I’m still missing he point in some ways.
In others I’m hitting it for a home run.
“What? Talk sense man”… I hear you wonder
My last post, regarding Oldhammer and the 3rd edition Fantasy Rules and Rogue trader rules.
The ruleset used is not what it means. Oldhammer is not a “You will play with x rules”. It’s not a restriction.
It’s a mindset. The mindset to admit that once you are playing whatever game among friends, your free to do what you want with it, and play whatever sorts of scenario or battle you want.
The key thing is it’s fun, however you define it.
If you want to line up to point matched armies from the latest books, go for it.
If you want to bash together your own scenario with specific forces (Made up of from army books or whatever) Go for it.
We did the latter the past Sunday, using our heavily modified 6th edition 40k rules, using forces I’d picked out based not on points, but on the scenario in mind. the scenario being the shooting down of an Imperial shuttle carrying Inquisitor Cloussau Holmes and his Eldar Farseer captive, along with various Tau and Eldar artefacts. The two forces had to retrieve their own artefacts from the crash site. The taus also had to retrieve the Eldar items for study, and capture the Inquisitor. The Eldars other goals were to kill the Inquisitor, rescue the farseer and stop the Tau swiping the Eldar tech. All with the additional problem that a captured Inquisitor would set off an explosive Psi-Dampening collar worn by the farseer meaning that if the Tau captured him, the Eldar had big problems, and sprinkle in a soupcon of a Terminator squad rescue force in the later stages, and it made for an interesting, and fun game.
Was it using the Rogue Trader rules? No… well kinda…. we have modified armour rules now, whereby a model gets ALL the armour/cover/invulnerable saves that apply, meaning certain troops if dug into heavy cover are quite tricky to dig out etc. Add in a heavily modified turn sequence, and jobs a gud’un as they say.
I’ve also been thinking of modifications to the “Deny the Witch” rule in 6th ed as I think it’s too hit or miss, it doesn’t take into account the relative mental strngth of the Psyker or Target, so we are tinkering with an opposed roll instead – I may put it up on here with a bit more playtesting.
I’ve also been thinking along similar lines for Fantasy, more specifically below:
If they have not moved, are not already engaged in a fight and are charged from the front by cavalry, they gain “always strikes first” on the first round of cpmbat
Amended panic/rout tests:if a unit loses a round of combat and has lost at least 25% of their current strength then they take a panic test.
When a unit breaks it’s opponent get a “free hack”
If a unit is caught by pursuers, the pursuers get a “free hack” – the unit is not automatically destroyed , but count as being in combat again with Defender striking at WS 1 and either (Not decided on this one yet fully) the attackers getting always strike first on the next round OR defender hasAlways strikes Last on the next round to represent the confusion)
Free Hack: this is a single attack per model, hitting against WS1, rolling to wound and save as normal (Parry saves not allowed)
What I/we’re doing is taking bits & bobs from various rulesets and amalgamating them into some form of horrific, homebrewed monstrosity that’s intended to play how we envisage it, and help out the fun of the scenarios.
I’m also looking at adding extra units as well, at the moment I’m thinking foot knights for my Empire, and Dwarf Bear Riders for cavalry… just for the sheer damn fun of it.