanship be effected in any way by his targets?

What I meant was The WS/WS chart would (numbers wise) look the same as the S/T chart. As for the BS chart it would become the BS/EV (evasion value) chart. I'll explain below.

Squidmaster wrote:
Fast vehicles must now move fast in order to receive Jink but receive it automatically
This just makes Dark Eldar vehicles worse, and our guys are already handicapped in that regard. I may be biased, but I hate this.

Oh yes, other things being equal this is definitely worse, but if I were to go through with this project I would also write a Dark Eldar codex that is created with this set of rules in mind. (If you think that is a ridiculously pointless exercise I would agree with you, but it's my twisted idea of fun)

Squidmaster wrote:
Different saves stack
As in you get all saves possible (Armour, then Cover, then Invulnerable) or saves just add to one overall save? Either way, I think it just makes things more complicated. Some things (RIptides, Stormsurges, etc) have multiple saves, and this would just make them even harder to kill.

What I currently have in mind is that to limit the amount of dice rolls they would just improve your saves. It just doesn't make sense to me that Kabalite is just as survivable out in the open against a Guardsman's lasgun as he is in cover. In such a case he would get a 4+ save, a marine in cover against a lasgun would get a 2+, but nothing would ever get anything higher than a 2+. However, if the Kabalite were shot at with a bolter he would just make his normal cover save then Feel No Pain if he had it.

Squidmaster wrote:
An "Evasion level" that is what you compare your BS when you determine what you need to roll to hit, and it is this characteristic that is improved by cover/stealth, etc.
I think you're just overcomplicating things really.

It is more complex than our current system, but in our current system your raider is just as likely to hit a speeding Eldar Jetbike as it is a Land Raider that didn't move last turn. That to me makes no sense and never has. However, depending on implementation it could make things much more complicated or only a little more complicated, I think.

Squidmaster wrote:
A damage table for Monstrous Creatures
I could see this for Gargantuan, but Monstrous are too common for complicated things like this to be added.

Vehicles are pretty common and the mechanic is almost identical. I balance things out by offering a graduated points reduction (meaning a 3-wound monstrous creature is made a lower percentage cheaper than a 5 wound monstrous creature) to every codex not written with this rulebook in mind.

Squidmaster wrote:
Tweaking the odd special rule like Fleet (always add 2" every time you move on foot)
More info would be needed on the tweaks, but the one you suggest for Fleet is frankly weak. As a player of any army with Fleet generally, changing it to just 2" would be worse. MUCH worse.

To be honest I was just using that as an example and on second glance you're right that particular rule is fine the way it currently is. And in my opinion most of the USR are, I would try to avoid fixing things that already work fine. One could argue the entire rules system works fine and technically they'd be right, it's a playable system, but I'm seeking to make the game more realistic and if there are instances where I can do that without making the game much more complicated than it already is I'll take the shots.

_________________
I love 8th edition, and I love Dark Eldar in 8th, but I still can't wait for fluffy Kabal rules to drop in our dex.  I have written multiple Dark Eldar fan codexes (3 and a "mini-fandex" which was totally ridiculous), the latest of which (for 7th edition) can be found here.  I also created a Blood Angels 7th edition fan codex for 7th (and I'm taking ideas for a Blood Angels chapter trait to fan-rule in while my girlfriend and I wait for a full codex), and I have used the Age of Sigmar Kharadron Overlords battletome to create a 40k squat army codex complete with a bunch of Stratagems.
Back to top Go down
The Strange Dark One
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 394
Join date : 2014-08-22

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Tue Feb 07 2017, 23:27

I would be all for remaking the WS as well so you can get a 2+ to hit in melee. However, this would require some serious math-hammering and I would not simply apply the S/T chart.

I would also leave it at the current armour/FnP/invul/cover save mechanic. There can already be a lot of dice rolling be going on as it is, no need to complicate it even further. Further, I would say that every kind of save needs to be one of the mentioned above. So, things like Necron Protocols count as FnP too. Just for the sake of streamlining in case you have a weapon which ignores FnP rolls (my custom codex has that).

Furthermore, I would say that Ignore Cover weapons do not completely ignore cover saves, but rather cover saves by X. So, a weapon with Ignore Cover (3) would could lower the save of a Mandrake from 2+ to 5+.

Actually, I used to dislike the cover-save mechanic but after a hella lot of mathhammering I think the current system makes a lot of sense and allows for a lot of fine-tuning without making the game toooo complicated. I also think that a D6 is just about the right size. Basically, it allows you to modify and chance with one of the following: 16%, 1/3%, 50%, 2/3% or 83%.

From a conceptual perspective this is more than enough and normally you have enough D6es around. I don't want to buy a lot of D10s just for 40k honestly. It would demand a huge rework of the game and I am not entirely convinced that this would improve the game.


I would be all for a damage chart on GMCs. Something helpful to bring them down easier or mitigate their firepower. But I am unsure about damage charts for normal MCs.

I think it would be stupid if such a table would affect a Talos but not a Grotesque. And it could really be a bit too much to keep track. Imo, we should try to lower the amount of markers and not increase them.
Perhaps a table for MCs could work if they remain an exception. Like, only the Monster Hunter rule actually triggers MCs to roll on the table.

Speaking of GMCs, I think the roll of poison weapons should be lowered by 1 or 2 and not be limited to 6es only.


