Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Heavy bolters and autocannons would have a purpose with 2dS.

You have to debate firing at full rate with things like Assault cannons. Because each Jam would be a loss of a turn of firing.

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.

 warhead01 wrote:

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.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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...)

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

BunkhouseBuster wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
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.

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 WAAC TFG 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 WAAC TFG players.

And TLOS isn't abused by WAAC TFG 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?

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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

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.

 admironheart wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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.

Martel732 wrote:

 admironheart wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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.

The infamous "HIT/MISFIRE".

It sounds like the shooting for many armies in 2nd Ed. was kind of like how shooting is for the orks in this edition.

 admironheart wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

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.

You only rolled Sustained Fire dice if you hit though, which cut down the times it happened. You couldn't jam if you missed.

Rolling for the Assault Cannon was a thrill. I'll give a special shout out to the Dreadnought too, which ignored the first jam.