For me the most important issue is that the rules are freely available online and continually updated- a living document. I know this seems very likely as confirmed based on the rumours, but i'll still be super hyped if its delivered!
Following on from this (also seemingly confirmed by rumours) is the end of codexes.
Cover being BS modifiers instead of an actual save. For Example: being 25% obscured by Terrain of all types, intervening models, etc = -1 to the firer's BS Target has Stealth = -1BS Shrouded = -2BS. Stealth and Shrouded can no longer stack Anything than makes you snap-fire = -2BS Target is a Vehicle or MC = +1BS
If BS can never be lowered below 1, than at worse you hit a target on 6. I find than preferable to them having a 2+ re-rollable save.
Making AP be save modifiers instead of having to straight up meet the armour to ignore it. Example: AP 5 = -1 Armour save AP 4 = -2 AP 3 = -3 AP 2 = -4 AP 1 = -5 So a Terminator would still get a 6+ save against AP2, yet Marines would be affected by AP4/5. You could potentially allow Invuls to be taken after failed Armour....maybe
The overall affect of these two changes would mean that things are harder to hit, but easier to wound. This would instantly make melee armies competitive, prevent 2+ re-rollable cover saves and it would speed up the game as units would die faster.
Give vehicles armour saves. Example: All vehicle have a 4+ Armour (than can be modified by the above). Open-topped = -1 Tank/Walker with AV12+ = +1 Any side with AV14 = +1
Galef wrote: Cover being BS modifiers instead of an actual save.
For Example:
being 25% obscured by Terrain of all types, intervening models, etc = -1 to the firer's BS Target has Stealth = -1BS
Shrouded = -2BS. Stealth and Shrouded can no longer stack
Anything than makes you snap-fire = -2BS
Target is a Vehicle or MC = +1BS
If BS can never be lowered below 1, than at worse you hit a target on 6. I find than preferable to them having a 2+ re-rollable save.
Making AP be save modifiers instead of having to straight up meet the armour to ignore it.
Example:
AP 5 = -1 Armour save
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5
So a Terminator would still get a 6+ save against AP2, yet Marines would be affected by AP4/5. You could potentially allow Invuls to be taken after failed Armour....maybe
The overall affect of these two changes would mean that things are harder to hit, but easier to wound. This would instantly make melee armies competitive, prevent 2+ re-rollable cover saves and it would speed up the game as units would die faster.
Give vehicles armour saves.
Example:
All vehicle have a 4+ Armour (than can be modified by the above).
Open-topped = -1
Tank/Walker with AV12+ = +1
Any side with AV14 = +1
-
Definitely agree with a lot of these suggestions, especially in terms of getting rid of 2+ re-rollable cover save setups.
Would you like to see a reduction in the number of AP1 and AP2 weapons though?
For example over the editions the prevalance of AP2 weapons has increased, resulting in Terminators becoming more and more ineffective, reaching now a point where you never see vanilla Terminators in any remotely competitive list.
If vehicles were getting an armour save I'd prefer to see something like getting a save against glancing his with Av 14 getting a 2+, 13 is a 3+, 12 is a 4+, 11 is a 5+ and 10 is a 6+.
I'd like to see all the difficult/dangerous terrain rules revamped.
I've always found it stupid that 41st millennia transports can become immobilized for the entire game by some rubble or old fence.
I'd like to see that instead something along the lines of movement phase over for the vehicle, as though the driver is taking extra caution or determining the best route through, but then resuming as normal the next turn for that item of terrain. IMO this would make the game far more fluid and help re-balance the massive advantage skimmer factions have over non-skimmer factions.
I think maybe invuls should work like Ward saves did in the previous version of Warhammer Fantasy. You get to attempt your (modified) armour save if possible, but if failed, you get your Armour save. That would mean Terminators almost always get 2 saves.
Coupled with being harder to hit in many cases due to BS modifiers, and I don't think the prevalence of AP1/2 weapons is a big issue anymore
Keep in mind, that the changes I am proposing assume that all the Codices remain valid and unchanged.
If 8th is a full-on reboot, my hope is that: A) the main rules are simple, like maybe a dozen or so pages. More depth than AoS, but not the complicated mess we have now B) the rules for all existing units are either printed in the main rules (GW has done this before) or at least the replacement army books are cheap (like White Dwarf cheap), or if they are the same cost as now, they encompass multiple factions. Like a sinlge $50 Space Marine book that includes BAs, DAs, GKs and Wolves, 1 Aeldari book, 1 Chaos book and 1-2 Xenos books. In short, it should not cost more that $100-$200 to own ALL the rules for EVERY thing playable in 8th edition.
#1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
#2 - Vehicles & Monstrous Creatures that are tougher, but weaken as they're injured; Let the AoS-ification begin. I know they're saying that this is going to happen, but I'm really looking forward to it. Fundamentally, from a design perspective, there is no reason that these two should have core differences. Any differences between the two should be on their datasheets.
#3 - Stop Ignoring Your Own Rules; Too many things are ignoring the rules of the game, and some of these are important rules! Leadership is important. Snap firing heavy weapons is important. Being slowed by difficult terrain is important. Being able to ignore these things should cost more than it currently seems to, since so many forces have so many ways of ignoring these things. These things may be "unfun", but that's why they become thrilling. I don't remember the million times my Mining Laser normally hits, but I do remember the time where they popped up, and despite snap-firing, blasted a hole straight through the Archon.
#4 - Cover as a Modifier, not a Save; It makes no sense to me that Terminator armour gives you the same protection against a plasma gun as a bush (worse if they duck behind the bush). Normally I'd say to make cover a save modifier (up to a limit), but not a save on its own. However, since we know GW is doing save modifiers anyways, now I'd suggest making cover into something that helps you ignore save modifiers. So if they make a bolter -1 to your save, a bush can help you ignore the -1, a building ignores -2, and a plasteel barrier ignores -3.
#5 - Makes Close Combat Deadly less deadly for winning it; Close combat is already pretty deadly, and I don't know if it needs to be deadlier. The biggest knock against close combat right now are the number of things that ignore the rules (see point #3). For those that don't ignore the rules, close combat is very deadly, with forces often being overrun, which is GREAT. However, what sucks is that doing really well in close combat is often a bad thing, as it leaves you smack in the open for people to shoot back. You need to get lucky and hope to win on the second turn, which feels so wrong I could barely type it. Used to be that you could sweep and advance and hope to hit another squad to get stuck in, which I get a lot of people didn't like, but it did function well. You should be rewarded for wining on your turn, and penalized for winning on your opponent's turn. If we can have fewer things ignoring leadership, how about panic tests for nearby units to see if they also break and run at the sight of their comrades collapsing?
Anyways, just my 2 cents. Won't matter as I'm sure everything's already been finalized for launch.
Yarium wrote: #1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary. .
I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games. Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.
Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.
Yarium wrote: #1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
.
I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.
Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.
-
You don't play use technology at all?
Playing video games is different than getting some things to read.
As Galef has already explained perfectly my views on cover saves, hit and armour modifiers I won't add to that. However, I feel that certain armour should get 2D6 for saves, including monstrous creatures.
For example, regular terminator armour is 2+ on 2D6 or a 5+ unmodified invulnerable save. This way, the terminator armour becomes proper hard as nails but with 90% of any wounds it will fail on a snake eyes result. Obviously, this would have to be rejigged for variations of terminator armour (such as Ork mega armour) so you need to decide between artificer power armour or terminator armour now.
Monstrous creatures I support getting 2D6 for saving throws. You really need heavy weapons rather than spamming mass low caliber guns to take them out.
I'd also like to see proper anti-psyker defenses added to all armies when possible, both defensively based and weapon based. At the moment, some armies lack them completely unless allying, and Psyker shenanigans are becoming so silly, this is desperately required. The same for AA weapons, some armies have them in droves, while others need flyers for AA, which isn't cheap or reliable.
I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...)
Anyway, I'd like to be able to put down blasts anywhere, more pinning weapons, shooting in combat, that sort of thing.
Bobthehero wrote: I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...).
Why not? One of the biggest reasons melee armies suck is because 40k is a "shooting" game. If we reduce the effectiveness of the shooting phase, then those struggling melee armies can shine. It would certainly tone down Eldar and Tau.
Bobthehero wrote: I don't buy cover as modifiers with a D6, unless there are more things to give +1 BS than the size of the target (almost every time modifiers are suggested, its always reduce BS...).
Why not? One of the biggest reasons melee armies suck is because 40k is a "shooting" game. If we reduce the effectiveness of the shooting phase, then those struggling melee armies can shine.
It would certainly tone down Eldar and Tau.
Freddy Kruger wrote: As Galef has already explained perfectly my views on cover saves, hit and armour modifiers I won't add to that. However, I feel that certain armour should get 2D6 for saves, including monstrous creatures.
For example, regular terminator armour is 2+ on 2D6 or a 5+ unmodified invulnerable save. This way, the terminator armour becomes proper hard as nails but with 90% of any wounds it will fail on a snake eyes result. Obviously, this would have to be rejigged for variations of terminator armour (such as Ork mega armour) so you need to decide between artificer power armour or terminator armour now.
Monstrous creatures I support getting 2D6 for saving throws. You really need heavy weapons rather than spamming mass low caliber guns to take them out.
I'd also like to see proper anti-psyker defenses added to all armies when possible, both defensively based and weapon based. At the moment, some armies lack them completely unless allying, and Psyker shenanigans are becoming so silly, this is desperately required. The same for AA weapons, some armies have them in droves, while others need flyers for AA, which isn't cheap or reliable.
that would go from a 16.6% to fail to 2 on 2d6 is a 2.7% to fail terminators would have to go way up in price for that to be the case.
also it would tale forever to roll. imagine 30 orks (180 points boyz vs 175 terminators) get the charge off, 2 base attacks plus one for charging and 1 for pistol/choppa. 120 attacks. hit on 4's so 60 hits wound on 4's so 30 wounds. by current standards that would be 4.8 dead terminators by your 2d6 that is 0.81% to get a single wound possibly removing a 35 point model after 30 separate armor save rolls of 2d6. suddenly volume of attacks does not hurt them at all and only low AP effects them which some armies just do not have.
on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.
G00fySmiley wrote: on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.
If they change it to attackers always swinging first that somewhat ameliorates the nob power claw issue. Of course, it might be the case that unwieldy weapons still strike last.
Challenges seem cool and thematic some of the time, but at other times seem weird, and they generally seem to pretty clumsily implemented.
Yarium wrote: #1 - Rules Subscription; Let's be honest, you can't have something for nothing. We shouldn't have the rules freely available AND expect them to be continually updated. Instead, I'd be totally down for a low subscription fee that gives you access to an app with all the rules. $5 per month means $60 for the year, which is the cost of a rulebook. After 2 years it'll be $120, which is as if I bought a rulebook and a two codexes. Meanwhile, you get access to ALL the rules for whatever you want, and they can quickly and cheaply implement changes when changes are necessary.
.
I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.
Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.
-
I tend to agree. I'm really not keen on the idea of an app or a subscription fee. I'll take a hardcopy and the occasional FAQ's over having to squint at my phone any day. I want nice, full page illustrations and pages to flip through/put postet notes on for reference.
G00fySmiley wrote: on the what should change front. scrap challenges or at least exempt some armies where orks can say no and still fight. currently what is supposed to be a strong cc army due to a hidden power claw instead the nob gets challenged out and dies before swinging.
If they change it to attackers always swinging first that somewhat ameliorates the nob power claw issue. Of course, it might be the case that unwieldy weapons still strike last.
Challenges seem cool and thematic some of the time, but at other times seem weird, and they generally seem to pretty clumsily implemented.
agreed, they make sense in some cases the big close combat guys challenge eachother, luscious the betrayer challenges captain sicarius to a duel, the stadium is sold out. meanwhile though I could not see a nob accepting and instead sending a boy in... now's your chance to shine little boy grug, win this and you may have a future! meanwhile I want multiple oomies on my claw.
another one I can see ignoring a challenge is a guardsman sarg orders a few guardsman in to fix bayonets while retreating to a better firing position so part of the squad survives.
Blacksails wrote: My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.
Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?
agreed, they make sense in some cases the big close combat guys challenge eachother, luscious the betrayer challenges captain sicarius to a duel, the stadium is sold out. meanwhile though I could not see a nob accepting and instead sending a boy in... now's your chance to shine little boy grug, win this and you may have a future! meanwhile I want multiple oomies on my claw.
What?! That's some good ol' Ork cunning right there. I imagine the Nob doing the shifty-eyes right before giving the order.
I may get shot for saying this, but I like the cover save format as it is, that is , having it as a separate save.
I get it that it makes the reality in which a plasma shot is deflected by a bush possible. But, you have to remember that terrain pieces are abstract in 40k, they are representations.
A terrain piece that looks like just a tree grove could be a representation of a tree grove with a crap ton of foliage, a hill, metal debris, and a scarecrow. There is just no feasible way of showing that much detail on the piece. This is why it makes sense to me to make it a separate save. Plus, it cuts down on book keeping. But i do think night fighting should be a modifier to BS, it makes more sense like that
Now as for what I'm looking forward to. I really hope they weren't lying about the movement stat being reintroduced.
Also, I hope they rework the CC mechanic. It makes no sense that Joe Blow ( chaos cultist) from down the street is hitting a physical manifestation of the god of murder, war, and martial prowess (Avatar of Khaine) or a millenia old melee expert gladiatrix (Lelith Hesperax) one time out of three.
Yeah, the weird solutions people have come up with like feeding mekboyz to challenges to keep klawnobz alive doesn't seem quite right to me.
Maybe if they limited challenges to just HQs or even just to warlords and certain special characters like the BT Emperor's Champion? Then give some HQs the ability to ignore challenges without penalty?
I think they should always have hardcopy rules as an option. I think they should keep making the pretty hardcover versions of books. However, I don't think that should stand in the way of making use of technology to update things faster. For some people that could mean paying a subscription fee to always have the latest version of their digital books. For others that could mean having to buy some books every year and review the quarterly changelogs and print out any applicable changes.
Blacksails wrote: My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.
Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?
I think that would be cool. On the other hand, since Apocalypse games are generally for fun and planned out in advance they are ideal for negotiating house rules that streamline things.
It would totally be cool if GW came up with a more streamlined version of Apocalypse, but I still don't see people heading down to the FLGS looking for a 10,000 point pickup game.
Or were you thinking of a sort of "mini-apocalypse" set of rules for ~2500-5000 point games or something? That would be cool too.
If I am redoing 40k 8E, I'm restructuring things like AoSGHB:
8E Rulebook - 12 (illustrated) pages of core rules + USRs - 12 pages of glorious scenarios / missions, where each scenario is a full spread that shows everything right there.
- escalation campaign
- simplified Army lists for "competitive" play
Basically, it's the 3E Rulebook, redux, updated with beautiful color and photos.
2nd printing after 1 year with cleanup and corrections, then...
8E Codices - loads of Fluff and artwork and hobby stuff
- recap of rules, scenarios
- recap of Army list, but illustrated and fluffy
If you are a competitive player, you get the 8E Rulebook, and you have everything you need to play the game, with ALL of the rules and ALL of the units in ONE book. It's clean and streamlined, plays fast, without cross-referencing. Or, if you are a fluff player, you just get the Codex, and it has EVERYTHING that you need to play YOUR army (only).
Rules Approach
AoS-like streamlining!
A de-emphasis on extra rules, special rules, and exceptions allows GW to focus on high level design and their miniatures, while modernizing the whole thing.
Clear distinction between "Competitive" vs. Casual play:
- Competitive = NO Allies; FOC or Formation composition
- Casual = Unbound forces, Allies as agreed.
It seems like GW is putting out more games using the same models, which I think is a good thing. Going with what BunkhouseBuster was saying, in addition to the "three ways to play" I think it would be good if they had different rules for four different scales of 40k.
Something along the lines of: Kill Team: ~200 points, ~45 minutes Combat Patrol/Oldhammer: ~500-1000 points, ~1.5 hours Newhammer/Mini-Apoc: ~1000-3000 points, ~3 hours Apocalypse: 3000+ points, a lot of hours
I'm not sure how long SW:A takes, but it might be a replacement for Kill Team. I can see having a game like Kill Team be more focused on fast pick-up games with simpler rules while SW:A has longer games with more complex rules.
Combat Patrol/Oldhammer could have no allies, no LoW, no special characters and much more limiting detachment/formation options. There might need to be rules like being able to split most squads into combat squads, not just SM, or letting small 1-3 units like Tyranid Warriors operate independently of eachother. This might be a good format for competitive play.
Newhammer: Something kind of like what we have now, with multiple detachments, formations, allies and the like. Lords of War could be included, but it would be nice to see a 25% limit. This seems like it would allow for big, fun games with lots of toys but still be something that you could do as a pick-up game on a weeknight.
Apocalypse could be much as it is now, an all-day kind of thing where people bring out all their toys. They might have more streamlined rules to speed it up a bit though.
All of this can easily be done by just talking with people and arranging things in advance, similar to the "three ways to play" but by spelling things out a bit more and including them in a handbook GW can give us a shorthand and set of expectations we can use to better communicate with eachother.
Blacksails wrote: My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.
Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?
Ideally, yeah. Necromunda MKII is a step in the right direction. Epic at 28mm would be...interesting, but couldn't really be much worse than the slog that is current Apoc. The issue is with normal 40k. In order to alleviate the problems with basic troops and their basic weapons you'd need to do away with most of the massive gribblies. In a game where a whole army can be a bunch of shooty stompy giant robots, it kind of makes you wonder why you brought your basic troops. Even 5th ed had a problem with parking lots stripping away the bulk of anti-infantry firepower as you had to mech yourself before you wrecked yourself.
If we're keeping the feeling of 40k at 28mm, I personally feel a game should be somewhere around a reinforced platoon size. Using Guard as a reference, this would literally be a platoon of various sizes supported by a squadron of vehicles at the largest end. Marines would be a few squads with some specialist support (librarians, some dreads, a vehicle squadron, some small mix of the above). Unfortunately, this would mean the end of most people's current armies, and would surely see the end of many models in 'standard' 40k, like all superheavies/GMCs and even some of the larger, OPMCs. Really, the most durable thing on the battlefield for 40k should be Land Raider-esque/TMC-sized. Leave everything larger for weekend Apoc battles and theme/scenario nights. It would also mean no flyers in their current incarnation. Back to old days of only hover capable 'flyers' who were fast skimmers.
That would be the most sweeping of my perfect world changes.
I know most people would disagree or hate it and I know GW would never do it, but a man can dream.
Ultimately, all I want and can reasonably expect would be balance. I'm not holding out on too much hope, but they've been surprising me, so I remain cautiously optimistic.
*Edit* Dakka Flakka Flame (fething epic name) beat me to it.
The thing that is needed most, no matter the considerations of what style of rules they commit to, is planning and consistency in their rules. There should be no question as to what aspect of the game a special rule is addressing, period.
That way we don't need FAQs coming along and saying the exact opposite of what the written rules are saying.
I think invul saves should be a modifier to ap. So a terminator would be 2+ armor with a +1 invul vs ap. So that ap2 weapon that is now diminishing the save to a 6+ is partially negated and the term ends up with a 5+ instead.
Galef wrote: I'd have serious issues with this. I should not be expection to do ANYTHING that involves online. There is a reason I play 40K and not video games.
Online stuff is great for some, but by no means should it be a mandatory part of the game.
Hardcopy rules need to be an option. And unfortunately that makes "living rules" not very plausible. The other issue with living rules is that is make casual play frustrating as you have to take the time to make sure you know what updates have been made before you play. While FAQs kinda do that now, it would be much harder if the rules could be updated 10 more frequently because they are all online.
Depending on how its executed, I don't think anything about a subscription service would impinge at all on the way you want to play 40k. They'll still releases codexes and whatnot, but those things would be considered more of a "collectors item", rather than a requirement to play, and they will require the user to keep up to date with faq's. Nothing about having a subscription service to the rules would change that or require the subscription to be mandatory. It'll just be a nicer way to play for all the folks that want that, which I bet would be a sizeable portion of their market.
I could live with a more Necromunda-scaled skirmish game than the Apocalypse scaled game 40k has become. I love my big models, but I'd like to go back to the days when the likes of one Leman Russ was a terror on the battlefield.
I was looking through the old 3rd edition rulebook the other day. It was a thing of beauty- clear, concise, beautiful photographs and a little bit of lore mixed in
It would be great if a printed version of 8th was more like this
Changing how D works, or restricting things that can use it at full strength would be nice, maybe giving everything thats not gargantuan size has the D-scythe restriction negating the 6 roll.
Changing how stomp works, I understand its to help with tarpits, but just straight up removing models with no recourse isn't fun.
Vehicles getting blown up on a lucky 6 really grinds my gears. Ive had my monolith last till turn 4 in one game! Amazed it lasted that long.
Having dabbled a bit in AoS, and loving WH40K for its setting more than its rules per se... I give you six items I'd like to see (personal opinion alert!):
Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.
AoS style damage charts for vehicles, able to even differentiate between contemporary Imperial Rhinos and ancient Chaos Rhinos and show different strengths and weaknesses. Why not give Hellbrutes even an extra attack for being hit (and damaged) over and over, until they topple?
Armour Save modifiers instead of an AP system. and an end to app that AP1/AP2 spam by revising some weapons. Heck, while at it, revise a lot more weapons. Have grav weapons drop a gravity-counter and models in a unit or squadron struck must pass a Strength test or suffer some movement penalty for one turn, after which the counter is removed.
Make leadership count again. Put an end to all the fearlessness shenanigans so that the Fear special rule is, in fact, largely superfluous. I don't think a 'suffer casualties for suffering leadership' style rule is the solution (it, again, removes models faster than you can set them up), but something can be done about psychology in the game.
Far less randomness. I want to use point-buy to get specific psychic powers. Give my warlord one warlord trait of my choice, but balance them against each other. Have first turn be dependent on the Initiative value of the warlord (before rolling dice in case of a tie). That sort of thing. I roll enough dice as is.
Free rules and army lists online, in a living document. I understand all my codices are expensive books, but I'll still have them for their fluff and art and such. Balance issues could be solved in the living part of the rules, by monthly or bi-monthly updates.
I agree almost completely with Xcapobl except for initiative of warlord. First turn and seize the innitiative need their own subset of rules and modifiers and not be tied to a cc characteristic. Creed for instance should be really good at seizing the initiative but doe she look like a guy that strikes faster than a space marine?
Lord Xcapobl wrote: Having dabbled a bit in AoS, and loving WH40K for its setting more than its rules per se... I give you six items I'd like to see (personal opinion alert!):
Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.
AoS style damage charts for vehicles, able to even differentiate between contemporary Imperial Rhinos and ancient Chaos Rhinos and show different strengths and weaknesses. Why not give Hellbrutes even an extra attack for being hit (and damaged) over and over, until they topple?
Armour Save modifiers instead of an AP system. and an end to app that AP1/AP2 spam by revising some weapons. Heck, while at it, revise a lot more weapons. Have grav weapons drop a gravity-counter and models in a unit or squadron struck must pass a Strength test or suffer some movement penalty for one turn, after which the counter is removed.
Make leadership count again. Put an end to all the fearlessness shenanigans so that the Fear special rule is, in fact, largely superfluous. I don't think a 'suffer casualties for suffering leadership' style rule is the solution (it, again, removes models faster than you can set them up), but something can be done about psychology in the game.
Far less randomness. I want to use point-buy to get specific psychic powers. Give my warlord one warlord trait of my choice, but balance them against each other. Have first turn be dependent on the Initiative value of the warlord (before rolling dice in case of a tie). That sort of thing. I roll enough dice as is.
Free rules and army lists online, in a living document. I understand all my codices are expensive books, but I'll still have them for their fluff and art and such. Balance issues could be solved in the living part of the rules, by monthly or bi-monthly updates.
agreed, they make sense in some cases the big close combat guys challenge eachother, luscious the betrayer challenges captain sicarius to a duel, the stadium is sold out. meanwhile though I could not see a nob accepting and instead sending a boy in... now's your chance to shine little boy grug, win this and you may have a future! meanwhile I want multiple oomies on my claw.
What?! That's some good ol' Ork cunning right there. I imagine the Nob doing the shifty-eyes right before giving the order.
Another way I envision it I the noble space marine sarg beholden to his men and out of duty and honor raises his sword and calls out a challenge to the nob... who completely ignores him
Klowny wrote: Changing how D works, or restricting things that can use it at full strength would be nice, maybe giving everything thats not gargantuan size has the D-scythe restriction negating the 6 roll.
Changing how stomp works, I understand its to help with tarpits, but just straight up removing models with no recourse isn't fun.
Vehicles getting blown up on a lucky 6 really grinds my gears. Ive had my monolith last till turn 4 in one game! Amazed it lasted that long.
In 3th and 4th editions there was no Str D weapons and the game was completely fine. And SHV's or GMC's did not exist. Obviously I'm sugarcoating the old editions, but then there wasn't ridiculous nearly indestructible units that could both 1) shoot 1 unit off the table a turn 2) wreck your dedicated cc units in assault. And back then assaulting was much more effective than now.
Mostly I would prefer seeing Str D disappear, and also all the nearly indestructible MC's and GMC's should be nerfed by allowing all the armies to have really hard counter units available.
As extension, the hard counter shouldnt be another MC or GMC, I do not want the game to turn into Godzilla vs. Mothra, the Boardgame.
If GW does adopt the warscrolls/battletomes/GHB model (which I think would be a good idea) I'm hoping that Forgeworld follows suit. They have lots of cool models, but it's hard to spend a bunch of money trying to get an out of print book to use one model and then not have the rules updated for a long, long time.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of the Forgeworld books are cool and I'll probably still buy the ones that have a bunch of the stuff I want in them.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: If GW does adopt the warscrolls/battletomes/GHB model (which I think would be a good idea) I'm hoping that Forgeworld follows suit. They have lots of cool models, but it's hard to spend a bunch of money trying to get an out of print book to use one model and then not have the rules updated for a long, long time.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of the Forgeworld books are cool and I'll probably still buy the ones that have a bunch of the stuff I want in them.