Fast vehicles having access to more weapons at full BS when moving at higher speed would be nice for sure. But I am a bit too unfamiliar with the ins and outs of other codices and find it hard how far reaching changes to this would be to the game as a whole.


I also think that models inside open topped transports should be able to make use of their rules just like they were outside. With this I am referring to rules like Father of Pain from Urien or our "Start Collecting" Archon rule (forgot its name).

It's stupid that the Archon can shoot out of a Venom but not point a bloody finger at an enemy in range.


But my opinions might be a bit too DE centric Razz

_________________
Discontinued: Dark Eldar 7th Codex Redux
A pragmatic custom codex for pragmatic realspace raiders.
Back to top Go down
Tounguekutter
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 356
Join date : 2014-05-18
Location : Springfield, Virginia

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Wed Feb 08 2017, 00:36

Well, I too would like to limit the number of markers but my hang up is why don't we treat MC and Vehicles in a similar manner?  Both types of units fluff-wise could suffer crippling but not fatal/total damage.  Just as a vehicle could lose a weapon so could a monstrous creature.  Should we take the opposite tack and eliminate the vehicle damage chart and just remove hull points instead?  Giving a chance for bonus damage with AP 1 weapons and in a similar vein glancing hits would roll to see if they remove a hull point at all?

Example:

Penetrating Hit with AP 1 weapon:  1 Hull point removed and 50% chance to remove a second HP
Penetrating Hit:  1 Hull point removed
Glancing Hit:  50% chance to remove a hull point.

I think that might be simpler than the current system, question is the simplicity worth it?

Why wouldn't you simply apply the S/T chart for WS/WS?

_________________
I love 8th edition, and I love Dark Eldar in 8th, but I still can't wait for fluffy Kabal rules to drop in our dex.  I have written multiple Dark Eldar fan codexes (3 and a "mini-fandex" which was totally ridiculous), the latest of which (for 7th edition) can be found here.  I also created a Blood Angels 7th edition fan codex for 7th (and I'm taking ideas for a Blood Angels chapter trait to fan-rule in while my girlfriend and I wait for a full codex), and I have used the Age of Sigmar Kharadron Overlords battletome to create a 40k squat army codex complete with a bunch of Stratagems.
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Wych
avatar

Posts : 538
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Wed Feb 08 2017, 08:02

Because high weapons skill is a lot more common then high t.
It means that some elite units become invulnerable to normal people. A lot of heroes have ws 7 thus becoming immune to normal cc units like hormagaunts and even monsters like the carnifex.
Back to top Go down
Tounguekutter
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 356
Join date : 2014-05-18
Location : Springfield, Virginia

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Wed Feb 08 2017, 14:12

Good point, but that problem could be easily avoided by just capping the necessary roll at 6+ though.

_________________
I love 8th edition, and I love Dark Eldar in 8th, but I still can't wait for fluffy Kabal rules to drop in our dex.  I have written multiple Dark Eldar fan codexes (3 and a "mini-fandex" which was totally ridiculous), the latest of which (for 7th edition) can be found here.  I also created a Blood Angels 7th edition fan codex for 7th (and I'm taking ideas for a Blood Angels chapter trait to fan-rule in while my girlfriend and I wait for a full codex), and I have used the Age of Sigmar Kharadron Overlords battletome to create a 40k squat army codex complete with a bunch of Stratagems.
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Wych
avatar

Posts : 538
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Wed Feb 08 2017, 14:24

Then the differences between 3/4/5 of "normal" units still becomes much more significant then it is now.
Normal nids hit everything on a 5 or 6 instead of a 4
Even elite things like wyches need 5+ to hit elite troops
Elite Eldar/SM can hit a lot of stuff on 2+

Right now ws does not matter much, you might hit on a 4 and get hit on a 3 except against heroes.
But with the to wound table those 1 or 2 points of difference in ws which did not matter much before suddenly mean you only hit on 6es. You lose 2/3 of the wounds you would have done previously, it really favours elite armies. It can work, but a lot of prices have to be adjusted. You can start tanking using incubi to kill a unit of hormagaunts. Or even things like a carnifex with it's low number of attacks and needing 6es to hit you only worry about the stomp attack.

Back to top Go down
Tounguekutter
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 356
Join date : 2014-05-18
Location : Springfield, Virginia

PostSubject: Re: I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help   Wed Feb 08 2017, 19:16

Although I do agree that most codexes would need to be rewritten to fit, as it is the game favors Strength and Toughness over Weaponskill. Pick any melee unit (or any unit for that matter) and if you were to offer them a free upgrade of either of point of Weapon Skill or a point of Toughness which would you pick? I feel the valuing of toughness over weaponskill is arbitrary and unnecessary, and it would be simpler to keep one table in your head than 2 (the only difference being that units can always hit on 6+ rather than be immune).

_________________
I love 8th edition, and I love Dark Eldar in 8th, but I still can't wait for fluffy Kabal rules to drop in our dex.  I have written multiple Dark Eldar fan codexes (3 and a "mini-fandex" which was totally ridiculous), the latest of which (for 7th edition) can be found here.  I also created a Blood Angels 7th edition fan codex for 7th (and I'm taking ideas for a Blood Angels chapter trait to fan-rule in while my girlfriend and I wait for a full codex), and I have used the Age of Sigmar Kharadron Overlords battletome to create a 40k squat army codex complete with a bunch of Stratagems.
Back to top Go down
 
I'm Addicted to Rules Writing Send Help
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

OTHER DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Rules Development
-
Jump to: