8th edition 4th edition hybrid.

[allfatherstudios]

I remember someone somewhere posting a very thought out addition of 40k with a bunch of people mixing 4th and 8th.

 

Or something along those lines.

 

Not sure if was here or dakka dakka. Anyways.

 

Suggestions ideas?

 

How would you make a hybrid.

[N1SB]

How would you make a hybrid.

 

8th edition rules with 1st edition fluff.  You get:

 

- Squats

- Imperial Beastmen

- Slann

- The Sensei

- Ambulls

- Catachan Devil

- Genestealer Hybrids wait we got those again now

 

And to be honest we can get most of those in Necromunda, so I'm really happy about the state of The Hobby now.

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah I’d combine stuff from various editions. I actually think a lot of 7th edition stuff and 8th edition stuff would work together.

 

8th:

 

Most of the movement rules (including moving with heavy weapons, when you can charge etc)

Terrain rules (no more dying because your model trod in a puddle or your tank throwing a track because it drove over a leaf)

Split fire rules

Change to twin-linked

The way cover works

 

7th:

 

To wound chart (not everything can wound everything, doesn’t need double strength to wound on 2s)

Vehicle armour values and facings

Templates

AP

No mortal wounds

 

These are just my personal preferences, I realise not everyone will agree. Some areas I’m not sure which version would work best or whether it would be an amalgamation of the two like combining some of the rules for reserves from 8th and previous editions.

[Beams]

I would keep everything that 8th has, but add in templates.

 

I'd also add back in since old wargear, like the sisters blessed ammunition, underslung Grenade launcher, vortex Grenades, and anything orky that can just a easily kill your in dudes as the enemy.

 

 

Oh! And anti plant grenades!!

[chapter master 454]

Don't bring back templates...terrible idea. I would agree with some form of scatter mechanic but templates but promote "going to measure 2" between ALL 90 ork boys I have and you can't stop me" and that just feels bad. They lead to unreasonable looking formations and just extend the time the game takes (something people have complained about at all point levels). I would like some form of return of formations, they were actually really cool and just need some actual consideration when made (possibly actual points costs for taking the formation, rationalised as having the resources and logistics to get such specific units).

 

Hybrid Line of Sight Rules. Largely done by true line of sight but with caveats for terrain like heavily vegetated swamps (think tall reeds) and forest areas.

 

I think the big thing is that templates can't come back. They were cool but gamed so hard it wasn't funny. Just feels unfun and not thematic, as the armies that would be the biggest problem wouldn't do that! (tyranids and orks somehow know about spacing exactly that distance apart?)

[rendingon1+]

Don't bring back templates...terrible idea. I would agree with some form of scatter mechanic but templates but promote "going to measure 2" between ALL 90 ork boys I have and you can't stop me" and that just feels bad. They lead to unreasonable looking formations and just extend the time the game takes (something people have complained about at all point levels).

 

How about introducing unit formation types?

Like:

Horde - 0,5" spacing

Normal - 1" spacing

Etc.

In HH for example custodes have 3".

 

Current blast rules are just terrible, I'm all for return of the templates.

[chapter master 454]

 

Don't bring back templates...terrible idea. I would agree with some form of scatter mechanic but templates but promote "going to measure 2" between ALL 90 ork boys I have and you can't stop me" and that just feels bad. They lead to unreasonable looking formations and just extend the time the game takes (something people have complained about at all point levels).

How about introducing unit formation types?

Like:

Horde - 0,5" spacing

Normal - 1" spacing

Etc.

In HH for example custodes have 3".

 

Current blast rules are just terrible, I'm all for return of the templates.

 

 

Now you are introducing bloat to the rules for something that doesn't need to be a thing and can be represented far better in other mechanics. Literally that would exist purely for templates alone and would still have armies measuring down to the half inch to minimise losses.

 

yes, blast is currently no great due to poor scaling and effect. The main culprit is the fact that they don't auto-hit or represent their weapon well. Why do Basilisks seem able to fire 6 shots at a tank? Isn't it one shell? Why isn't it two hits, one from impact and one from explosion? Shouldn't the impact determine how effective the shot is as an explosion inside would be far more devastating than outside?