Good point! I just recently bought Chaos Dreadclaw, as kind of dual-purpose as it's pretty handy also in 40k, but mostly for 30k. Now I am worried that it might get invalidated from future 40k edition by having no rules update. The FW should follow the suit.
Klowny wrote: Changing how D works, or restricting things that can use it at full strength would be nice, maybe giving everything thats not gargantuan size has the D-scythe restriction negating the 6 roll.
Changing how stomp works, I understand its to help with tarpits, but just straight up removing models with no recourse isn't fun.
Vehicles getting blown up on a lucky 6 really grinds my gears. Ive had my monolith last till turn 4 in one game! Amazed it lasted that long.
In 3th and 4th editions there was no Str D weapons and the game was completely fine.
And in 3rd and 4th Edition Living Metal was really broken making the Monolith the hardest to kill Vehicle in the game. Lance was completely ignored and anything which added dice to the Armour Penetration Roll was ignored. The only things that really scared a Monolith were Phase Out and Tau Broadside Squads.
In 3th and 4th editions there was no Str D weapons and the game was completely fine.
More importantly, at the start of 3rd Edition, there were neither Necrons nor Tau, and that alone made the game immeasurably better. Remove Necrons entirely, and I'll give up D weapons.
In 3th and 4th editions there was no Str D weapons and the game was completely fine.
More importantly, at the start of 3rd Edition, there were neither Necrons nor Tau, and that alone made the game immeasurably better. Remove Necrons entirely, and I'll give up D weapons.
There were Necrons, they just didn't get a stand alone codex till later
Speed up the game! Several things can easily be changed to speed the game up. To name a few, remove cover saves and replace them with BS modifiers, remove or make Initiative test mandatory for Overwatch, remove the 7th turn altogether, remove random WL traits and Psychic powers. All of these could cut an hour or more out of every game!
Yeah, really this more than anything else. Incorporating the comment with a unified design vision.
Don't with the power level of factions halfway through an edition. I never expect the dozens of units across all armies to be truly balanced (way too many to be possible, IMO), but at least they can get as close as possible by taking everything into account from the get-go. They need to stop coming up with rules for models based on what they think is cool. As neat as that process is, the result is either a dud or a home run. They need to take into account units the army already has and how the new one fits in, how the prospective rules may be under/overpowered, and so on. As great as the rule of cool is, they've really got to go beyond that.
Cover as BS modifiers works only model-to-model interaction, not unit-to-unit like we have now.
It works fine in 2nd ed, it works in skirmish games like necromunda, but it will not work in current state of 40k.
Imagine the situation - unit of 5 marines is shooting at 10 guardsmens. From marine1 point of view there are guardsman2 and guardsmen5 in cover, but the closest model - guardsman1 in open ground, so his first shot will be at full BS, but if this first guardsmen will die, the second is in the cover, so for the second shot marine1 has -1 BS and go on. Too long, too complex, never happen.
Ofc we can use abstract cover system, so if the XX% of the models are in cover, then the entire shooting unit has BS penalty, but such system is pretty dull and still has point of view problem.
So it is better to leave cover as saving throw (perhaps the one after the failer armor save, like you always can have 2 saves - armor save and invul/cover save). This way guardsman1 has only armor save, while guardsman2 can rely on additional 5+ after failing his armor. Lets say the model has cover save only if it is covered against all shooting models. Easy and no measuring ordeal.
Or we can use AOS covers - save midifiers. Guardsmen in cover has 4+ save. Nice and simple.
I don't mind online rules if they are easily accessed by any device. (Like a PDF file, or posted on the web) What I hate is the e book system. I don't mind paying a few bucks for an e book, but I am not going to buy an overpriced Apple device just to play some stupid game. I pretty much figure it's going to take some type of tablet/phone/Mac to even stay in the game when 8E drops. I already am locked out of the upgrades to Space Hulk. (i Tunes only) They need to keep the PC in the loop as well as the Apple stuff. Otherwise, the only way to get the rules is to wait for a Russian website to hack and post it.
I would like to see named units get a unnamed nit classification so that named units could be taken (for the appropriate amount of points) in formations where it would make sense.
Example: Orikan the Diviner - Cryptek.
Anything that would require you to take a cryptek would allow you to choose Orikan with any/all other restrictions being observed.
Do the same for named chapter/company masters. Commissars.
It would allow new characters to be added to the game as it expands without needing to write all new formations and the like to include them.
Lord Xcapobl wrote: Having dabbled a bit in AoS, and loving WH40K for its setting more than its rules per se... I give you six items I'd like to see (personal opinion alert!):
Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.
AoS style damage charts for vehicles, able to even differentiate between contemporary Imperial Rhinos and ancient Chaos Rhinos and show different strengths and weaknesses. Why not give Hellbrutes even an extra attack for being hit (and damaged) over and over, until they topple?
Armour Save modifiers instead of an AP system. and an end to app that AP1/AP2 spam by revising some weapons. Heck, while at it, revise a lot more weapons. Have grav weapons drop a gravity-counter and models in a unit or squadron struck must pass a Strength test or suffer some movement penalty for one turn, after which the counter is removed.
Make leadership count again. Put an end to all the fearlessness shenanigans so that the Fear special rule is, in fact, largely superfluous. I don't think a 'suffer casualties for suffering leadership' style rule is the solution (it, again, removes models faster than you can set them up), but something can be done about psychology in the game.
Far less randomness. I want to use point-buy to get specific psychic powers. Give my warlord one warlord trait of my choice, but balance them against each other. Have first turn be dependent on the Initiative value of the warlord (before rolling dice in case of a tie). That sort of thing. I roll enough dice as is.
Free rules and army lists online, in a living document. I understand all my codices are expensive books, but I'll still have them for their fluff and art and such. Balance issues could be solved in the living part of the rules, by monthly or bi-monthly updates.
I will only ever support point #5 if they heavily need Invisibility or outright remove it from the game. Deathstars can learn to play the same game as everyone else and actually deal with the high risk of putting all their eggs in one basket, instead of being rewarded heavily for doing so. It is the auto-include to end all auto-includes. Daemonology powers may need a bit of tweaking to prevent too much OP-ness.
spite
That or make it cost 200 points per Psyker that takes it.
/spite
Adding a set point cost per power allows them to bring balance, where powers that are considered meh right now would have to be low cost, and game breakers (I guess you have that opinion about Invisibility) would get high cost. I agree fully, there. Not up to 200 points per psyker taking it, fully, but quite full indeed.
Right now some psykers cost, for example, 75 points and get meh powers, others cost the same 75 points and break both fun and games.
Silver144 wrote: Cover as BS modifiers works only model-to-model interaction, not unit-to-unit like we have now.
It works fine in 2nd ed, it works in skirmish games like necromunda, but it will not work in current state of 40k.
Imagine the situation - unit of 5 marines is shooting at 10 guardsmens. From marine1 point of view there are guardsman2 and guardsmen5 in cover, but the closest model - guardsman1 in open ground, so his first shot will be at full BS, but if this first guardsmen will die, the second is in the cover, so for the second shot marine1 has -1 BS and go on. Too long, too complex, never happen.
Ofc we can use abstract cover system, so if the XX% of the models are in cover, then the entire shooting unit has BS penalty, but such system is pretty dull and still has point of view problem.
So it is better to leave cover as saving throw (perhaps the one after the failer armor save, like you always can have 2 saves - armor save and invul/cover save). This way guardsman1 has only armor save, while guardsman2 can rely on additional 5+ after failing his armor. Lets say the model has cover save only if it is covered against all shooting models. Easy and no measuring ordeal.
Or we can use AOS covers - save midifiers. Guardsmen in cover has 4+ save. Nice and simple.
Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.
I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Xcapobl wrote: Adding a set point cost per power allows them to bring balance, where powers that are considered meh right now would have to be low cost, and game breakers (I guess you have that opinion about Invisibility) would get high cost. I agree fully, there. Not up to 200 points per psyker taking it, fully, but quite full indeed.
Right now some psykers cost, for example, 75 points and get meh powers, others cost the same 75 points and break both fun and games.
Yup, points costing powers is the best option. My only issue with it is that powers are not worth the same to all psykers or all armies.
Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.
I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.
Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.
However, model-model cover that we have now still falls apart since shooting is done per unit, so if a model in in cover from the left side of the shooting Tactical squad but not the right, what does that mean?
I've been giving it a lot of thought when it comes to what I want in 8th edition. Having played 40k since early 2000, I've seen the game bloat to massive proportions.
1. Simplify. Even as a veteran player I get lost in the rules some times. DO NOT take this too far. I play miniature wargames because of a level of complexity. I am not looking for an alternative to CandyLand. Something like a smoother, streamlined 3rd edition would be great. I could see 25 pages of rules (not counting illustrations or missions)
2. Speed up the game a little. Certain aspects of the game are horribly bogged down. Psychic phase and assault are possibly the two worst offenders. I liked the rumor I heard of getting rid of templates. It would mean less worrying about model placement and spreading things out.
3. Clear and consistant proof-read rules. While day-one FAQs are nice you shouldn't need any FAQs to play a game.
4. Internal and external balance. Why would you take a Gorkanaut in an Ork army currently? Also, compare Gorkanaut with a Wraithknight, LOL
Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.
I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.
Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.
However, model-model cover that we have now still falls apart since shooting is done per unit, so if a model in in cover from the left side of the shooting Tactical squad but not the right, what does that mean?
What do you mean it wasn't popular? I've never heard a complaint about majority cover. It was an elegant system, imo.
As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.
Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).
Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.
Actually the opposite is true, it doesn't work model to model (like we have now) it only works unit to unit. You are arguing that cover would be determined model by model, not by unit. It would be simple to say cover is determined by unit. If the majority of the squad is in cover the unit has cover. Then add focus fire, so you can choose to fire on only those models that don't have cover if you want. This means that if there are 10 guardsman and 9 are in cover, but one is not, you likely accept the penalty to your shooting, but if 6 are in cover and 4 are not you may choose to shoot only the 4 not in cover, giving up on wounding the 6 in cover, but forgoing the negative modifier.
I would actually like that a lot, it adds a lot of depth to the decision making in the shooting phase.
Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.
However, model-model cover that we have now still falls apart since shooting is done per unit, so if a model in in cover from the left side of the shooting Tactical squad but not the right, what does that mean?
I don't see why that is a problem because it was your choice to position your models in that way. It is way less convoluted than model by model cover where technically I need to roll separately for each models shots, and saves need to be taken by model. I personally would love terrain to go back to 4e (no TLOS), and have wound allocation return to 4e as well. Taking individual saves for stock troopers slows the game down. I don't want 5e allocation where you can game the system, but closest model is sometimes annoying (if multiple models are very close). If instead you rolled all same saves together, and then removed whichever models you chose from that group it would go much quicker.
True line of sight is really cool when it's a unit of Catachan veterans going up against a unit of ork kommandoz in a Kill Team kind of game. It's less cool when it's over a hundred Catachans going up against over a hundred orks.
Breng77 wrote: have wound allocation return to 4e as well. Taking individual saves for stock troopers slows the game down. I don't want 5e allocation where you can game the system, but closest model is sometimes annoying (if multiple models are very close). If instead you rolled all same saves together, and then removed whichever models you chose from that group it would go much quicker.
Breng77 wrote: Yup, points costing powers is the best option. My only issue with it is that powers are not worth the same to all psykers or all armies.
As do power weapons. An Imperial Guard T3/S3 5+ save platoon commander pays the same 15 points a T5/S4 3+/4++ save Nurgle champion with a few extra wargear options does.
but that is why extensive play testing, and a living document online, would be ideal. Things such as point cost can be adapted as and when needed.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.
Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).
Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.
THIS!!! so much this.
I long for the days of forrests and patches of woods that blocked line of sight to the other side.
It looks like my preferance for 8th editon boils down to:
A mash-up of 7th and 3rd edition rules, minus rhino rush, with 4th edition wound alocation, a simplified version of 7th edition's Universal Special Rules, getting rid of templates, and streamlining the heck out of things. Playtest until balanced.
I really think a living document for the rules is key.
Without a living document the only way to ensure the game is balanced through printed editions would be to severely reduce the complexity of the game, to a point of simplification that I think would be unacceptable to most players.
We all seem to agree the game is far too bloated at the moment. But equally many of us agree that part of the appeal of wargaming is the complexity compared to other board games.
I would propose the following:
(1.) Living document, either free or subscription based.
(2.) Printed rule book for those (including myself) who like a hardcopy book. However this should not have a load of fluff or pictures. It should be very basic and consequently very cheap. Almost like a free handout (except not because otherwise kids will take a new one everytime they enter a GW). Also available as a free PDF for people to print at home.
(3.) Amend rules as necessary on a periodic basis- every 4 or 6 months.
(4.) When rules have been amended, cheaply re-print the hardcopy or make available via PDF for people to print themselves
Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:
Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.
Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).
Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?
It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood remain available.
Charistoph wrote: Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:
Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.
Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).
Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?
It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood become available.
Yes. I would very much like to see AoS hero rules applied to 40k. Prevent them from joining units, but give them increased survivability and give their buffs a range. It's a system I really like.
