We Discuss House Rules. Yay or Nay? - Heresy Thursday 1st February
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 01. 2024
- This week for Heresy Thursday, we discuss various house rules and some of the deficiencies of the current rule set.
Many thanks to our participants:
Jason Ortega ( / oa_gamer )
Richard Battersby ( / django_paints )
Edited by:
Richard Battersby ( / django_paints )
Follow us on:
👋Instagram ( / fareastwargaming )
👋TikTok ( / fareastwargaming )
Subscribe to get more exciting content!
🔔 www.youtube.com/@fareastwarga...
Images:
Forgeworld
Games Workshop
Music:
Warriyo - Mortals (feat. Laura Brehm) [NCS Release]
Warriyo
• / warriyo
• / warriyomusic
• / warriyo
• / warriyomusic
Laura Brehm
• / laurabrehm
• / laurabrehmmusic
• / laurakbrehm
• / laurabrehm - Zábava
Artificer: Delete the ability to "tank" shots for the squads. Done.
Dreadnought: Turn it back into a vehicle with armour rating though with a saving throw as well. Delete their invulnerable save. When large tanks can´t install force fields in their hull neither can tiny walkers by comparison. Might as well adjust the points.
Challenges: These belong in a game of WHFB but not in 30K/40K. Done.
Flyers: They always felt totally goofy moving with a snail´s pace across the tiny 30K/40K board. In earlier editions of 40K airstrikes were represented by applying blast templates on targets and never requiring models. Flyers make sense in a Legions Imperialis game and even in that environment they deal damage and leave at the end of the turn the table.
Tanks: Give them a saving throw (alongside their armour rating) and create different damage tables according to the type of weapon which damaged the vehicle. The intent is to make multi-shot weapon with bad AP significantly worse in destroying tanks than dedicated anti-tank weapons. So no more hull point stripping with ease by weight of dice. Make the "destroyed" result either cause multiple loss of hull points or let the attacker roll again on the damage table for a second debuff instead of removing the vehicle right away. Let every gunner on a tank choose his own target. Let tanks fire all weapons regardless of speed with the exception of driving at top speed (then only defensive weapons may fire).
Monster (e.g. Daemon Princes): When dreadnoughts deteriorate when sustaining damage monsters need debuffs too when being injured.
Some interesting points you raise, perhaps vehicles could have more access to flare shields or even automatic shielding like a dred 🤔
Always a thorny subject because of the knock on effects and local metas having unique issues (rule might only be op in specific match ups, for example). Players should do whatever is required to ensure that everyone enjoys the game. My favorite part of the podcast: Jason: "I never get to even use my interceptors" also Jason: "no one takes fliers." That's a great example of the knock on effects. If interceptor was tweaked would we need to tweak fliers?
Agree totally! Thus my comments on the slippery slope of some house rules. You need to be cautious in “balancing” one problem only to the detriment (or benefit as you described) of another.
Augury scanners do allow players to exceed the 3 Reactions limit per phase, it is explicitly written into the augury scanner rules. Personally I think a limit of 1 augury scanner per phase is entirely necessary. With 4 turn limits, your deep strikers and outflankers aren't going to have many turns to work their points back already, and with augury scanner spam, certain types of armies basically don't get a real chance at winning.
First off I watch a lot of your channel, great content! Thanks for making it! In regards to a house rule for tanks, I am finding that if you don’t apply the vehicle damage chart until the vehicle is reduced to half its starting hull points is not a bad fix. So you can still take a vital target out when needed but you will have to really dedicate some extra firepower to it.
Thanks for watching! That is a very cool idea that we may need to test out
I think many house rules are required. I get a feeling that Horus Heresy need som tweakinig. Some legions seem hurried through with few decent rules and others get all the good things. Then again, GW have more or less always had quite large gaps in their rules. (I've played since 2nd ed. 40k and 3rd ed WHFB)
Some rules do indeed need tweaking but our tinfoil hat theory has always been a the boys in Yellow and Sea Green need more stuff cause you gotta have poster boys who also drive £££££
I think the phosphex and grav difficult terrain thing could simply be an invisible debuff on the affected units (that lasts for a turn) rather than leaving the template, I find that to be a happy medium between having the difficult+dangerous terrain effect and having to deal with putting the 3" template under the models.
That’s a good suggestion, something for us to think about!
Sergeant could have artificer armor only work for them when they are targeted by precision or in a blast template. Otherwise same save as the squad. I do think the extra pip of leadership is fluffy.
Not bad suggestions but then artificer probably needs a points drop as it becomes very situational. Agree with you on the LD 8 as the Sgt is supposed to be a vet.