 

In believe I started to work on something to help blast weapons have some form of consistent rate of fire. I believe it was based on a system where the 3 break points were 5 and 10. If I remember right it was 1/3/5 for small blast weapons and 2/5/7 for large blast weapons and depending on the target you got that many shots (so against a unit of 30 orks you got 7 shots but against a small squad of space marine company veteans of 3 guys, you get 2).

 

There are many things I would like to see, weapon types being varied with main core weapon types paired with modifier attributes like Heavy type being a modifier attribute with Assault and Rapid Fire being their own type. In combination with my blast rules, Blast weapons would be a sub-type of various weapons (so yes, under my rules you could have Heavy Rapid-Fire Blast weapons if I had my way at a BK).

 

To be honest however that is all my own wishlisting and personal design philosophies really. So take it as you please but if we are here to discuss what would be the best route for the game by making a combination of editions, then blast weapons will NEVER have a good version with that idea alone. 

[Beams]

 

 

 

Don't bring back templates...terrible idea. I would agree with some form of scatter mechanic but templates but promote "going to measure 2" between ALL 90 ork boys I have and you can't stop me" and that just feels bad. They lead to unreasonable looking formations and just extend the time the game takes (something people have complained about at all point levels).

How about introducing unit formation types?

Like:

Horde - 0,5" spacing

Normal - 1" spacing

Etc.

In HH for example custodes have 3".

 

Current blast rules are just terrible, I'm all for return of the templates.

Now you are introducing bloat to the rules for something that doesn't need to be a thing and can be represented far better in other mechanics. Literally that would exist purely for templates alone and would still have armies measuring down to the half inch to minimise losses.

 

yes, blast is currently no great due to poor scaling and effect. The main culprit is the fact that they don't auto-hit or represent their weapon well. Why do Basilisks seem able to fire 6 shots at a tank? Isn't it one shell? Why isn't it two hits, one from impact and one from explosion? Shouldn't the impact determine how effective the shot is as an explosion inside would be far more devastating than outside?

 

In believe I started to work on something to help blast weapons have some form of consistent rate of fire. I believe it was based on a system where the 3 break points were 5 and 10. If I remember right it was 1/3/5 for small blast weapons and 2/5/7 for large blast weapons and depending on the target you got that many shots (so against a unit of 30 orks you got 7 shots but against a small squad of space marine company veteans of 3 guys, you get 2).

 

There are many things I would like to see, weapon types being varied with main core weapon types paired with modifier attributes like Heavy type being a modifier attribute with Assault and Rapid Fire being their own type. In combination with my blast rules, Blast weapons would be a sub-type of various weapons (so yes, under my rules you could have Heavy Rapid-Fire Blast weapons if I had my way at a BK).

 

To be honest however that is all my own wishlisting and personal design philosophies really. So take it as you please but if we are here to discuss what would be the best route for the game by making a combination of editions, then blast weapons will NEVER have a good version with that idea alone.

I guess the question is, are you building for a competitive rule set or a looser beer and pretzel let's have fun rule set? Because templates definitely don't work in tournaments, but I had a lot of fun playing with and against them, especially with enemy artillery scatteri g around my men, blowing holes in my defensive line but also occasionally going wildly off course and smashing the incoming guardsmen. Not to mention vortex of Doom, which always seemed to do more damage.to my own guys then the enemy.

[chapter master 454]

That is the crux of the question here and the answer is somewhat hard to pinpoint and can be very difficult to deal with.

 

To start with, the game started as such, the so called "Beer and Pretzels" game (not a fan of the term but I know what they mean) however the problem is if ANYTHING gets popular there is a good chance for it to gain mass appeal to a degree that begins spawning tournaments then all the cracks that didn't matter before now burst and everything falls apart causing mass damage to the games image (despite not ever being intended for such environments).

 

However there is I believe a middle ground. Just because there are two ends of the spectrum doesn't mean you have to lose anything while still appeasing the other. Tournaments are good for any games health as it helps keep new players coming in and provide push for others to get to the best of their ability which in turns prevents player stagnation. Even the simple leagues you play provide this. They are the stirring rod in the massive vat that is 40k. So this means we must have considerations for tournaments which are:

 

Rules that are not open to loose interpretations that lead to abuse or arguments

Tight rules that minimise random luck on a mass scale causing there to be no way to leverage your skill to win more

Structure that ensures clean execution of rules and thus leads round to the first point

 

These points are only a few of the things we need to keep in mind when building for tournaments but then we have to ask the question regarding casuals and despite how important those prior questions are, if their importance is summed by a number of grand magnitude then this question would represent infinite:

 

Is the game fun to play?