On a broad scale, I'd like to see realistic point values applied. An Eldar scatbike and GK interceptor should not cost the same points.
More specifically, I'd like to see a toning down of the "buffs" that psychic powers and characters can bring to armies, with free formation benefits removed entirely. It's ok to have enhancements, it's just that they should be more limited in scope so they can be costed appropriately. A character giving +1 BS to his unit is fine; a formation giving +1 BS to the entire army is not. Things like invisibility should be toned down to -1 to hit (for example); it's too hard to cost a power that can drastically benefit either a unit of thunderwolves or a unit of tactical marines. Furthermore, there should be limits to how many characters/benefits can join/apply to a unit, to prevent unforeseeable combos from creating extremely undercosted units. Formations could be ok, provided that they pay for the benefits they provide and those benefits aren't too far off the baseline units they are comprised of.
Alot of the current issues in 7th edition come from units that effectively cost less than they should due to various buffs being applied, and it throws the entire concept of points as a balancing mechanism out the window. By reducing the benefits of those buffs and limiting their scope, you can get much closer to having point values that actually ensure a balanced game between armies.
Curiosity question in regards to Independent Characters:
Age of Sigmar removed the ability for their equivalent of Independent Characters to join units while at the same time greatly increasing their Wounds.
Dawn of War 2 also went with this method as well (but also went with very small units, too, so...).
Would you prefer 40K 8th to use this route?
It would solve a few rules issues in 40K that have become more and more pronounced as Formations started picking up steam (both in interpretation and balance). On the other hand, it makes Characters much more vulnerable and easy to pick out and destroy, especially if things like First Blood become available
.
Yes. I would very much like to see AoS hero rules applied to 40k. Prevent them from joining units, but give them increased survivability and give their buffs a range. It's a system I really like.
I would not mind as long as Characters still got LoS to the nearest model within 3" or something like that. While I agree that IC shenanigans are a big issue in 40K right now, an opponent being able to consistently snipe your characters would be beyond annoying.
It will be interesting to see what they do with very minor characters like mekboys and Ministorum priests. It seems like it would be weird to make the crazy tanks able to survive on their own. It might cause taret priority issues, like having to choose between shooting the unit or wasting a whole turn shooting at that one minor HQ choice. On the other hand everyone has split fire in AoS, right? That would make sniping low-wound characters easy.
I'm sure there are lots of ways to make things like mekboyz work. It will be interesting to see what GW does.
Madoch1 wrote: I may get shot for saying this, but I like the cover save format as it is, that is , having it as a separate save.
I get it that it makes the reality in which a plasma shot is deflected by a bush possible. But, you have to remember that terrain pieces are abstract in 40k, they are representations.
A terrain piece that looks like just a tree grove could be a representation of a tree grove with a crap ton of foliage, a hill, metal debris, and a scarecrow. There is just no feasible way of showing that much detail on the piece. This is why it makes sense to me to make it a separate save. Plus, it cuts down on book keeping. But i do think night fighting should be a modifier to BS, it makes more sense like that
If I were to write up a game that had Cover work as a "Save" roll, I would have it rolled before the To Wound rolls. Think about it: The cover gets in the way of the shot, before the shot hits the target. Make it a light save that is rolled after To Hit, but before To Wound.
I have mentioned in other threads that I would like to see a distinction between Cover and Concealment. A brick wall will protect you from a shot coming at you (Cover) while a smokescreen makes it harder to hit the target (Concealment), and ducking down into a trench can provide both benefits. I'm not sure how exactly I would make it work in current 40K rules, but I would like to see it used in some way.
Lord Xcapobl wrote: Having dabbled a bit in AoS, and loving WH40K for its setting more than its rules per se... I give you six items I'd like to see (personal opinion alert!):
Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.
AoS style damage charts for vehicles, able to even differentiate between contemporary Imperial Rhinos and ancient Chaos Rhinos and show different strengths and weaknesses. Why not give Hellbrutes even an extra attack for being hit (and damaged) over and over, until they topple?
Armour Save modifiers instead of an AP system. and an end to app that AP1/AP2 spam by revising some weapons. Heck, while at it, revise a lot more weapons. Have grav weapons drop a gravity-counter and models in a unit or squadron struck must pass a Strength test or suffer some movement penalty for one turn, after which the counter is removed.
Make leadership count again. Put an end to all the fearlessness shenanigans so that the Fear special rule is, in fact, largely superfluous. I don't think a 'suffer casualties for suffering leadership' style rule is the solution (it, again, removes models faster than you can set them up), but something can be done about psychology in the game.
Far less randomness. I want to use point-buy to get specific psychic powers. Give my warlord one warlord trait of my choice, but balance them against each other. Have first turn be dependent on the Initiative value of the warlord (before rolling dice in case of a tie). That sort of thing. I roll enough dice as is.
Free rules and army lists online, in a living document. I understand all my codices are expensive books, but I'll still have them for their fluff and art and such. Balance issues could be solved in the living part of the rules, by monthly or bi-monthly updates.
I like these. While an out-right "AoS-ing" of 40K may or may not be the best move (and currently in discussion in another thread), there are several concepts in Age of Sigmar that I do like. To me, the best things that Age of Sigmar can give to 40K is the:
- 3 Ways to Play, in so far as Narrative, Open, and Matched play being different ways to set up your armies and filter out certain opponents.
- Damage tables for large models, and being applied to all vehicles and monsters.
- "Living Ruleset", as in Free Rules, frequent updates, and GW's continued community involvement
- And less random tables to roll on. Warlord Traits are cool, but are often useless to my army even if I remember them! Using the same one over and over would help me to actually use it!
Blacksails wrote: My actual hopes and dreams wouldn't be realized because there's no way they'd walk the game back to a more sensible scale/size/scope.
Oh! I just had a thought: What if they introduce a new, more streamlined Apocalypse style game. Basically, a version of Epic 40K but with the regular scaled miniatures? GW has already given us Kill Team and (recently) Shadow War: Armageddon, the re-release of Necromunda, all of which use the standard models for gameplay; what if they gave us a larger scale game that was balanced and planned for larger games?
I think that would be cool. On the other hand, since Apocalypse games are generally for fun and planned out in advance they are ideal for negotiating house rules that streamline things.
It would totally be cool if GW came up with a more streamlined version of Apocalypse, but I still don't see people heading down to the FLGS looking for a 10,000 point pickup game.
Or were you thinking of a sort of "mini-apocalypse" set of rules for ~2500-5000 point games or something? That would be cool too.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: It seems like GW is putting out more games using the same models, which I think is a good thing. Going with what BunkhouseBuster was saying, in addition to the "three ways to play" I think it would be good if they had different rules for four different scales of 40k.
Something along the lines of:
Kill Team: ~200 points, ~45 minutes
Combat Patrol/Oldhammer: ~500-1000 points, ~1.5 hours
Newhammer/Mini-Apoc: ~1000-3000 points, ~3 hours
Apocalypse: 3000+ points, a lot of hours
I'm not sure how long SW:A takes, but it might be a replacement for Kill Team. I can see having a game like Kill Team be more focused on fast pick-up games with simpler rules while SW:A has longer games with more complex rules.
Combat Patrol/Oldhammer could have no allies, no LoW, no special characters and much more limiting detachment/formation options. There might need to be rules like being able to split most squads into combat squads, not just SM, or letting small 1-3 units like Tyranid Warriors operate independently of eachother. This might be a good format for competitive play.
Newhammer: Something kind of like what we have now, with multiple detachments, formations, allies and the like. Lords of War could be included, but it would be nice to see a 25% limit. This seems like it would allow for big, fun games with lots of toys but still be something that you could do as a pick-up game on a weeknight.
Apocalypse could be much as it is now, an all-day kind of thing where people bring out all their toys. They might have more streamlined rules to speed it up a bit though.
All of this can easily be done by just talking with people and arranging things in advance, similar to the "three ways to play" but by spelling things out a bit more and including them in a handbook GW can give us a shorthand and set of expectations we can use to better communicate with eachother.
That is almost exactly what I was suggesting! We already have Shadow War: Armageddon (though this seems more in line with being an RPG style 40K game) and Kill Team giving us different levels of abstraction for different levels of in-game detail, why not make things less complicated at each higher level of game size? Do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less significant. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW were to give some good guidelines or ideas, that would be awesome!
Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play, but we could also have Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers in those different game types. More options can only be a good thing for us players!
NivlacSupreme wrote:A lack of IC would ruin units that are meant to be bodyguards.
Command Squads would just be pimpable veterans.
Why can't a warboss roll with some mega nobz?
I think the solution, in this case, would be to have the unit and character as a single choice. Like, you don't add a chapter master + command squad to your list, you just add a command squad which has a chapter master as a part of the unit.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as some people hated it, I'd like to see a return to area terrain, or at least some variation of it. Model's eye view is nice and all, but it takes a lot of time and there is arguing. With area terrain it is very factual and hard to argue against the obvious.
Technically there's still "area terrain" (like ruins), but yes, essentially classifying more things as area terrain would help a lot. It would be even better if they brought back the fully-blocks-LOS rule (i.e. you can't shoot through a forest to the other side).
Saves, FnP and the growth of bigger and more save-ey MCs came after TLOS was reintroduced into the game. If terrain is better at blocking LOS, there's less pressure to ramp up the toughness of units because you can actually use terrain to not get shot at.
THIS!!! so much this.
I long for the days of forrests and patches of woods that blocked line of sight to the other side.
It looks like my preferance for 8th editon boils down to:
A mash-up of 7th and 3rd edition rules, minus rhino rush, with 4th edition wound alocation, a simplified version of 7th edition's Universal Special Rules, getting rid of templates, and streamlining the heck out of things. Playtest until balanced.
The group I play with essentially never got rid of those rules when 7th rolled around. We generally updated the rules we played with, but TLOS wasn't working for any of us. Like you said, having forests and such actually block line of sight just meant we weren't ALWAYS using whole buildings whenever we wanted to make a board that was fair to play on.
NivlacSupreme wrote:A lack of IC would ruin units that are meant to be bodyguards.
Command Squads would just be pimpable veterans.
Why can't a warboss roll with some mega nobz?
A good point. As someone just pointed out, either they could be part of the unit already or able to bring the models in to their unit as part of army build.
Alternatively, the Lizardmen Temple Guard were exactly that from the ground up. For a time, if a Slann and Temple Guard were in the same army, the Slann HAD to be in that Temple Guard unit.
When AoS launched, they got this rule:
Sworn Guardians: Temple Guard were created to protect their masters. If this unit is within 8" of any Seraphon Heroes, add 2 to its Bravery and 1 to the result of any save rolls for it.
An alternative can be, as someone pointed out, is to provide a special rule for a Key Word of "Heroes" or "Character" which allows for them to allocate Wounds away from them to nearby units.
AoS didn't do that, but shooting isn't quite as prevelant or dangerous as in 40K. But most 2-3 Wound models were also upgraded to having 6-7 Wounds, on average, making them more survivable. But another question would be if Ranged Weapon Rates of Fire change at all, too.
kirotheavenger wrote:
Issue with that though is if say you need 50% in cover, if you have 4 in and 6 out the 4 in get zero benefit from being in cover.
I believe cover worked this way in 5th and it wasn't the most popular.
...
What do you mean it wasn't popular? I've never heard a complaint about majority cover. It was an elegant system, imo.
I just remember people complaining about a model being completely in the open and getting protected from his buddy a few feet away behind a wall (who couldn't die since he was out of LoS).
Maybe it's because you don't hear people saying how much they don't hate something.
I would really like a major increase in area terrain as well. True LoS I feel really takes the life out of a model. With are terrain they're ducking down, taking cover. The actual model is just an abrstract representation of roughly where the model is and more importantly, what it is. With true LoS your model is just standing there, upright exactly like he currently is and the game doesn't allow you to imagine them doing anything else.
I saw for another game (AFTERLIFE, by Anvil Industries) in which if a model was within 2'' of an obstacle ''they could easily duck behind'' they got cover from it. I understand that that's a bit grey for a game game like 40k with a nice competitive edge, but it might be a nice 'forging the narrative' box to have something like that as a suggestion for friendly games.
Area terrain does present an issue for vehicles and MCs though, things which are obviously too big or immobile to duck in a crater.
Perhaps area terrain could have sizes. Like small (only regular infantry), medium (bulky and V.bulky get it too) and large (MCs/vehicles as well). That way your small cover craters can't hide a Landraider or a Terminator, but your abandoned factory could hide a Landraider or Carnifex.
I'm not so sure on no more ICs. AoS is all well and good when all infantry are roughly man sized, they're not compared to astartes. Things like Ministorum Priests I don't think could ever logically be made tanky enough to be anything but a liability without a unit.
Perhaps characters could be allowed to LoS hits to nearby squads, but still be counted as independent units for all other purposes?
I would also remove the restriction that all models in a unit must fire at the same target, for me that really destroys the imagery of an elite unit fighting tactically and replaces it with the image of a bunch of models picking a target.
I think a better system could be similar to what we have now. You choose one weapon (eg bolters) and it's/their target, then resolve the entire attack for all models with that weapon. Then choose the next weapon and it's/their target (which could be the same or different to the first weapon's) and resolve it, then pick the next and repeat until you're out of weapons.
