Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Moldek

The houserules / homebrew thread

Recommended Posts

Here’s a thread to discuss various houserule ideas! 

I’ll start : I want to add a pushback mechanic. So the idea would be that before attacking you can announce that you’re doing a pushback attack. You use succesful attack dice to push back an enemy fighter that is 1’’ or less away from your fighter, instead of inflicting damage.

Let’s say you rolled 3 attacks and got 2 hits : you can chose to push the enemy 2’’ away instead of inflicting damage. The enemy has to end up farther away from the attacker than he started, stops if he hits an obstacle or another model, falls if he goes off a ledge.

While there probably are ways to abuse this, I think for casual games it can add more dynamics, especially with objective or area control games. What do you think?

Please post your ideas, wether it’s a new ability or a complete magic system...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Just the one so far, and it hasn’t been tested yet but I posted this idea on another thread earlier this week (Corvus cabal I think).

Universal Ability: Push (Double+)

     Roll a single attack die against an enemy fighter within 1”. If successful the attack deals no damage and instead pushes the target up to 1/2 of the ability dice value (rounded up). If the attack fails the target may respond with a free attack action in response -or- push your fighter (no roll required). If the target fighter has a higher strength than your fighter this ability costs a triple.

     Still uses base mechanics, doesn’t require an action since it is an ability, factors in both fighter’s strength scores, and has a penalty for failure (because this has the potential to be a very powerful ability). Uses: push enemy fighters into range of your elites allowing them to attack without moving; pushing enemy fighters off of edges for impact damage (preferably while also getting the in range of your elites), push enemy fighters off of objectives.

     Have some other ideas but nothing more than half baked atm. Hoping we can try it out this weekend after my cousin’s gotten a few more games in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lior'Lec said:

  

Universal Ability: Push (Double+)

     Roll a single attack die against an enemy fighter within 1”. If successful the attack deals no damage and instead pushes the target up to 1/2 of the ability dice value (rounded up). If the attack fails the target may respond with a free attack action in response -or- push your fighter (no roll required). If the target fighter has a higher strength than your fighter this ability costs a triple.

I think your idea of making it an ability works better given how powerful it can be. But maybe rolling only 1 attack dice is nerfing it too much? Especially given that you’re exposing yourself to a strike / push back; if you’re pushing a higher toughness opponent you’re spending a triple for 2 out of 3 chances that HE gets to hit / push you... also I think toughness would be the stat that better represents the difficulty of pushing someone (strength being weapon dependent it could get weird with multiple attack profiles and such). What do you think about this wording :

 

Universal Ability: Push (Triple)

     Make a bonus attack action against an enemy fighter within 1”. If successful the attack deals no damage and instead pushes the target up to 1/2 of the ability dice value (rounded up). 

This way it is pretty expensive and takes into account the enemy’s toughness, while still having a chance to fail. An additional penalty for failing feels a bit too much imho as you’ve already spent a triple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been houseruling cover into... well something that makes a bit more sense as necessary. As written it's serviceable, but the moment you have two models up against a wall trying to whack each other (one might be in cover!)  we just throw the basic cover rules in the bin and play it by ear.

Another thing is fall damage and dangerous terrain. I'd tweak it to 1d6 wounds from 3 inches of falling, then add another 1d6 per inch over. If there's dangerous terrain where you land, just do another 1d6 wounds. Falling's waaay too safe IMO. It reminds me of how an ork in gorkamorka could pinball between a cascade of dramatic vehicle collisions and come out completely unhurt (funny but immersion shattering). 

Also a basic courtesy ruling of 'if the scenario generated is an instawin from one side, redraw the condition or deployment as necessary, or maybe just don't make it so you instantly win the scenario if you're the one picking the conditions'.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, soak314 said:

Also a basic courtesy ruling of 'if the scenario generated is an instawin from one side, redraw the condition or deployment as necessary, or maybe just don't make it so you instantly win the scenario if you're the one picking the conditions'.

     Forgot about that, yes that’s the #1 most important house ruling we’ve made so far and it’s been very beneficial to game play. Everyone should be using this house rule, but it shouldn’t BE a house rule. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we gonna houserule that a falling test is made when jumping. Just to make those jumps a wee bit scary. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the big changes needed is that there has to be some way to avoid awful objective and twist cards, so here is my thought on modifying the way objectives and twist are determined;

  1. Deal three Objective cards and three twist cards face up,
  2. Players roll for priority,
  3. The player with priority chooses either an objective card or a twist card to discard,
  4. The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a twist card if the priority player chose twists, or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard an objective. 
  5. The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a card,  they discard a twist card if the player with priority chose an objective or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard a twist.
  6. The player with priority then chooses one of the remaining two cards to discard.

