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.

There's two kinds of wounds in consideration, assault resolution wounds and No Retreat wounds. No Retreat is the end result of a wonky system. The wounds I'm concerned with are assault resolution.

The example I'm using is Orks and Terminators but any two wildly disparate value models can be used. A full unit of Imperial Guard Conscripts attacking a unit of three Carnifexes. A big pile of Hormagaunts attacking Sanguinary Guards with Mephiston and all the bells and whistles. Any type of unit comparison you like. One super cheap horde of piddling little dudes and one elite, face-stomping pack of super dudes.

If the Ork Boys/Conscripts/Hormagaunts take X number of wounds as a result of combat, why is that the same as the Terminators/Carnifex/Mephiston taking X number of wounds for assault resolution? The first unit could trip over itself waking up in the morning and take that number of wounds with nobody noticing, while the second unit is a power house of face stomping hurtiness yet the assault resolution wounds count for precisely the same.

Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

right i see, i'm gonna have to give since i have no way to articulate what i want to say, but it boils down to apples and oranges

SumYungGui wrote:There's two kinds of wounds in consideration, assault resolution wounds and No Retreat wounds. No Retreat is the end result of a wonky system. The wounds I'm concerned with are assault resolution.

The example I'm using is Orks and Terminators but any two wildly disparate value models can be used. A full unit of Imperial Guard Conscripts attacking a unit of three Carnifexes. A big pile of Hormagaunts attacking Sanguinary Guards with Mephiston and all the bells and whistles. Any type of unit comparison you like. One super cheap horde of piddling little dudes and one elite, face-stomping pack of super dudes.

If the Ork Boys/Conscripts/Hormagaunts take X number of wounds as a result of combat, why is that the same as the Terminators/Carnifex/Mephiston taking X number of wounds for assault resolution? The first unit could trip over itself waking up in the morning and take that number of wounds with nobody noticing, while the second unit is a power house of face stomping hurtiness yet the assault resolution wounds count for precisely the same.

Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

I think I see your point.

To make things simple:

4 terms (4 wounds total)
vs
20 gaunts (20 wounds total)

Let's say 10 gaunts die (10 unsaved wounds) and 2 terminators die (2 unsaved wounds)
Each unit lost 50% of its wounds
The gaunts lose combat badly under current rules
I view this as a tie

(above numbers were picked for easy math)

The strength of the gaunts is in their numbers and I don't see why they should be punished for that. I expect to lose a lot of gaunts against terminators, but then again, they cost much less than terminators do.

Maybe the assault winner should be determined by % of wounds inflicted?

I'm not whining or complaining at alll; I'll happily play under the current rules. This is just an observation / thought.

mgraham wrote:
I think I see your point.

To make things simple:

4 terms (4 wounds total)
vs
20 gaunts (20 wounds total)

Let's say 10 gaunts die (10 unsaved wounds) and 2 terminators die (2 unsaved wounds)
Each unit lost 50% of its wounds
The gaunts lose combat badly under current rules
I view this as a tie

(above numbers were picked for easy math)

The strength of the gaunts is in their numbers and I don't see why they should be punished for that. I expect to lose a lot of gaunts against terminators, but then again, they cost much less than terminators do.

Maybe the assault winner should be determined by % of wounds inflicted?

I'm not whining or complaining at alll; I'll happily play under the current rules. This is just an observation / thought.

yet by points the gaunts win, lose 50 compared to the terminators 80 (untill no retreat gets round) and tactically if 100 points hold up 160 points of terms, win for the gaunts

not to mention doing it by percentages can screw some elite stuff over

thats why i'm having a hard time putting words to what i want to say, lets try it's an arbituray rule which arbitarily applies equally to what happens, the day when a terminator costs the same as a gaunt, is the day when NR is a bad rule

Having been on both sides of the story, and having (I admit) whined my ass off over NR and orks, I have to say that all you'd need to silence a fair deal of people is a cap as to how many NR wounds you force a unit to take - say 7.

That said, a recent trick I learnt to counter the problem is a less than obvious one - pair up your boyz mobs if you're versing a CC heavy army. While you can't (highly unlikely) get 60 boyz in assault range of those 6 elite CC monsters and you take double the NR wounds, per say, the rollover of models is greater and the chance of them slipping out to charge your second unit if you'd left them seperate is reduced.

the_ferrett wrote:Having been on both sides of the story, and having (I admit) whined my ass off over NR and orks, I have to say that all you'd need to silence a fair deal of people is a cap as to how many NR wounds you force a unit to take - say 7.