 

That is the one question you must answer for casuals. Yes, there is questions of simplicity but they all pale into insignificance when you ask that question because it is the core question of any game. This means you must be able to factor in the infinite question into your equations when fixing the game with the other three presented and come to a sum that ends in the answer of a good game.

 

I think one thing we can all agree on is that blast weapons got left in the dust. The change was lackluster and has felt like it ever since it debuted due to how polarising it can be for some weapons.

 

However that is only one facet of a greater problem. I do feel there is an issue with the wounding system in some regards.It would require working on it as I prefer this simple method of determining how to be able wound things. The idea of Doubles, Less than, Greater than and Equal to are all easy concepts to grip and don't require us to memorise a chart (which to be honest is best summed up as differences of -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 and was far more punishing on units in general) but I can agree that there is now the opposite of the problem I mentioned in prior editions, now it is far more punishing on higher toughness units than it is on lower toughness units. However can that be addressed without adding bloat? Possibly alterations such as "double toughness rounded up" (hard to describe this but notice how weapons like boltguns wound toughness 7 on 5s because it is still not double because half of 7 is 3.5. What if odd number toughness counted as one higher for the purposes of determining if you are double the toughness of something?).

 

It is a complicated issue that spans not just these minor grievances but many other niggling issues that just creep their way into the game through many well intended systems that were designed to fix other issues.

[Wargamer]

For blast (and temple as well), I would make two changes.

 

First, buff the attack numbers slightly - any attack that does D6 attacks should really be doing 2D3, or even 3D3.

 

Second, add two new keywords "Blast" and "Horde". Blast weapons deal bonus attacks against Horde units.

[taikishi]

Don't bring back templates...terrible idea. I would agree with some form of scatter mechanic but templates but promote "going to measure 2" between ALL 90 ork boys I have and you can't stop me" and that just feels bad. They lead to unreasonable looking formations and just extend the time the game takes (something people have complained about at all point levels). I would like some form of return of formations, they were actually really cool and just need some actual consideration when made (possibly actual points costs for taking the formation, rationalised as having the resources and logistics to get such specific units).

 

Hybrid Line of Sight Rules. Largely done by true line of sight but with caveats for terrain like heavily vegetated swamps (think tall reeds) and forest areas.

 

I think the big thing is that templates can't come back. They were cool but gamed so hard it wasn't funny. Just feels unfun and not thematic, as the armies that would be the biggest problem wouldn't do that! (tyranids and orks somehow know about spacing exactly that distance apart?)

 

To be fair? Some of us still have it ingrained since 2E to deploy with everything in a unit as close to 2" apart as we can then do our best to keep the same spacing the entire game so it doesn't bog down the game that much.

 

That said, at one point I was working on an edition that took some of the best things of 3-7E, some of the best things of 2E, and the handful of things I -do- like about 8E (and throwing the rest of 8E out the door) and trying to create a working system from it.

[Torvak Kyre]

For blast (and temple as well), I would make two changes.

 

First, buff the attack numbers slightly - any attack that does D6 attacks should really be doing 2D3, or even 3D3.

 

Second, add two new keywords "Blast" and "Horde". Blast weapons deal bonus attacks against Horde units.

So a blast weapon should deal more attacks to 2 ork boyz than 2 space marines because boyz have the horde keyword?

[Wargamer]

 

So a blast weapon should deal more attacks to 2 ork boyz than 2 space marines because boyz have the horde keyword?

 

Absolutely. An Ork is a slab of squishy flesh that a cloud of shrapnel will tear into, whereas a Space Marine is a ceramite-clad warrior whose armour is, by design, all but impervious to shrapnel.

[Golf33]

Represented by the better armour save of the space marine.

[allfatherstudios]

Well I was actually looking for the group that dedicated to this and there forum page. Probably on dakka dakka.