Quite often this would make the outcome almost certain through simply BMs, less need to hedge with support etc. I can empathise that a 5 point swing is a lot and can be jarring as a result; it could be reduced and the game wouldn’t suffer for it. But risk and surprise IMO add a hefty slice of what makes the game fun (who doesn’t love it when a lone unit wins against all odds? These are the moments you actually remember in games) so although the game would work without the randomness I would keep at least some modifier.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

You do have point, swinging it around against all odds is ofc a thrilling game experience, I agree. But as you say, maybe the randomness could be reduced a bit without having to remove that element entirely. Perhaps at least swing the favor to the winning side, allowing only the winner to roll two D6 and pick the best, and the loser only gets a single D6 toss, or something.

So I figured out the hosting part. For rules see the thread below

https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 45&t=34432

For at least a decade, this rule is the one that has come up most frequently as the most needful of a change.

"A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit in the assaulting formation. It may move into base contact if close enough, and as long as the enemy is not already in contact with two defending units. Units can choose not to counter charge if they wish, but if they do counter charge they must head towards the nearest enemy unit in the assaulting formation."

There are three stages you can go through with this one:
1) I don't see why this is a big deal
2) I see why it is a big deal and I am cleverly using it to win assaults!
3) I have won so many assaults it feels like I am exploiting the wording of the rules

I have used things like the placement of exhausted deathstrikes to ensure wins against Ork Hordes and a lone guardian to beat back tyrannid swarms, so am deep into stage 3. I'd would love to see this rule changed even though it will affect my assault win-rate.

The first question though would be is it actually possible to make a change?

Critical hits on War Engines. Paraphrased - Any hit on a war engine (no matter the source) can cause a critical hit on a 6. So that unit of las gunners could conceivably destroy a war engine with one shot...
We house rule this so that only applies to weapons with the Lance, Macro or Titan Killer.

Also not a fan of the space craft rules. Space ships should be massive things that bombard from orbit and not come in on the board at all.

That’s how space ships work? You never place the model on the board, just at the edge as a reference point for measuring where the bombardment takes place.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

Yes. Apart from that:



If you are talking about FF, they are using grenades or similar weapons to do that (another reason as to why Tau FF isn't very high in EA). If you are talking about CC, they boarded the WE and killed the personnel inside. If you are talking about actual shooting, they just found a crack or weak point to hit with their autocannons, which are powerful enough for that.

In any case they aren't doing damage to the machine itself with the flashlights. Take also into account that in EA destroying a unit doesn't mean doing that much damage but rendering it battle ineffective, which can be achieved in a infinite number of ways.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list

I'll mention it here, but also check the first FAQ for 3.2.3:




Just hitting the WE isn't enough, it needs to fail its armour save. Not saying you're playing it that way, but I've seen people get it wrong before (hence the FAQ).

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

I’ve been flirting with the idea of , not changing the rules, but rather change the equipment. I’ve always been a bit dissatisfied with the narrow statistical range of the good old D6, and just adding four more sides to a D10 would be an awesome overhaul in my opinion. It would naturally require a fairly massive rework of all lists, but would offer the opportunity to tweak and make more distinct different units who perhaps today differ more or less in name only, as well as other little tinkers.

For example , space marines could remain smack in the middle with a 50% save at 6+ , but predators
who as actual tanks , could perhaps be granted a slightly better 5+ (40%) and so on.

One would need to look a bit at modifiers too in such case, as a -1 wouldn’t quite have the same punch, and here’s another opportunity to slightly tweak things like terrain, -2 to hit in buildings , but perhaps only -1 in other Terrain etc.

D12s would be even better, AND they are Platonic solids ('nuff said).

In all seriousness, GW already packages D12s in some of their games, D12s offer a better, direct translation from the current values on D6s, and D12s offer a more fine graduation than D10s.

I do find D12 a bit bigger and bulkier, but it would give an even wider statistical range ofc, so why not. However I find a larger number of D10s to be easier and a bit more convenient to handle, and they are usually easier to find in bulk for purchase.

I hate the withdraw rules, can ti understand why a broken unit can make 2 moves in anticipo direction, eventi in enemy lines direction. Usn better if it can only withdraw behind its position? Like war master rules?

counter-charge
boost to CC units
tweaking luck factor
aerospace rules
transport embark-disembark restriction
hackdowns, fearless rule, and the way how assault works (mainly intermingles)
different reinforced armour value
different macro weapon AP/AT value
different barrage to hit value
some sort of degradation to War Engines via BM
the domination of having more activation
barrage hit allocation
formation splitting-combining
spaceships cut back too much?
action test failed result penalties too high
the way army lists work
turn starting initiative retain can be too powerful
issue with off board (reserve) heavy army build & strategy
turn starting...
minimum formation size
measuring from center
critical hits on War Engines

By reading through this thread from the beginning, I made this quick note about your ideas "if you could change the rules...". The note consists the parts that are some way concerned in my work, which itself also got mentioned in it's 4 years ago very early stage (I am honoured to be recognized! ). Of course there are lot more to that, as even this project has been evolved from it's initial blurry vision, into a fully made standalone ruleset with army lists, and unit stats, and some new stuff spicing up the lore.

From another perspective. We have this very good game, Armageddon, we have the minis to play with, and as this thread shows along with hundreds of others(!): the vast amount of incredible ideas, solutions, simplifyings are all known and makes us common. Just start digging and making notes, and you will find things repeatedly, the same things, same wishes, over and over again! Thats beacuse we played this game for years... added together, thousands of experience hours!

7 years ago I just merely ladled from this pool of yours, weaving them together, and taking the impossible mission to convince my gaming group trying them out. And though some of the ideas came from me personally, not to mention the countless hours spent to creating, writing, editing... still I heavily depended on the ideas of this forum(!), therefore at some point, at some level, Epic Alight is partly yours as a community edition of Epic.

I know, at the other side of the coin, it is also a single-handedly fan made work, with my personal view of things, deterring from the official path.

At the end of the day, from a farther look, this link will show you to a playtested 6mm combined arms wargame based on 40k lore and also my wholehearted answer to the question of this thread.
If you just give it a single try as is, and that's it, I deeply appreciete it! Any report, response, opinion are more than welcome!

Salute!

https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 69&t=28874

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***

On one hand, yes, I can see why withdrawing forward doesn't make sense. Otoh, broken formations aren't routed - they've had their CiC disrupted to the point they're not able to fire or assault, but they're still together and able to defend themselves. Also, given that lines can easily become intermingled, forward often has fewer enemies than back

Ok , if I could change one rule , it would be this. Having to countercharge towards the closest enemy unit, even if it’s from another formation. It makes little to no sense to me, I would change it to the nearest attacking unit, or unit performing the assault or however it need be worded. That would be great