 Basically the players deal three of each and take turns vetoing twists or objectives, the player with priority gets first and last pick which is balanced out by the fact the player without priority gets 2 picks in a row. It makes the objectives and twists a tactical thing and decreases the chance of Objectives and twists heavily favoring one player or another.

I'm a programmer by profession so the steps are probably too wordy (and I'm sure others on the board could be much more succinct with the rules), but I think the idea is solid and pretty easy to grasp. What do you guys think, would this work?

*edit* Trying to make this more succinct

  1. Players deal three objectives face up and three twists face up
  2. Players roll for priority
  3. The player with priority chooses a Twist or an objective card to discard
  4. The player without priority chooses a twist and an objective to discard
  5. The player with priority chooses to discard a card, if their first choice was an objective they must discard a twist, and vice versea.

 

Edited by grimgold
trying to make it legible
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@grimgold that seems like a good way to go about it for competitive play! Pretty smart and has a tactical feel. Your rewording is efficient, you could shave off some more words from step 5 by saying « the player with priority discards one card so there’s only 1 twist and 1 objective left.»

For more casual play I think the good recipe is just to embrace the lopsided games and take it as a challenge, or agree to redraw if the setup feels really unfair. But your solution is great and I think I’ll try it out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 11:22 PM, grimgold said:

I think one of the big changes needed is that there has to be some way to avoid awful objective and twist cards, so here is my thought on modifying the way objectives and twist are determined;

  1. Deal three Objective cards and three twist cards face up,
  2. Players roll for priority,
  3. The player with priority chooses either an objective card or a twist card to discard,
  4. The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a twist card if the priority player chose twists, or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard an objective. 
  5. The player who does not have priority then chooses to discard a card,  they discard a twist card if the player with priority chose an objective or an objective card if the priority player chose to discard a twist.
  6. The player with priority then chooses one of the remaining two cards to discard.

 Basically the players deal three of each and take turns vetoing twists or objectives, the player with priority gets first and last pick which is balanced out by the fact the player without priority gets 2 picks in a row. It makes the objectives and twists a tactical thing and decreases the chance of Objectives and twists heavily favoring one player or another.

I'm a programmer by profession so the steps are probably too wordy (and I'm sure others on the board could be much more succinct with the rules), but I think the idea is solid and pretty easy to grasp. What do you guys think, would this work?

*edit* Trying to make this more succinct

  1. Players deal three objectives face up and three twists face up
  2. Players roll for priority
  3. The player with priority chooses a Twist or an objective card to discard
  4. The player without priority chooses a twist and an objective to discard
  5. The player with priority chooses to discard a card, if their first choice was an objective they must discard a twist, and vice versea.

 

I think it would be good in competitive/matched play to come up with a slate of victory conditions based on the existing ones, but modified to all generate a certain amount of VP (either per round of doing something like holding an objective or all at once when the objective on the card is "completed").  Then you could deal out 3-4 of them and each player picks two (in secret?). Or perhaps deal out one "major" victory condition and always have 3-4 minor ones available and each player chooses one of the minors in secret and doesn't announce which one until they score it. 

This is all basically ripped off from Malifaux 2E...I always loved having at least one "secret" objective as it really requires you and your opponent to think tactically...allowing for feints, tricks, etc. It also allows you to basically get rid of the twists, which are not really good for matched play imo. It makes the "twist" entirely dependent on player choice and interaction instead of a random card draw.

Edited by exliontamer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, exliontamer said:

I think it would be good in competitive/matched play to come up with a slate of victory conditions based on the existing ones, but modified to all generate a certain amount of VP (either per round of doing something like holding an objective or all at once when the objective on the card is "completed").  Then you could deal out 3-4 of them and each player picks two (in secret?). Or perhaps deal out one "major" victory condition and always have 3-4 minor ones available and each player chooses one of the minors in secret and doesn't announce which one until they score it. 

This is all basically ripped off from Malifaux 2E...I always loved having at least one "secret" objective as it really requires you and your opponent to think tactically...allowing for feints, tricks, etc.

I've been thinking about this too! Warhammer Underworlds is a good inspiration for that. You could have objectives such as kill 2 fighters with ranged attacks, have 3 fighters within 1'' of a single ennemy fighter etc. There's a lot of room for good ideas...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup! Malifaux had some real fun ones too, so worth looking at those and adapting them. One I remember fondly is that you designate one of your own models as a patsy and essentially try to get the other team to kill them...and you score if they do. If that one is in the pool the opponent has to really second guess each time they kill one of your dudes...and you have to decide do you put it on an obvious threat or just some silly grunt? Soooo many mind games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Anyone thought about adding in true line of sight and flank/arc rules yet? Been debating if it might make the game a little more interesting by pushing up the importance of facing. If relevant this would be in addition to using Kill Team’s cover/obstruction rules.