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
90% of the time the owner of the target unit chooses who dies, and can't split wounds between models. There were some caveats to that when it came to units partially in cover (you could choose to shoot at only the part of the unit out of cover, for example, and then those models had to be taken first.) Another rule existed where if you rolled more wounds than there were models in the target squad, you could force the opponent to take a save on a model of your choice. (Orks shoot at a squad of 5 Space Marines, one with a Lascannon. The Orks roll 14 hits, and then 7 wounds. Because the amount of wounds is greater than the number of Space Marines in the squad, the Ork player decides to force a save on the Lascannon model.)
It's not that 5th ed isn't simple, but it can be more time consuming. Rolling saves for models individually can take time if you have a number of different models in a squad, which isn't so bad. The thing that kills me though is that I wind up taking longer in the movement phase being sure that some models are in front of others. In 4th ed individual model positioning didn't matter as much, and thus made the movement phase a bit smoother.
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
IIRC, Owner allocated wounds, unless there was an overkill threshold at which point the attacking player could choose to have one model of his choice take one of the wounds. Multi-wound models had to keep receiving wounds until dead (i.e. a unit of tyranid warriors could not take one wound on model A and then another on model B... once model A took a wound they had to be allocated to model A until it was removed as a casualty).
There's probably more, but it's been a LOOOOONG time. I do remember it being the best wound allocation system in the history of 40k.
1. Alternate unit activation in a turn
Players activate units alternately in a game turn.
A lucky first turn of shooting by your opponent wouldn´t cripple your force substantially as it is now. The gameplay would also be more dynamic because you can respond immediately to your opponent´s moves with your following activation. You don´t have to remain passive for a whole turn and see with horror how your grunts/vehicles get blasted into oblivion.
2. Different "game modes"
Strict implementation of game modes is mandatory here.
Game modes:
A: Kill Team. A small squad of grunts like in the movie The Dirty Dozen (1967).
B: Standard 40K. Several squads and few vehicles. No flyers, superheavies & big gribblies.
C: Apoc. Anything goes.
3a. Reintroduction of To-Hit modifiers like in SWA
The modifiers apply to quality of cover, range, weapon type, environment.
3b. Reintroduction of armour save modifiers like in SWA
4. Bury TLOS and bring back area terrain
You can look into 6 inches of cover for line of sight purposes but you can never look through area terrain if you are outside of it, regardless how wide the terrain feature is.
Close combat armies will last longer with this rulesset. You can actually hide behind a forest and the opponent is not allowed to shoot you with direct fire. It also removes the hassle to go to the eye level of your grunts to affirm line of sight.
5. Mechanical Walkers & Organic Walkers (Monstrous Creatures)
All mechanical walkers are vehicles and follow the vehicle rules for the next edition. Tau (Riptide), Eldar (Wraithlord) and Grey Knights (Dreadknight) would then be treated like any other army.
Mechanical Walkers:
- Dreadnoughts: Imperial, Chaos (Hellbrute), Ork (small and big version), Eldar (Wraithlord), Tau (Riptide) and Grey Knights (Dreadknight).
I might have missed some units but you get my drift. These units can be damaged as usual (shaken, stunned, weapon destroyed, destroyed, explosion).
Organic Walkers (Monstrous Creatures):
- Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, etc.
These units can be injured/mutilated and suffer then a corresponding decrease in efficiency (stat decrease, weapon destoyed, deletion of certain special rules, etc.).
Lesser changes 1. Delete the concept of challenges
Challenges are fine for Warhammer Fantasy but not credible for 40K. You just don´t invite your enemy for a chivalric knife fight while battle cannon shells and whatnot are raining down the battlefield. An Imperial Guard Colonels should not be forced to fight Chaos Lords in close combat. There might be instances where this could be justified (Black Templar Captain vs. Chaos Lord) but it just leaves a wrong impression as a whole.
2. Tone down some psychic powers
Invisibilty for example is just too strong when applied to a good unit. The focus of the game is on guns and not on some frail Harry Potter lookalikes who pull off eldritch shenanigans.
3. Reintroduction of armour saves on 2D6 for very heavy armoured units like in SWA
Off the top of my hat this should be applied to Imperial & Chaos Terminators, Ork Meganobs and Monstrous Creatures.
Minor changes 1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.
2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear
It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear
It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.
In 5th edition, the only time it could be truly abused was on multi-wound model units which had options for each model to have unique equipment. Due to the wording, it allowed for the shenanigans to happen, but it didn't happen in every game. I only ever recall it being an issue with Grey Knight Paladins and Ork Nob Bikers, and that was because they had Feel No Pain, which that extra survivability is how they could abuse the system. And even then, they could still fail their saves and FNP rolls. Nothing a Demolisher Cannon couldn't solve
I do find it interesting how everyone is asking for a Wound allocation system in 40K that is the exact same as in Age of Sigmar
That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!
How were wounds allocated in 4th? I've only experienced 5th and 6/7th, of those I preferred 5th although it was perhaps a bit complicated until you got it, after which you realised it's actually really simple
I don't think it was complicated unless (one of) the players made it complicated by having a unit with every model having different weapons/wargear
It was definitely better than the "Guy at the front miraculously protects his unit from a battle cannon because he has artificer armour" method we have now.
yea, but to be fair that was the only thing holding up some armies/units at the time. ork nob s and nob bikers with different gear for wound shenanagins were part of any ork tournament list. that is no longer the case. agreed on the 2+ armor out front now blocking it all... oh look 30 incoming shots at the squad, luckily they all bounced off the one guy out front who did some amazing gymnastics to catch all the shots iand in terminator armor no less .
1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.
2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.
1. I disagree. However I wish they wouldn't emphasis that they are that ONE person, but rather someone like that person.
For example you can have Brother Corbulo in the codex, but be encouraged to have Chief Sanguinary Priest Whatshisface of the Whojacallit chapter (BA successors) or whatever.
So far it's only really the SM codex that prevents you doing this, because you have to play Marnius Calgar the Ultramarine, you can't pretend he's a Flesh Tearer (Personally I think Calgar would make a decent Amit, but NOPE :( )
2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: That is almost exactly what I was suggesting! We already have Shadow War: Armageddon (though this seems more in line with being an RPG style 40K game) and Kill Team giving us different levels of abstraction for different levels of in-game detail, why not make things less complicated at each higher level of game size? Do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less significant. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW were to give some good guidelines or ideas, that would be awesome!
I think you’re right about the guidelines. Theoretically everyone could have detailed discussions about what kind of game they want to play before they start, but I think that doesn’t work out as well for strangers or acquaintances at the FLGS or on Facebook/Meetup/whatever. I think giving people a shared vocabulary and set of norms to start with rather than relying on them to develop them entirely on their own can be a real boon to getting the ball rolling.
I think your probably right about simplifying the larger games. My understanding is that Epic was very simplified and abstracted. I think that Apocalypse exists partly because over then decades we’ve built up the supply of 40k models to the point where a lot of people can field Epic-scale armies in the 28mm scale. It could be interesting if the abstracted the shooting attacks of most infantry units and normal vehicles to a single 2d6 or 3d6 roll. That way a lot of things like unit weapons, range, enemy armor save and cover could be included in the single roll as modifiers. Maybe superheavies could get a separate attack for each ridiculously overpowered weapon they have. My brother and I have pretty big armies and a space to leave them setup if we can’t finish a game, so it might be worth playing around with different ideas when it comes to shooting and terrain.
kirotheavenger wrote: 2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.
On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?
kirotheavenger wrote: 2. I disagree, they're entirely separate weapons. I do however wish stormbolters didn't suck.
I think they should function like 2 bolters fired as a single weapon. That way they actually feel like a better version of the combi-bolter which they're supposed to be.
On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?
Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?
I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.
Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.
+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?
I would have a set game size for competitive matched play. Personally I would put that at 1500 points, or 1750 points. Maybe even have t-shirt sizes for games, like "Small competitive: 1500, Medium Competitive: 1750, Large competitive: 2000."
Once you establish game sizes, you can talk about balance.
I would also modify some of the psychic powers, and add more granularity to the toughness/wound and weapon skill / hit tables.
I would give units an armor rating and adding a rending stat, which would require people use a table to determine their save. For instance, a boltgun might have a rend of -1, and a storm bolter have a rend of -2. So shooting an infantry unit with an armor rating of 10, with a storm bolter, lowers it to 8, which in turn changes the 2+ save to a 3+ save. Just for instance.
I would also do some small balance changes to each unit type and army.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?
I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.
Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.
+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?
if we are doubling shots wave serpents would be back in vogue as would falcons with their 8 shot scatter lasers. if plus 1 then boy howdy am I investing in TL brightlances everywhere
IIRC wasn't the justification for the player taking wounds getting to allocate them a combination of "Lookout, sir!" and the idea that if you shoot a guardsman off a heavy bolter someone else is going to take his place?
Challenges are fine for Warhammer Fantasy but not credible for 40K. You just don´t invite your enemy for a chivalric knife fight while battle cannon shells and whatnot are raining down the battlefield. An Imperial Guard Colonels should not be forced to fight Chaos Lords in close combat. There might be instances where this could be justified (Black Templar Captain vs. Chaos Lord) but it just leaves a wrong impression as a whole.
Challenges seem like they could be cool if both players agreed to them in a narrative, fluffy game. It seems like it might require some amount of negotiation, though. Like, if a chaos champion challenges an IG colonel the IG player could demand a better bonus for winning and/or a lesser penalty for losing, and if the players couldn't come to a relatively quick agreement the challenge would be denied with no penalty. That wouldn't really work in tournament games, but I could see it in friendly games.
First and foremost, it needs to be a total revision, on the scale of 2-3e. Burn 18 years of rules cruft to the ground, turn those sacred cows into beefburgers. Taking the rules we've got now and leaving theme essentially unchanged while fiddling around the edges is how we got the horrible mess we have now.
Second, there needs to be better playtesting--you need hardcore power gamers breaking the ruleset over their knees and laughing at the idea of "Rules As Intended". Then you use them as a guideline to fixing ambiguous rules and miscosted units, improving the play experience for both tournament nuts and casual players.
Mitigate the power of alpha strikes--make table-crossing weapon ranges rare. Nobody likes putting down models and then immediately scooping them before they can do anything.
Lastly, true LOS goes away never to be seen again. It can be replaced with a size stat for models (added to the others, or derived from base size), and a keyword system for terrain.
Those are the big things I think need to be in place for 8e to be an improvement. Everything else is just detail.
1. Use of special characters should only be possible, if your opponent agrees.
These vips are just out of place when they are seen in every minor skirmish. They really shine in epic battles and therefore their rules can be over the top.
2. Storm Bolters & Kombi-Bolters
Get rid of their superfluous differences, use one profile for the gun and name it whatever floats your boat.
1. I disagree. However I wish they wouldn't emphasis that they are that ONE person, but rather someone like that person.
For example you can have Brother Corbulo in the codex, but be encouraged to have Chief Sanguinary Priest Whatshisface of the Whojacallit chapter (BA successors) or whatever.
So far it's only really the SM codex that prevents you doing this, because you have to play Marnius Calgar the Ultramarine, you can't pretend he's a Flesh Tearer (Personally I think Calgar would make a decent Amit, but NOPE :( )
I'm trying not to be a cranky old man stuck in my 3rd edition ways, but special characters being everywhere in "normal" games still seems really weird to me.
I can see where you're coming from with "Counts As" special characters. That makes sense. Ideally I think that could be done by allowing people to choose/purchase warlord traits, and also by having some more generic relics instead of having everything be really specific. I mean, it can be cool to have a specific piece of named wargear with a high-profile history, but So-and-So's banner really gets around and somehow it ends up on both sides of a battle every once in a while. I can see having named relics just like named characters, but more generic "holy banners" and "sacred weapons" that the player can come up with their own fluff for.
I'm trying not to be a cranky old man stuck in my 3rd edition ways, but special characters being everywhere in "normal" games still seems really weird to me.
I can see where you're coming from with "Counts As" special characters. That makes sense. Ideally I think that could be done by allowing people to choose/purchase warlord traits, and also by having some more generic relics instead of having everything be really specific. I mean, it can be cool to have a specific piece of named wargear with a high-profile history, but So-and-So's banner really gets around and somehow it ends up on both sides of a battle every once in a while. I can see having named relics just like named characters, but more generic "holy banners" and "sacred weapons" that the player can come up with their own fluff for.
I would really like you to choose warlord traits in some capacity anyway.
You're telling me my leader has no idea what he's like until he's staring into the whites of his enemies eyes? That's a bit late for soul searching at that point...
I've personally never had an issue with unique characters or wargear oddly enough, even now I'm more of a narrative focused player.
kirotheavenger wrote: I think challenges could stay, but you shouldn't have to mind in the back quivering if you turn one down.
I guess if BOTH players agree to a Challenge, sure. However, I'd change allow ANY Infantry, Monstrous Creature or Walker to accept the challenge. Guardsman Bob jumps in because he's just that badass. Or stupid. Maybe the Dreadnought thinks it'd be funny stomping the S5 dude. 40k is tough place.
