Rules discussion

Here you can post against rules you dislike.
The post should be formulated like this:

The rule you dislike.

Your proposal how it should be changed. Note, have balance in mind.

The imposibility of reinforcing an attacked army through the webway. It makes no sense by the fluff.

Solution: Just let people reinforce attacked armies through Webway gates and Warp Rifts.

That means that we will need to allow it for landing zones(the normal ones) too.

Sure, why not?

I mean, fluffwise you DO have a link to reinforcing troops- the orbiting dropships. Besides, a landing zone would be full of dropships ferrying troops and supplies to and from the planet, so it makes perfect sense that those troops could be diverted to protect the landing pad.

Also, while we're at it I have a suggestion for a new rule.

Run the Blockade

If attacked, a defending army may instead of fighting normally elect to Run the Blockade. Depending on the situation, this may be an encircled army attempting to break through enemy lines, an army on the move attempting to run a blockade of defending troops to perform an objective, or a far larger 'defending' army attempting to blow through a stalling enemy army with maximum speed.

If the defender chooses to Run the Blockade, play the Ambush (page 206 of the main rulebook) mission with the attacked army as the defender, or the Breakout (page 213 of the main rulebook) mission with the attacked army as the attacker, and with the following differences.

1: The attacking army may Deep Strike or Infiltrate those units that are normally capable of doing so, though the defender may not.

2: If Ambush is used, then no victory points are scored for destroyed units by either side. Instead, at the end of the game the defending army gains victory points equal to the value of any unit that escaped from the battle as normal. The attacker gets the victory points value of any enemy unit that is still on the table by the end of the battle, alive or dead, though if the defending army scores a win those units do not break off from the main army and are not assumed to be killed unless the unit was in fact destroyed during the battle.

3: A result of a draw is counted as a Solid Victory to the attacking army.

4: In Ambush, the attacker does not automatically have the first turn. Roll off as normal.

If the defending army scores at least a Solid Victory result, then unless it has already done so the army may move normally in its turn despite being attacked.

Cool idea Imrix.

Why not use the "Break Through" mission instead? It is designed especially for situations like this?

You mean Breakout?

Well, for a single reason, really.

1: The attacker is the one being ambushed. Doesn't make sense to me.

Still, I've included a note that either mission can be used.

Quote :

1: The attacker is the one being ambushed. Doesn't make sense to me.

Really? I will have to check it, because it does not make sense to me too. Maybe they mean that the defender who got surrounded reverts to attacker, when trying to break out. GW's usual obscure wording.

The wording is that "The attacker's forces have been surrounded and are facing annihilation unless they can break through the enemy lines. They must act quickly to escape before their foes can move up overwhelming forces to quickly annihilate them"

Why they are attacking overwhelming defender is beyond reasoning, though.
So yes, it's either modified Ambush or Break out with attacker and defender swapping positions then?

Precisely.

I thought of it because, as it stands, you could make a 10,000 point Apocalypse force consisting of four Warlord Titans and have it never do anything because each turn it was attacked by say... Five Astartes Scouts, stopping it from moving because it's been attacked.

I just thought of that and went "The fething FUG?" I mean, by all rights even one Warhound Titan should just roll right over a squad of scouts without even so much as seeing them, let alone slowing down!

If a commander was in that situation, I doubt they'd be be too chuffed either when their super-army that they paid so much to bask in the awesome of, is stopped by 40-60 point speedbump units every turn.

Yes, your idea is superb in my opinion.

I agree, there must have been some form of oversight whilst making this. Still, now that the idea has presented itself, the rules can be amended, and made better.

Ok, so most of you approve the rule.
Next topic:

Quote :

When a tyranid player defeats an opposing army in battle, the Tyranid force receives 50% of the defeated force as an addition to passive reserve and the same amount of points to their objective count.

Shall the 50% to passive instead be 50% to active? It makes sense, but I expected alot of nid players and that was the reason behind changing it to passive?

I propose a variant.

In addition to (instead of?) recouping 25% of their own casualties, a Tyranid player may "revive" a number of their losses equal to half the opposing armies points value. Any points left over go to the passive pool.

Also, regarding Running the Blockade... Would it be worth letting an attacking force do the same thing? Representing them fighting a running battle to press through enemy lines and into the back field?