My group likes to bring 1 off flyers and whether or not I bring a scanner in my 3 heavy squads (fellow DG) it doesnt matter. It's getting ripped out of the sky anyways. It isn't just my army, its vs anybody. Flyers are in the bucket with tanks being too fragile and lists already skewing towards weapons that quickly defeat Marine Elites with 2+ saves. Weapons which happen to plaster vehicles too.
Most of us have spent the majority of our time shooting other marines. Which puts a lot of the cool heresy-era weaponry on the shelf. I so badly want to roast regular ol humans with a heavy alchem flamer squad, or alchem predator. Maybe plastic Solar will help facilitate that.
Overall the Heresy crowd has been pretty good keeping things reasonable both with army power and mild house ruling (such as 1k/dread). There are outliers like in any game tho.
Alchem flamers still have a use in ZM and because rule of cool! Our meta is also more friendly so to be honest, most of our house rules are more game speed and/or quality of life type house rules
My opinion is, that 30k is a game that favours heavily shooting armies, getting in close combat is alwas more work. So i think 4 game turns doesnt´t give close comat legions a advantage, i does even things out because the shooting army has do do something active as well.
Fair enough but it still doesn’t address the issue of 6x4 tables 😬
A few of these fixes some broken parts of the game for me.
Artificer armor on sergeant should just be removed. Along with making them have different statline. Squad of 10, that is 10 dudes. X can take upgrades, one each. Simple and easy.
Tanking AP3 shots at a squad of power armor defeats the whole point of how the AP system works. Characters having some extra protection against “horde guns” is a clever way of not needing to give them more wounds which is a different challenge.
I have a different opinion on the challenges and character instant death.
In general why I prefer HH over 40k is because it is less combo-wombo and hero-hammer.
I want characters to be so bad that you have to play the game with the units and not deathstars. Longer waves of grinding rather than single rolls when you line up your mega-character blob. Just let them die easy and people take less.
On vehicles the problem is how the AP rule work.
Because you want anti-tank guns to kill termies and artificers the lists have too many of them.
In old 40k editions you had to pick between horde-killer guns or lascannons. In HH2 lists spam lascannons which is obviously really bad for tanks.
But bad characters also does a disservice to the lore and let’s face it, who wants their special toys killed T1. I don’t find the current characters unbalanced with the exception of some *cough cough Siggy *cough cough, Krole*
@@fareastwargamingi get the narrative element of the characters, but the game is better if every battle did not include a chapter master leading 50 guys and 2 tanks into a skirmish. I like the idea of centurions. They are clearly better than the average marine in all regards, but they are not going to steamroll a whole table edge on their own.
The “fancy toy” though is honestly what broke warhammer. It drives the purchase that you get a “GOOOOD” unit, but it also gives a spiral of power creep that is super hard to balance.
It is a more interesting and balanced tactical decision if you have to choose between 3x tac squads or 2x plus an assault squad. How do you want to use them? What do you expect to be up against? Is 3 too many to hold objectives and might be a waste? Then you would rather take the assault squad to cause havoc and force a reaction.
This leads to a better game than auto-take force multipliers such as artificer sergeants and hammer armed extra beefy melee monsters. Yes, they feel fun and heroic, but they also end up super cartoony and not very tactical.
But nevermind. I am just a nostalgic grognard who has a strong preference for the tactical play rather than the more modern style of heroic battles.
That said. I really like your battle reports. It fits with the house rule topic, but you did not mention it (other than along with the dreadnought bit). The secret to good games is to not make silly exploitive skew lists. It gives much better games if you just tone it down a little or give a chance to try building a counter-list.
You guys did a pretty good one on the EC vs Blood Angels game. Quite toothy lists with some heavy leaning into power. Had it not been for the dice gods I think that game would have been way more balanced.
The reason many people like and feel the need for house rules is that they play with randoms/tournaments and do not enjoy playing against the people who make a list to win at all cost. Less of those in HH, but depending on the area they may be in HH if they lose too much in 40k. Like in PC games, that type of player like to punch down, they prefer to ein rather than have a balanced good game.
Line of sight and range are a factor in determining where wounds are allocated. What happens when only your artificer armor sgt is in line of sight and range? Is the model allowed the ability to use its 2+ save? Considering the initiative rule y’all talked about.
You are quite right, this has come up before. If the sgt is the only model eligible to die, then he can take as many saves as needed.
But for example, if there are 2 eligible targets, 1 trooper and one sgt and 10 wounds, the sgt can shield for 4 of them before the troop must start taking 3+ saves until he is dead. After which, the sgt is allowed to tank the rest. If that makes sense.
That makes sense.