Yeah, the random thing is really off-putting. It seems like a bad way of dealing with some warlord traits not being as good as others and the potentiality for some traits to create game-breaking combos. In AoS they let people pick their own warlord trait, but the traits are also in the GHB so they can be updated on a fairly regular basis.
As far as unique characters and gear, I don't think there is a right and a wrong way, I just like it when there are options. My Bad Moon warboss should be able to get a pretty spiffy shoota that is better than your run-of-the-mill nob's. At the same time I don't think he would be carrying around the magnum opus of the greatest big mek of the age. My warboss is a big deal to me, but he's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.
Galef wrote: Cover being BS modifiers instead of an actual save.
For Example:
being 25% obscured by Terrain of all types, intervening models, etc = -1 to the firer's BS Target has Stealth = -1BS
Shrouded = -2BS. Stealth and Shrouded can no longer stack
Anything than makes you snap-fire = -2BS
Target is a Vehicle or MC = +1BS
If BS can never be lowered below 1, than at worse you hit a target on 6. I find than preferable to them having a 2+ re-rollable save.
Making AP be save modifiers instead of having to straight up meet the armour to ignore it.
Example:
AP 5 = -1 Armour save
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5
So a Terminator would still get a 6+ save against AP2, yet Marines would be affected by AP4/5. You could potentially allow Invuls to be taken after failed Armour....maybe
The overall affect of these two changes would mean that things are harder to hit, but easier to wound. This would instantly make melee armies competitive, prevent 2+ re-rollable cover saves and it would speed up the game as units would die faster.
Give vehicles armour saves.
Example:
All vehicle have a 4+ Armour (than can be modified by the above).
Open-topped = -1
Tank/Walker with AV12+ = +1
Any side with AV14 = +1
-
Not entirely keen on the snap-fire suggestion, that could easily make it impossible for some models to even shoot an enemy 6+ snap-fire is fine in my book.
There are a couple AoS inspired things that I am hoping make their way into 40k. I think it's likely that some of this will find their way into 40k, and some have already been confirmed. This is what I would like to see make it's way into 40k:
1. Some sort of Rule of One that limits ridiculous combinations of powers or rerolls.
2. Movement values.
3). Rend on weapons (with a narrow range of rend values on most weapons -1 to -3, with some weapons like Melta, Lascannon, Power Fist, etc, getting -5 or some such).
4. Characters being able to be targeted independently but getting a look-out-sir if they are close to a nearby unit (this includes monstrous creature characters like Swarmlord or a Hive Tyrant - but not if you fly).
5. 3" combat radius. If you are within 3" of an enemy unit, you are struck in combat.
6. Summoning. Do it like AoS where you bring in units equal to the points you set aside.
and some things I absolutely hope they don't bring over from AoS:
1. Fixed To Hit and Wound rolls. Losing Strength and Toughness /WS/BS would be dissapointing.
Purely personal i'd like infantry to actually be worth taking again in so much as they are good not just a horde of bodies you remove while they cling on to holding objectives.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!
Oddly enough there were enough Psychic Powers that were abusable, and only available by their own armies in 5th Edition. Remember Lash of Submission or Jaws of the World Wolf? In addition, most Psykers only could use 1, maybe 2 Powers in a turn (admittedly, that's all they had).
Having a general set of powers helps keep things more balanced over all, but it doesn't help when a random roll can make or break the use of such a character before the game even starts. Fantasy 8th was really bad in this case where a couple of Spells available on a setup roll of 6 could just remove almost entire units with no recourse.
But then the designers really don't test their designs with the purpose of breaking them, just to see if they would be fun.
JohnHwangDD wrote:No, simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine.
TLoS is great, so is Area Terrain - a game can use both.
I rather disagree. IGOUGO opens yourself up to either a lot of abuses, or setting up odd rules to avoid those abuses. But then, my first TT game was Battletech which handled it rather well, imo, so that colors my expectations. I actually find it rather abusive that one can be moved against, shot at, and Charged with no ability to even move in response.
Complete True Line of Sight is terrible, especially in situations where the terrain cannot match what you would expect to see out of what is modeled, or the models themselves get in the way. Even more so when people forget that they can make the terrain anything they want it to be in terms of general rules affects, as in, "Yes, that is a forest, even though it is just a weird flat lump of plastic with no trees to get in the way of my models moving through it".
Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
JohnHwangDD wrote: Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns. Battletech does not have IGOUGO, that's how it handles IGOUGO. Battletech has all units for all players handle their Movement in the same Phase. All Shooting for all players is performed in the same Phase.
There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up. You would Deep Strike in, and your opponent Moves away. You both shoot each other, with the damage being applied at the end of the Phase. Melee Attacks are then handled. Pretty simple, though balancing who goes first in the phase can be a pain.
Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?
I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in Assault.
____
JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns.
There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up.
Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?
I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.
I don't play Btech at all, but it's now obvious that your reply wasn't useful.
Also, while I've not really played much 40k since 6E released, I don't think you can DS, shoot and assault in the same turn -- IIRC, DS specifically excludes assault.
It sounds like you're just wanting extra movement as a reaction. Meh.
I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in Assault.
____
JohnHwangDD wrote:Your objection makes no sense at all. I said to play Igo-Ugo with reactions; you then say Igo-Ugo doesn't work, but then you say BTech handled Igo-Ugo well, and then you say it's a problem when Igo-Ugo doesn't have any responses. I'll repeat myself: "simply add reactions, and Igo-Ugo works perfectly fine." Now, you can get back to arguing with yourself. Or you can try to argue how reactions ("responses") can't fix Igo-Ugo. But at least be clear, OK?
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns.
There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up.
Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?
I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.
I don't play Btech at all, but it's now obvious that your reply wasn't useful.
Also, while I've not really played much 40k since 6E released, I don't think you can DS, shoot and assault in the same turn -- IIRC, DS specifically excludes assault.
It sounds like you're just wanting extra movement as a reaction. Meh.
I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.
Some 7th edition formations, like the Skyhammer Annihilation Force, allow units to assault on the same turn that they deep strike in
I'm sorry that you don't know how to incorporate Area Terrain in a TLOS context, so need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. TLOS is indeed an imperfect system, but it's still vastly superior to any alternative, given the fact that tabletops need to be abstracted at some level. .
Erm....how is TLOS superior at anything, at least with regard to models?
It's not more intuitive, because it gives the impression of soldiers who glide around the battlefield on one knee or with their arm sticking up, and who can never get to their feet to see over a barrier, or break their heroic pose to duck behind cover. And heaven help you if you thought it'd be cool to use a scenic base for your leader, because all you've done is made them a bigger target.
It's not easier in play, because we've all had arguments on the lines of "No, if you bend down at this exact spot, squint reeeeal hard and nearly poke your eye out on this bit of scenery, my guy can totally see your guys hand! What, you don't see it? Okay, thought this was a friendly game but whatevs."
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in assault.
I'm sold.
The local "playing since 4th edition veteran" AKA "The Grouch" complains that back when he started a 5000 point Apoc game had the same or lower model count than current 1850point matches. As a Space Wolves player hoards are the bane of my existence but since buying into one costs a fortune and they all suck horribly nobody buys them. I wouldn't be opposed to a point and stat overhaul that cuts down model counts across the board and makes hoard armies viable again.
Move more towards a squad-based game rather than a model-based game. By which I mean:
squad coherency - all models must be within a certain distance of the squad leader (say, the leader's Ld).
LOS and range is measured from squad leader to squad leader (or nearest model to nearest model; either works). Cover is adjudged on the same basis.
Leaders and special equipment/weaponry is a property of the squad, not the model; remove basic troopers until all that's left is special troopers. Snipers and other special rules can single out specialists if need be.
Shooting at vehicles should work the same as at everything else - S vs T and armour save. it worked in early 1st edition, it works for Monstrous Creatures.
Remove as many special rules as possible. Ideally basic Troops choices shouldn't have any special rules. If there's a way of representing Space Marines without them needing ATSKNF (which doesn't actually help them against Fear), that'd be good.
Consolidate weapons - do Fusion Guns need to be different from meltaguns? Do Space marines need fifteen different variations on "multiple-firing missile launcher" depending on whether it's on a Terminator, a Land Speeder, a fighter aircraft, etc? 0
BunkhouseBuster wrote:That said, I would also like to see the Psychic Phase removed or changed. I remember back in 5th edition, it was a Leadership check, and most of the powers were not crazy broken and game altering like they are now. 6th edition brought in the really powerful, army bending Psychic shenanigans, but 7th edition broke it further. Nowadays, it's either bring more Psykers than your opponent to win at the Phase, or have nothing happen because they had more or better Psykers. Summoning is also far too abusable as is. Any time I play Psykers anymore, it's a Librarian on Bike with Biomancy for my Iron Hands Biker list CAD army, that's it!
Oddly enough there were enough Psychic Powers that were abusable, and only available by their own armies in 5th Edition. Remember Lash of Submission or Jaws of the World Wolf? In addition, most Psykers only could use 1, maybe 2 Powers in a turn (admittedly, that's all they had).
Having a general set of powers helps keep things more balanced over all, but it doesn't help when a random roll can make or break the use of such a character before the game even starts. Fantasy 8th was really bad in this case where a couple of Spells available on a setup roll of 6 could just remove almost entire units with no recourse.
But then the designers really don't test their designs with the purpose of breaking them, just to see if they would be fun.
To me, those Pyschic powers weren't broken, just really powerful. Abusable, yes, but not near as game breaking when abused, unlike some 7th edition Psychic powers. My issue is that nowadays we get the powerful powers being used on already powerful units - one of those old 5th edition powers going off would not necessarily ruin your day like Invisibility on a Titan of TWC Deathstar would, at least IMHO. Those previous examples were offensive powers, not defensive buffs for friendly units, and you were limited to how many Psykers you could have, since the FOC only had 2 HQ slots, and most Psykers were HQs back in the day (Grey Knights excluded), and some Psykers has ways to counter enemy Psykers (Psychic Hoods, Eldar shenanigans).
8th Fantasy does have some crazy powers, but I think that might have been intended. What with the way dispelling works, you try to cast your big scary spells to get your opponent to try and dispel it so that you have the rest of your magic dice to cast one of the "lesser" spells. And I get the feeling that is kind of what was intended in 40K as well, considering how Deny the Witch and the Psychic phase are so similar to Fantasy's Magic phase. But just like in Fantasy, I don't want to have to take a Wizard/Psyker is EVERY battle just to use this game mechanic that can almost exponentially the power and effectiveness of my army.
The biggest gripes I have with 7th edition (and any wargame, really) are what can be abused by ultra-competitive players. I don't have issues with the rules, but certain players and how they play the game. I do like having a basic set of powers that nearly every army can use in addition to their own, but as it is, I think it can be abused far too easily.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in assault.
I'm sold.
The local "playing since 4th edition veteran" AKA "The Grouch" complains that back when he started a 5000 point Apoc game had the same or lower model count than current 1850point matches. As a Space Wolves player hoards are the bane of my existence but since buying into one costs a fortune and they all suck horribly nobody buys them. I wouldn't be opposed to a point and stat overhaul that cuts down model counts across the board and makes hoard armies viable again.
I will say here what I said earlier: GW ought to release different tiers of game sizes for games. Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play (like in Age of Sigmar, which is pretty much confirmed by GW already), but we could also have different but similar rulesets for different scales of battle. We already have Kill Team giving us small, unit-scaled battles. How about we break it down further by simplifying and abstracting the rules as we scale up in the game sizes? I mean,, do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less noticeable. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be outright insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW something along these lines, I would buy it in a heartbeat! Think about it: Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers rules for different game types.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: On that note, what about just getting rid of Twin-linked as a re-roll? How about instead of a re-roll to hit, we get double the shots with the weapon? Or is that not a good idea?
I don't think so. I feel that would add too much firepower, especially if they don't repoint things.
Or just +1 shot, so it doesn't get out of hand. In 2nd edition, TL meant you rolled to hit once, but rolled to wound/penetrate twice.
+1 shot would be even worse though I feel, +1 on a lascannon is very different to +1 to a punisher gatling cannon.
When you say you rolled to wound twice is that basically for every successful to-hit with the weapon you actually get 2 hits?
Yes, you roll to wound/penetrate twice for every hit you score. However, in second edition, Rapid fire (excluding a Marine Special Rule) and Heavy 2/3 etc were not things. If something shot more than once, it nearly always used a sustained fire die to determine how many shots (or if it jammed), so there were less shots fired on average from any given gun. There were, of course, exceptions - the Eldar Scatter laser (which was a big artillery support weapon at the time) shot 6 separate shots and combi weapons could fire both modes together at a penalty to hit.
I do NOT support doubling hits. The last thing we need is doubling the ludicrous amount of firepower coming from some armies right now (Scatter laser TL'd to 8 shots!). Ugh. Unless it came with a "to-hit" penalty... then it might work.
I was thinking it would be good for Big Shootas. 2 or 3DS.
I doubt they'll have better than a -1 save modifier. (Orks haven't been known to have as good AP as other armies.)
warhead01 wrote: I was thinking it would be good for Big Shootas. 2 or 3DS.