Intersting idea about the Tyranids. I'd like to hear what the others, and especially the nid player have to say.
About 'Run the blockade' ..Hm, I am not sure. I need to think a bit over it.

Expanded fortifications

As well as garrisoning troops or creating defensive postion, an army may use Fortify actions to lay mines, razorwire, tank traps, automated turrets or other, more exotic items.

All of the following are considered Fortify actions.

Mines

For each action spent laying mines in an area, you may designate one piece of terrain as Dangerous terrain during battle, or deploy a marker denoting a 6" sphere of Dangerous Terrain (so the area within 3" of the marker is Dangerous). You may not lay mines in your enemies deployment zone.

Instead of placing additional minefields however, the player can instead choose to strengthen existing minefields. A minefield can be strengthend up to twice. A minefield that has been strengthened once inflicts a wound on models moving through it on a 1 or a 2, a minefield that has been strengthened twice inflicts a wound on a roll of a 1, 2 or 3.

Friendly troops will have extensive maps of the location of their own mines, and will have gone through dozens of controlled exercises to practice moving through their own minefields safely- though more care must be taken with them than normal ground. Troops friendly to or allied to the faction may treat minefields as difficult terrain rather than dangerous.

Minefields which have been strengthened twice still count as dangerous terrain to friendly troops if they choose to do this, but will only inflict wounds on rolls of a 1 (roll for both difficult terrain and dangerous terrain seperately). The mines are simply too thick to move safely through, even if you do know where they all are!

Like fortifications, one minefield is "spent" (or in the case of a strengthend minfield, weakened) per battle.

Razorwire

For each action spent laying razorwire, three razorwire fence 6" long and 1" wide may be deployed at the start of the battle. Razorwire is considered open ground for vehicles, but difficult terrain for infantry and dangerous terrin for infatry with an armour save of 5+ or worse. Razorwire does not confer a cover save, and does not block line of sight.

Razorwire may not be deployed in the enemies deployment zone, and is destroyed if a vehicle that is not a skimmer moves through it.

Automated turrets

For each action spent laying automatic turrets one turret may be deployed at the start of the battle in their deployment zone. An automated turret is considered an immobile vehicle with an armour value of 11 on all facings, BS2 and a single twin-linked weapon which differs depending on race.

Imperial Guard: Heavy bolter.
Space Marines: Heavy bolter.
Inquisitio: Heavy bolter.
Chaos: Heavy bolter.
Eldar: Scatter laser.
Dark Eldar: Splinter cannon.
Orks: Big Shoota.
Tau: Burst Cannons.
Necrons: Gauss Blaster.

Tyranids may not lay automated turrets.

Why stop at Mines? Razorwire, tank traps, maybe even small, twin-linked turrets, like the ones the Imperium use that have the aiming ability of a blind ork but are twin-linked.

Good point. Inventiveness time...

Edit: Done. Decided not to do tank traps, as they're not that much from actual cover.

Twin-linked BS2 statistically has the accuracy of an Imperial Guardsmen (even 5% more!), and armor 11 is higher then lots of vehicles boast. I'd suggest the either the armor to drop to 10 or accuracy to BS1.

Also combat patrol 3 actions have to be reworked into 2 actions and a bonus move action.

Firstly, Twin linked BS2 is all turrets and AI programs I care to name in 40k, from Tau drones and automated turrets to houseruled Imperial Machine Spirits and Drop Pods. I see no reason why this should be different.

AV10 being higher than lots of vehicles boast? Let's see. Land speeders, Ork trukks, Dark Eldar Raiders Imperial Guard Sentinels... Are you seeing a pattarn here? They're all either scouting craft or super-light transports vulnerable to small arms fire. An auto-turret is designed to be an entrenched position, so in my opinion it SHOULD have a certain degree of protection.

As for the three actions thing... Why?

Well for the first too you might be right.

Why would a small force (i can have 6 jetbikes which is 6 drivers) be able to fortify a position better and faster?

Uh, you misunderstood. I asked why because that's how it is ALREADY.

So, are we including razorwire, mines, turrets, etc?

Yep, from next turn it will be legal.

Do different races get different types of turret? For example, Eldar getting Scatter Laser turrets, Imperial and Chaos forces getting Heavy Bolters, etc?