That said, a recent trick I learnt to counter the problem is a less than obvious one - pair up your boyz mobs if you're versing a CC heavy army. While you can't (highly unlikely) get 60 boyz in assault range of those 6 elite CC monsters and you take double the NR wounds, per say, the rollover of models is greater and the chance of them slipping out to charge your second unit if you'd left them seperate is reduced.

yeah same here, both nids and thousand sons, however i have never had to take more than 5 NR wounds before saves, you learn to play with it and to actually pick your targets, if you are consitantly ending up with a lot of NRs you have to look at your game, i often outflank genestealers and multi assult atleast 3 units and win combat by 10 and destroying a good part of a flank, next time i play the person they are often more weary and it isn't anywhere as bad

and besides it really does have to be a wtfrolfstomp to get anywhere near +10 combat res.

NR is perfectly balanced, the elite side wins, the horde dies faster, the horde wins elites have to take a few extra under the overwhelming numbers, but point for point with the same combat res losses to NR = about the same points

from earlier on 10 NR ork boys 8.6 dead = 51.6 points
10NR on termies 1.6 dead = 64 points

The other thing I had to learn was that PDF version BA was still a CC based army - boyz squads aren't meant to laugh through those kinds of enemies.

SumYungGui wrote:Or to put it more succinctly, ten unsaved wounds on a mob of Ork Boys with default choppa's has the same value as ten unsaved wounds on a unit of SS/TH Terminators?

Why are you ignoring the vast difference in expected casualties from 10 wounds on a boyz and their 6+ save, compared to terminators?

That is the nice thing about No Retreat, or at least what I like about it, that it ties in with a unit's ability to win combat and doubles up the value of its best saving throw. Fearless Terminators such as Deathwing, for example, are going to benefit from Fearless far better than generic trash like Ork Boyz, Imperial Guardsmen, and Termagants.

You aren't going to beat a unit of Death in a 1:1 fight by more than 4 because there are only 5 models in the unit, whereas beating a unit of Orks by 15 can wipe out the unit in an impressive blood-bath.

TMIR is in close running for me, as well.

If both people playing a game agree to change something, there is no need for a rule to allow that change.

If there is not an agreement, it does not even apply.

TMIR?

not being able to shoot into units locked into close combat.
Orks juiced up on Waagh energy would let loose a mad minute. My Chaos Space Marines swarm would love to slaughter whatever it can.

kronk wrote:TMIR?

I believe it's "The Most Important Rule" from the BRB.

Melchiour wrote:

kronk wrote:TMIR?

I believe it's "The Most Important Rule" from the BRB.

Correct, in the box on page 2.

In 7 pages, I suspect this has already been said, but WBB is my least favorite rule. I dislike it not because it's a bad rule (compared to everything out there), but because the rule has NOT aged well with the shift to 5th edition. It is really complex, and does not mesh well with the new core ruleset. I especially hate the whole "they get back up and join the nearest unit business." It would be so much easier if they got something like this:

-FNP 4+
-Proximity to Res-orb/'lith allows FNP to be made regardless of restrictions.
-Tomb Spyder may self-wound (no saves allowed) to grant an FNP re-roll to a unit for a turn.

...but of course I guess that's better placed in Proposed Rules.

Just wanted to throw that out there as my least favorite rule.

Sumyungguy - you asserted that I was someone looking down on people who choose to play horde armies. I PLAY a horde army and manage NR! perfectly well, thus proving your assertions:

1) That I dont play a horde army, and look down on people who do
2) THat horde armies suffer unduly from NR! (I dont)

as incorrect. Carry on whining if you want, but horde armies CAN manage NR! perfectly well.

AS to your "then theyre equal", you keep on failing to acknowledge the saves each unit has. FNP Terminators would lose, on average, 0.8 of a model. 35 points, for arguments sake. Thus those 10 wounds, while equal in number, are not equal in VALUE.

In addition: how are you getting 10 wounds -ve combt res on TH/SS? Somehow you have put them into a combat they cannot win, and not only do they fail to win they do so by a HUGE margin. So why shouldnt they be punished for losing a fight that badly and wanting to stick around? THATS THE POINT of NR! - you stay in a fight you shouldnt stay in.

When you can go one post without saying 'You're wrong because I'm better than you, here's why' I will consider any point of view you put in the aforementioned post. Until then you're trolling and arguing.

When you can stop whining that NR! is unfair to horde armies, you'll stop trolling.

NR! isnt unfair to horde armies. Not at all.