I doubt they'll have better than a -1 save modifier. (Orks haven't been known to have as good AP as other armies.)
Which is funny because Choppa's used to have that -1 to saves previously, sure they didn't have good AP but they had plenty of ways of making it work.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
warhead01 wrote: I was thinking it would be good for Big Shootas. 2 or 3DS.
I doubt they'll have better than a -1 save modifier. (Orks haven't been known to have as good AP as other armies.)
Which is funny because Choppa's used to have that -1 to saves previously, sure they didn't have good AP but they had plenty of ways of making it work.
Yes, and no. It was no save can ever be better than a 4+.
It was the reason for the season.
We'll never be treated so well again.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
I'd hope the Jam is on the 1, not the 6.
We used to call them Jam dice too.
I still use my Hit dice. It still hits most of the time.
warhead01 wrote: I was thinking it would be good for Big Shootas. 2 or 3DS.
I doubt they'll have better than a -1 save modifier. (Orks haven't been known to have as good AP as other armies.)
Which is funny because Choppa's used to have that -1 to saves previously, sure they didn't have good AP but they had plenty of ways of making it work.
Yes, and no. It was no save can ever be better than a 4+.
It was the reason for the season.
We'll never be treated so well again.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
I'd hope the Jam is on the 1, not the 6.
We used to call them Jam dice too.
I still use my Hit dice. It still hits most of the time.
I call my Artillery die the misfire die, too. IF they were to bring back the sustained fire dice (even a better one with the Jam! on a 1's spot) then it should just negate that particular shot. Keeping track of jams was a nightmare in second edition. Especially in a unit filled with Sustained fire weapons which then had to be fired separately and tracked.
I call my Artillery die the misfire die, too. IF they were to bring back the sustained fire dice (even a better one with the Jam! on a 1's spot) then it should just negate that particular shot. Keeping track of jams was a nightmare in second edition. Especially in a unit filled with Sustained fire weapons which then had to be fired separately and tracked.
We played it that no matter what we got 1 shot and then applied the jam. Not really sure it mattered. I still have all my 2nd ed game tokens. But I see what you mean about the book keeping. Maybe they'll skip the jam and just do a D3? (But you said that already...)
Charistoph wrote: Then you don't know Btech very well and how it handles the turns.
There is no Deep Striking in, firing off all your guns, and then Charging in to mess someone up.
Reactions are not the same as a response. 40K has reactions in things like Overwatch. Does that allow for a unit to get to Cover or out of LoS if they had a really good Charge? If a Skyhammer Annihilation Force Assault Marine Squad lands next to my Troops, can I move them away from them before they get Charged? Can you get your Dread out of Melta range of that Sternguard Squad that just Drop Podded in before they fire?
I didn't say I have a problem, just that there are many people who do. There are many systems which are more abstract, but still handles things mostly okay. Both Infinity and WarmaHordes use base size to determine these things. Battletech uses a similarly abstract system called "levels", with 'Mechs being 2 Levels high, most Vehicles being 1 Level high, but some having to operate at least one level up or have a chance to be wrecked.
I don't play Btech at all, but it's now obvious that your reply wasn't useful.
Well, when you edit out the stuff that explains it, yeah. I didn't edit it, so that trimming was all you. here's what you dropped:
...Battletech does not have IGOUGO, that's how it handles IGOUGO. Battletech has all units for all players handle their Movement in the same Phase. All Shooting for all players is performed in the same Phase.
... You would Deep Strike in, and your opponent Moves away. You both shoot each other, with the damage being applied at the end of the Phase. Melee Attacks are then handled. Pretty simple, though balancing who goes first in the phase can be a pain.
That part actually is rather useful.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, while I've not really played much 40k since 6E released, I don't think you can DS, shoot and assault in the same turn -- IIRC, DS specifically excludes assault.
Some Detachments allow their units to, such as the Assault Squads in the Skyhammer Annihilation Force.
JohnHwangDD wrote:It sounds like you're just wanting extra movement as a reaction. Meh.
Not at all. I want all the possible types of interactions to be able to be performed in the same Phase by both players. All players move in the same Phase, all players Shoot in the same Phase, etc. It helps reduce the "gotcha" moments where a player cannot react but have to take it fully on the chin for no reason other than "it's not our turn".
In addition, it helps keep all players engaged throughout the turn. For the current game, the only reason I need to pay attention during my opponent's Movement Phase is to make sure they don't cheat (unless I have Deathmarks or Interceptor Weapons). During the Shooting Phase, I get to roll Saves, yay.... During the Assault Phase, I can choose to Overwatch, do a Challenge, or Hit & Run (if the unit has it, but those are the only choices. All other interaction is just rolling more dice and moving Pile Ins which is kind of automatic.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.
Everything in a games is abstraction. The "air" is the area that the model is occupying and can be found and interacted within that volume. That is one of the reasons we roll dice to see if we hit things, because we cannot do full control of the model within that volume.
Going by this concept, should we not then use G.I.Joe figures that are poseable to show where they would be arranged when firing or huddling behind cover?
BunkhouseBuster wrote:To me, those Pyschic powers weren't broken, just really powerful. Abusable, yes, but not near as game breaking when abused, unlike some 7th edition Psychic powers. My issue is that nowadays we get the powerful powers being used on already powerful units - one of those old 5th edition powers going off would not necessarily ruin your day like Invisibility on a Titan of TWC Deathstar would, at least IMHO. Those previous examples were offensive powers, not defensive buffs for friendly units, and you were limited to how many Psykers you could have, since the FOC only had 2 HQ slots, and most Psykers were HQs back in the day (Grey Knights excluded), and some Psykers has ways to counter enemy Psykers (Psychic Hoods, Eldar shenanigans).
8th Fantasy does have some crazy powers, but I think that might have been intended. What with the way dispelling works, you try to cast your big scary spells to get your opponent to try and dispel it so that you have the rest of your magic dice to cast one of the "lesser" spells. And I get the feeling that is kind of what was intended in 40K as well, considering how Deny the Witch and the Psychic phase are so similar to Fantasy's Magic phase. But just like in Fantasy, I don't want to have to take a Wizard/Psyker is EVERY battle just to use this game mechanic that can almost exponentially the power and effectiveness of my army.
The biggest gripes I have with 7th edition (and any wargame, really) are what can be abused by ultra-competitive players. I don't have issues with the rules, but certain players and how they play the game. I do like having a basic set of powers that nearly every army can use in addition to their own, but as it is, I think it can be abused far too easily.
Broken special rules and powers are those that people abuse easily, though. And wouldn't it be better if everyone, or at least a majority, be able to take advantage of easily abused rules and powers rather than just one army?
But if we go by the AoS system, there are 2 basic powers, 1 Attack and 1 buff, and then they have 1 more rather unique to them, besides summoning powers given them by other units.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:I will say here what I said earlier: GW ought to release different tiers of game sizes for games. Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play (like in Age of Sigmar, which is pretty much confirmed by GW already), but we could also have different but similar rulesets for different scales of battle. We already have Kill Team giving us small, unit-scaled battles. How about we break it down further by simplifying and abstracting the rules as we scale up in the game sizes? I mean,, do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less noticeable. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be outright insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW something along these lines, I would buy it in a heartbeat! Think about it: Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers rules for different game types.
I can agree with the several levels of play, but half the reason people play Apocalypse is that they want to use their entire collection, and that includes Tacticals running by the titans. Some people are crazy that way, and I don't feel that I should get in the way of that, especially when it looks amazing when they do it.
Dakka Wolf wrote: I'm not going to argue against reactions, I quite liked them in Infinity but they can really stretch a game out, how would you suggest including them in an already long game like 40k?
First, I'd shrink the standard game of 40k back down to 3E, both in rules complexity and typical model count. IMO, Infinity is a bit excessive, but I'd probably give every unit ONE automatic reaction per opponent turn: countermove to Movement, counterfire to Shooting, mirroring counterstrike in assault.
I'm sold.
The local "playing since 4th edition veteran" AKA "The Grouch" complains that back when he started a 5000 point Apoc game had the same or lower model count than current 1850point matches. As a Space Wolves player hoards are the bane of my existence but since buying into one costs a fortune and they all suck horribly nobody buys them. I wouldn't be opposed to a point and stat overhaul that cuts down model counts across the board and makes hoard armies viable again.
He's not wrong. Way, way back when Apocalypse first came out, the game was much simpler and faster.
I would like my IG to be viable again, sure! But my issues are more with the rulebook complexity than the Codex points cost.
____
BunkhouseBuster wrote: The biggest gripes I have with 7th edition (and any wargame, really) are what can be abused by ultra-competitive players.
...
I will say here what I said earlier: GW ought to release different tiers of game sizes for games. Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play (like in Age of Sigmar, which is pretty much confirmed by GW already), but we could also have different but similar rulesets for different scales of battle. Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers rules for different game types.
The more rules that exist, the more interactions and the more possibility for abuse or error. Simpler is better for everyone.
I am not opposed to 8E recommending different scales, with the default probably being something like 1,000 7E points.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.
Everything in a games is abstraction. The "air" is the area that the model is occupying and can be found and interacted within that volume. That is one of the reasons we roll dice to see if we hit things, because we cannot do full control of the model within that volume.
Going by this concept, should we not then use G.I.Joe figures that are poseable to show where they would be arranged when firing or huddling behind cover?
Proper Magic Cylinder standardizes height. The "air" often extends above the model's head (or only rises to the model's chest). Limbs and/or weapons often extend outside the boundary of the cylinder. Your abstraction says that the model is jumping up and down to place vital parts of their body in targetable areas at the very moment another model is shooting? And you think this is easier or better than a snapshot in time that precisely places the model for the purpose of targeting?
No, we should use TLOS, because it is simpler to explain, simpler to process. Most importantly, it avoids unreasonable oddities in which the air over one model targets the air over another model despite the models themselves not being able to draw any sort of LOS due to an impenetrable interposing barrier. Under MC, a Ratling Sniper targets a Gobbo behind a solid 1" high wall, due to both models having a standard conventional cylinder height of 30mm.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm well aware of Magic Cylinder, and height levels. It's categorically worse because air can shoot air.
Everything in a games is abstraction. The "air" is the area that the model is occupying and can be found and interacted within that volume. That is one of the reasons we roll dice to see if we hit things, because we cannot do full control of the model within that volume.
Going by this concept, should we not then use G.I.Joe figures that are poseable to show where they would be arranged when firing or huddling behind cover?
Proper Magic Cylinder standardizes height. The "air" often extends above the model's head (or only rises to the model's chest). Limbs and/or weapons often extend outside the boundary of the cylinder. Your abstraction says that the model is jumping up and down to place vital parts of their body in targetable areas at the very moment another model is shooting? And you think this is easier or better than a snapshot in time that precisely places the model for the purpose of targeting?
Most "Magic Cylinder's" standardize volume, not just height. That's two more dimensions involved. Sometimes its easier, sometimes its harder. But, more importantly, it is consistent. Those systems which use the "Magic Cylinder" allow for some fun model designs and poses and allow for you the modeler to repose or add scenic parts to the bases without affecting the model's interaction with the rest of the game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, we should use TLOS, because it is simpler to explain, simpler to process. Most importantly, it avoids unreasonable oddities in which the air over one model targets the air over another model despite the models themselves not being able to draw any sort of LOS due to an impenetrable interposing barrier. Under MC, a Ratling Sniper targets a Gobbo behind a solid 1" high wall, due to both models having a standard conventional cylinder height of 30mm.
I can't tell you how often I've seen arguments come up over whether something can be seen, or how much of something can be seen. I've seen people stop their game to ask someone else to check to see what a model qualifies for because of TLOS. I've been asked about once every five games I witness. Do you know how many times I've been asked to check for WarmaHordes or Infinity games? None. So, don't tell me it is simpler to process when the interaction with the most complex computer ever developed can screw it over six ways to Sunday.
Until we are using poseable models ala G.I.Joe, TLOS is an abstraction that is as painful as it is helpful and reduces consistency and encourages modelling for advantage.
MC standardizes diameter and height, duh. While it's consistent, it might as well be standees, because it defeats the point of using models at all.
TLoS is simply whether you see it, and the "how much" question is trivally resovlved "all or nothing" (aka "toe in") cover. Finally, Warmahordes and Infinity are far from what I'd consider great game systems.
The idea that MC is somehow better than TLoS is just laughable.
To me, those Pyschic powers weren't broken, just really powerful. Abusable, yes, but not near as game breaking when abused, unlike some 7th edition Psychic powers. My issue is that nowadays we get the powerful powers being used on already powerful units - one of those old 5th edition powers going off would not necessarily ruin your day like Invisibility on a Titan of TWC Deathstar would, at least IMHO. Those previous examples were offensive powers, not defensive buffs for friendly units, and you were limited to how many Psykers you could have, since the FOC only had 2 HQ slots, and most Psykers were HQs back in the day (Grey Knights excluded), and some Psykers has ways to counter enemy Psykers (Psychic Hoods, Eldar shenanigans).