     Simple idea: Front/Back arcs based on model’s design; can only see/attack in front of you; all attacks from behind get +1 to the die rolls. It sounds good in theory but would it really add anything in practice? It’s a simplified version of what’s used in one of my dungeon crawl board games (which has front, rear, and two types of sides).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lior'Lec said:

Simple idea: Front/Back arcs based on model’s design;

That lines the problem though, there are many interpretations on what that means.

Should it be from where their head is currently facing? Or their torso? What if they look like they're looking behind?

Theres a reason why True Line of Sight was loathed in warhammer, especially when it massively interfered with modeling, for example crouching or crawling models.

 

I think to solve that, do a Warmahordes (or a more modern example, X Wing) and clearly define on the base the front of the model, then use that reference point to create facing arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I already do that on my bases anyway just incase they get used in another game where it is required (rpgs and dungeon crawls). Arcs are denoted by where the groves are shaved into the mdf bases (which one of these days I will get around to actually painting to make it easier to see) at 10, 2, 4 and 8 o’clock positions, for simpler version it would just be the center of the side arcs to separate front and back. 

     I actually always preferred true line of sight in games; even in beer and pretzel wargames like Warhammer. It was always simple to me, when you build the model mark it on the base. It doesn’t matter if you use the head’s position and I use the torso or  vice-a versa because  it’s clearly marked for each and every time it is in question. True line of sight was never universally loathed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What about making crits either push or deal the extra damage? I was thinking, for every "6" rolled, you can either push the oponent 1" away from you, or deal the crit damage. Seems like it could be a good way to make crits less hardcore in terms of damage, since people would be using it for pushing as well.

If you roll two crits, then you could push the opponent 2" away, or divide the crits however you want between pus

Edited by edsounddesign
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make gargantuan models immune to 'snare' effects (stuff like nets that prevent movement). Make it so they can opt to simply destroy terrain of 1" height or less by moving over/landing on it.

Also, skill tree mechanics. Any good ones out there? Someone has to have made something by now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Make gargantuan models immune to 'snare' effects (stuff like nets that prevent movement). Make it so they can opt to simply destroy terrain of 1" height or less by moving over/landing on it.

Also, skill tree mechanics. Any good ones out there? Someone has to have made something by now!

Off the cuff, the only tree skill mechanic I can think of are the special artefacts from forbidden power. 
which is an amazingly fun idea for a campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I let people use those in my Path to Glory leagues, can be really fun when implemented properly.

Absolutely and it’s a fun way to direct playstyles as organiser/gm as well if you design then yourself.  

something that Just Sprang to mind is that we’ve used the Path to glory unit upgrades as well and you could easily make those in a skill tree. Add a few more and group them into themed branches and your pretty much set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, when i get time (I've already started) i'm working on a two player vs monsters campaign. Each players has 500pts vs 2-3 Monsters (depending on mission), i wanted 10 of the 4 cards and use all the monsters and Varanguard (not Gotrek). Oh PS you can solo it too if you wanted, it would just be you vs monsters.

The campaign will be play these X cards in this Order, but there is a pick up game version of draw cards like normal. 

Even tho you are on teams you get credit for doing wounds and bonus if you got the kill, you are both using each other to try and hard materials basically.

I had to stop working on it so i can work on Adepticon... now that is cancel so i'll start to work on it soon again, still might be another month before i can touch it as i have 1 commission project too.

Edited by Maddpainting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 9:36 AM, edsounddesign said:

What about making crits either push or deal the extra damage? ...

Another way could be to expand upon the existing "Falling off Terrain" rule so that if an attack scores any crits, the attacker can make the defender roll a push-back check . On a 1, the attacker can move the defending fighter 1" in any direction (and hence cause them to fall).

On 3/12/2020 at 5:38 PM, NinthMusketeer said:

Make gargantuan models immune to 'snare' effects ...

This. It made me chuckle to think of a Grot with a Barbed Net snaring a Zombie Dragon. If they ever did manage to "ensnare" it, things would not go how the Grot had hoped - at all!!! 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Magic. I know, it's a big change and dice abilities KIND OF fill in for it, but I like the idea of it. My idea is to add a new Generic ability:

Double, Mage - Manifest Magic                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          This model gets a Magic Charge with a value equal to the value of this ability.

Later on, the model can spend the Magic Charge to attempt a spell - basically, roll a die and add the roll to the Charge's value, if the total equals or exceeds the Casting Value of the intended spell, the spell is cast. There would be other, faction specific ways to create Magic Charges, and each faction could have a unique spell or two, in addition to whatever generic spells you have. Also, unlike doubles, triples, etc., only the Mage that created the Charge could use it.

P.S., also some models would get the Mage runemark. Maybe a single lieutenant type model (Drillmaster, Signifer, First Fang, Spire Stalker, stuff with 15 wounds)

Edited by AthelLoren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...