8th Fantasy does have some crazy powers, but I think that might have been intended. What with the way dispelling works, you try to cast your big scary spells to get your opponent to try and dispel it so that you have the rest of your magic dice to cast one of the "lesser" spells. And I get the feeling that is kind of what was intended in 40K as well, considering how Deny the Witch and the Psychic phase are so similar to Fantasy's Magic phase. But just like in Fantasy, I don't want to have to take a Wizard/Psyker is EVERY battle just to use this game mechanic that can almost exponentially the power and effectiveness of my army.
The biggest gripes I have with 7th edition (and any wargame, really) are what can be abused by ultra-competitive players. I don't have issues with the rules, but certain players and how they play the game. I do like having a basic set of powers that nearly every army can use in addition to their own, but as it is, I think it can be abused far too easily.
Broken special rules and powers are those that people abuse easily, though. And wouldn't it be better if everyone, or at least a majority, be able to take advantage of easily abused rules and powers rather than just one army?
But if we go by the AoS system, there are 2 basic powers, 1 Attack and 1 buff, and then they have 1 more rather unique to them, besides summoning powers given them by other units.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Spoiler:
I will say here what I said earlier: GW ought to release different tiers of game sizes for games. Not only could we have Open, Narrative, and Matched Play (like in Age of Sigmar, which is pretty much confirmed by GW already), but we could also have different but similar rulesets for different scales of battle. We already have Kill Team giving us small, unit-scaled battles. How about we break it down further by simplifying and abstracting the rules as we scale up in the game sizes? I mean,, do we really want to play Apocalypse to use our Tactical Squads to fight Boyz, or for a reason to have Titans ALONGSIDE the rest of our collections? In smaller games, each model is important to the battle. In larger fights, a single infantry model becomes less noticeable. At an Apocalypse sized battle, a single figure can be outright insignificant due to the firepower on the battlefield. I would love to see levels of abstraction and simplification as the game size increases. I am all for house rules, but those can sometimes not be enjoyed by other "houses" of players; if GW something along these lines, I would buy it in a heartbeat! Think about it: Kill Team, Patrol, Skirmish, Large Battle, and Apocalypse scaled battle tiers rules for different game types.
I can agree with the several levels of play, but half the reason people play Apocalypse is that they want to use their entire collection, and that includes Tacticals running by the titans. Some people are crazy that way, and I don't feel that I should get in the way of that, especially when it looks amazing when they do it.
Regarding broken powers: Just because powers and rules can be broken, doesn't mean they should. It's okay if certain players like to play the hardest, cheesiest lists they can, and, so long as they are having fun, that is great! My idea of fun doesn't mesh with them, so I don't play that way. EVER. My regular opponents know that I won't be playing a hard list, since I am there to relax, roll dice, and make sure my opponents are having fun, not to WAAC. The amount or complexity or power level of rules and abilities is not the problem I see, it is that there are different motivations for playing, and so many players don't understand when someone doesn't want to play the same way as them.
Regarding game sizes: I want to field my entire collection as well! I'm not saying that a Tactical Squad shouldn't go to a game that has Titans, far from it actually. Rather that the rules should be streamlined and abstracted further for such large games: basically, have a new way for basic units and vehicles to still do things on the table, but quicker and simpler so as to keep them relevant and thematic on the table. Or in other words, a modified Epic 40K with the standard scale models.
Charistoph wrote: Most "Magic Cylinder's" standardize volume, not just height. That's two more dimensions involved. Sometimes its easier, sometimes its harder. But, more importantly, it is consistent. Those systems which use the "Magic Cylinder" allow for some fun model designs and poses and allow for you the modeler to repose or add scenic parts to the bases without affecting the model's interaction with the rest of the game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, we should use TLOS, because it is simpler to explain, simpler to process. Most importantly, it avoids unreasonable oddities in which the air over one model targets the air over another model despite the models themselves not being able to draw any sort of LOS due to an impenetrable interposing barrier. Under MC, a Ratling Sniper targets a Gobbo behind a solid 1" high wall, due to both models having a standard conventional cylinder height of 30mm.
I can't tell you how often I've seen arguments come up over whether something can be seen, or how much of something can be seen. I've seen people stop their game to ask someone else to check to see what a model qualifies for because of TLOS. I've been asked about once every five games I witness. Do you know how many times I've been asked to check for WarmaHordes or Infinity games? None. So, don't tell me it is simpler to process when the interaction with the most complex computer ever developed can screw it over six ways to Sunday.
Until we are using poseable models ala G.I.Joe, TLOS is an abstraction that is as painful as it is helpful and reduces consistency and encourages modelling for advantage.
Lol, I had never heard of it called "Magic Cylinder" before.
I prefer using TLOS for my games, but I have a reason for it: it gives purpose to the models. If the model's height is determined by its base size, then all you need to play the game are the bases. This is something that bugged me about Warmahordes, since I had several games that my and/or my opponent's models got in the way of getting into the position we actually wanted them. For every instance in a game I had in 40K where someone questioned a model's vision, I had one in Warmahordes where a model got in the way, forcing a "butt-charge" or using a spare empty base to represent its actual location (and I have played a lot more 40K than Warmahordes).
Sure, you could say that a Space Marines is N inches tall and that a Carnifex is N millimeters tall rather than using its base size as a guide, but that still has the same effect as creating that cylinder to represent the model's presence on the table. I guess I am lucky, but I have never had to worry about something modeled for advantage.
Both are abstractions of how models are presented on the table top. Both have benefits, and both have detriments. It is entirely subjective to prefer one over the other.
I prefer using TLOS for my games, but I have a reason for it: it gives purpose to the models. If the model's height is determined by its base size, then all you need to play the game are the bases. This is something that bugged me about Warmahordes, since I had several games that my and/or my opponent's models got in the way of getting into the position we actually wanted them. For every instance in a game I had in 40K where someone questioned a model's vision, I had one in Warmahordes where a model got in the way, forcing a "butt-charge" or using a spare empty base to represent its actual location (and I have played a lot more 40K than Warmahordes).
Sure, you could say that a Space Marines is N inches tall and that a Carnifex is N millimeters tall rather than using its base size as a guide, but that still has the same effect as creating that cylinder to represent the model's presence on the table. I guess I am lucky, but I have never had to worry about something modeled for advantage.
Both are abstractions of how models are presented on the table top. Both have benefits, and both have detriments. It is entirely subjective to prefer one over the other.
Indeed.
And BTW, the ultimate solution for MC systems is to have rectangular targeting profile cards (that are *exactly* N mm tall) that you place in front of the target to check LOS. There are MC games that do this, I kid you not.
TLoS is a model-driven mechanic, which is why GW uses it for their "pew-pew" noises "fluff bunny" players. MC is a competitive mechanic, which is why WarmaHordes uses it for their WAACTFG players.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Regarding broken powers: Just because powers and rules can be broken, doesn't mean they should. It's okay if certain players like to play the hardest, cheesiest lists they can, and, so long as they are having fun, that is great! My idea of fun doesn't mesh with them, so I don't play that way. EVER. My regular opponents know that I won't be playing a hard list, since I am there to relax, roll dice, and make sure my opponents are having fun, not to WAAC. The amount or complexity or power level of rules and abilities is not the problem I see, it is that there are different motivations for playing, and so many players don't understand when someone doesn't want to play the same way as them.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I was more pointing out that no edition was perfect and the developers have a responsibility regarding the impact of their rules.
Let's face it, is it bad when someone uses the rules properly and they are abusive? Is it better to blame the player or the ones writing the abusive rules?
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Regarding game sizes: I want to field my entire collection as well! I'm not saying that a Tactical Squad shouldn't go to a game that has Titans, far from it actually. Rather that the rules should be streamlined and abstracted further for such large games: basically, have a new way for basic units and vehicles to still do things on the table, but quicker and simpler so as to keep them relevant and thematic on the table. Or in other words, a modified Epic 40K with the standard scale models.
I get it, and I doubt I would ever have a Super-Heavy to field in such a way. I'm just saying I don't think that it's worth the trouble to shut people down from doing so.
BunkhouseBuster wrote:Lol, I had never heard of it called "Magic Cylinder" before.
Same here.
BunkhouseBuster wrote: Both are abstractions of how models are presented on the table top. Both have benefits, and both have detriments. It is entirely subjective to prefer one over the other.
Agreed. As I said, going with the "Magic Cylinder" at least allows for consistency and ease of use.
Both you and JHDD are concerned about the loss of reason for the model. The model is just art, and let's face it, there are more than enough people who do not give them even that much art added as well. May as well have a painting standard in the rulebook as well as, no?
JohnHwangDD wrote:TLoS is a model-driven mechanic, which is why GW uses it for their "pew-pew" noises "fluff bunny" players. MC is a competitive mechanic, which is why WarmaHordes uses it for their WAACTFG players.
And TLOS isn't abused by WAACTFG players? That's a laugh.
"MC" allows the model to be the art the player desires without letting it affect their in-game uses. Isn't it interesting then that TLOS does away with some of that "model-driven" mechanic?
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
Last weekend my opponent rolled all 3 sustained fired dice and got all 3's!! 9 hits. After only 6 wounded, my Exarch still failed 2 of his displacer field saves and died!
Yes it is rare, but jams are not that common if you think about it. 1 in 6 chance. I do prefer a d6/d3 roll over sustained fire. Perhaps a Jam if you roll 2 or more 1's to hit is more reasonable odds.
I would rather the modelers have basically unlimited ability to pose and base as they choose without affecting gameplay.
It just seems antithetical to the hobby aspect of the game that the rules (TLoS in particular) dictate how useful a model is in game, and thereby force WAAC players to model to advantage (and disadvantage the more creative of the hobbyist players at the same time). That worsens the divide, and further separates this already fractious community.
They're both abstractions, obviously, because Commander Farsight is not hovering on a single foot in a dancer's pose every second of every battle. Tying in his vulnerability to ONLY that pose seems silly. Let me pose one Riptide in a kneeling/braced firing position and another Death-From-Above landing on some unfortunate Astartes without disadvantaging my Death-From-Above model so horrendously.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
Last weekend my opponent rolled all 3 sustained fired dice and got all 3's!! 9 hits. After only 6 wounded, my Exarch still failed 2 of his displacer field saves and died!
Yes it is rare, but jams are not that common if you think about it. 1 in 6 chance. I do prefer a d6/d3 roll over sustained fire. Perhaps a Jam if you roll 2 or more 1's to hit is more reasonable odds.
wes
Jams were sufficiently common to ruin most imperial weapons in 2nd ed.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
Last weekend my opponent rolled all 3 sustained fired dice and got all 3's!! 9 hits. After only 6 wounded, my Exarch still failed 2 of his displacer field saves and died!
Yes it is rare, but jams are not that common if you think about it. 1 in 6 chance. I do prefer a d6/d3 roll over sustained fire. Perhaps a Jam if you roll 2 or more 1's to hit is more reasonable odds.
wes
Jams were sufficiently common to ruin most imperial weapons in 2nd ed.
Was it mentioned that 2nd Ed Blast weapons could explode on a misfire? (What ever that was called)
The blast was placed on top of the model firing the blast weapon, can't recall if it moved or not before resolving the damage.
I can see wanting individual models to mean something, but I also think it's a pretty un-fluffy experience to have a cool prone sniper model that can never shoot or be shot except when completely out in the open.
If the game was a tiny skirmish game where we could have a standing, kneeling and prone version of each humanoid I could see TLoS being pretty rad.
Youn wrote: I kind of want them to go with AoS damage values but using the sustained fire dice for the amount of damage. For example:
Assault cannon 36" 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound Rend -2 Damage 3dS
Sustained Fire Die was 1,1,2,2,3,Jam
I like that. I'd love to see sustained fire come back.
Oh god no! That abomination should die. I hated that thing. I just called it the Jam dice, cuz that's all it ever did. Plus, 1,1,2,2,3,Jam! was a terrible way to do it. Half the results suck 2 out of 6 times it only produces one shot and 1 out of 6 times it just freakin' jams.
I'll take the d3 that replaced it in Shadow War, any day.
Last weekend my opponent rolled all 3 sustained fired dice and got all 3's!! 9 hits. After only 6 wounded, my Exarch still failed 2 of his displacer field saves and died!
Yes it is rare, but jams are not that common if you think about it. 1 in 6 chance. I do prefer a d6/d3 roll over sustained fire. Perhaps a Jam if you roll 2 or more 1's to hit is more reasonable odds.
wes
The problem with jams in 2nd edition is that it not only ruined that shooting phase, but the following shooting phase as well. Some missions were only 4 turns, so it was a pretty big deal.
They also made squads of dire avengers and guardians a pure nightmare. You had to roll to hit separately for each model and track jams on individual models from turn to turn.
Getting rid of Sustained Fire dice was one of the best things to come out of 3rd edition, imo.
Simple to hit modifiers. Such as for size and cover. Maybe for (long) range as well. Having finished kindergarten and a bit more, I know how to add and subtract below and up to 10 and maybe a bit higher.
with the power level of factions halfway through an edition. I never expect the dozens of units across all armies to be truly balanced (way too many to be possible, 
Both are abstractions of how models are presented on the table top. Both have benefits, and both have detriments. It is entirely subjective to prefer one over the other.