I wish vehicles were easier to destroy. Basically, give us back the 4th edition vehicle damage tables or at least a compromise between the two where glancing hits are only a -1 on the vehicle damage roll (in 4th penetrating hits destroyed vehicles on a 4,5, or 6 and glances destroyed on a 6.) Combined with all the new codices dropping the points for transports (rhinos and chimeras both dropped 20 points or so in cost and became better at the same time) and now the 40k meta is all MECHMECHMECH and I'm a little tired of it, it's a little stale when there is only 1 competitive army format for most (arguably all) armies.

No, please dont.

Vehicles are now worth taking. Instead of death traps (when the standard deployment in 4th ed was to stand behind your vehicles in case they got blown up you know something is wrong) you now have vehicles that can STILL be one shotted, assuming you can pen, but it is only 1/3rd of the time, 1/2 if you are AP1. (which makes AP1 weaponry only slightly less effective than 4th ed)

Vehicles are already easy enough to destroy. The rules there are OK. And as for the only competitive armies being mech? People in your area just can't be trying hard enough, thats really not true.

Mech is a touch overpowered at the moment. No argument from me there. Going back to 4th edition rules is a bit much though. Transports really were death traps on wheels. I'm almost tempted to say 'make it a pinning test when a vehicle is destroyed' but then I remember how worthless psychology is in the entirety of 40k. I also think it's a little harsh to just automatically pin people coming out of a destroyed transport. Losing the entire turn and being bunched up real nice and tight for that whole turn just isn't cool either. That being said, I do believe people should lose the ability to shoot or assault.

It's the pinnacle of frustration to have your opponent be happy you took out his transport when it allows him MORE freedom because his guys can move, shoot, run, assault and everything like normal. I just can't wrap my head around why it helps the other guy. Moving and running is cool, give the victims a chance to run for cover and do something. That's kosher. Got no arguments there. Giving my opponent a boost by destroying a transport? Not kosher.

Maybe the best way to limit mech would be to bring back the old Vehicle Annihilated result that destroyed the vehicle (shrapnel maximum distance) and killed ALL models in a transport.

Make it so you need a result of 7, so only AP1 penetrating hits or open-topped transports can be Annihilated.

Of coarse, that just makes AP1 even more powerful compared to AP2+...

SumYungGui wrote:

Unreal Toast wrote:I hate the stupid regeneration rule for necrons ¬¬

Hating on Necrons? That's harsh man. It's like punching a baby kitten.

haha this is going in my signature

Grakmar wrote:Maybe the best way to limit mech would be to bring back the old Vehicle Annihilated result that destroyed the vehicle (shrapnel maximum distance) and killed ALL models in a transport.

Make it so you need a result of 7, so only AP1 penetrating hits or open-topped transports can be Annihilated.

Of coarse, that just makes AP1 even more powerful compared to AP2+...

Can't say I agree with this, and I'm a Tyranid player! Something does need to be done for certain but rolling death traps just aren't cool.

alspal8me wrote:
haha this is going in my signature

why thank you

Don't generally hate any individual rule, just don't particularly like the way that some are a bit what ... confuzzling.

I read over the immobilized walker and pivot rule a fair few times before I just gave up and decided to go with it can't ...

First, the d6 system that is used, I'd prefer a d10 system.

Second, the AP rules, I'd be happier with armor save modifiers instead of straight out ignoring armor.

Third, cover, should provide a to hit modifier, or have a % to stop the shot after it hits but before it wounds.

Fourth, I'd prefer a system similar to fantasy where you can take armor save, and then inv save or fnp.

Xyon wrote:Third, cover, should provide a to hit modifier, or have a % to stop the shot after it hits but before it wounds.

I'd agree with this in principle. However, I can't think of a good way for it to work practically.

You can't just drop the BS of a model as a set number. That would bother Orks a whole lot more than Marines.

And, you can't just drop the BS by a %. How do you roll for a GEq shooting at a model with a 4+ save? He needs a 5.5+?

NR wounds spilling from one unit to another. With tyranids you cannot support smaller bugs with bigger bugs because all the other player has to do is put all the attacks on the little bugs know that all those wounds will spill over on to the MCs or warriors etc.

WEll, all those attacks where his models arent only in btb with your MC. Those attacks have to be directed at your MC.

Which is why when you multicharge (and you shouldnt be getting multicharged, as it is fairly easy to prevent when you have cheap gribblies) you make sure you are very careful how you do it. REquires some set up, and planning ahead, but this is a game which should, and does, reward this.

Xyon - 1) will never happen, D6s are too convenient. Its why even when they need more than 12 results they use a D66 table.

2) This isnt fantasy. AP allows a greater range of Strength values to be used, which is crucial when you also have Armour Values in the game. Thus a weapon can be S10 Ap4 and not worry marines but have a hope of hurting tanks. Modifiers makes this impossible. It also doesnt make sense compared to how armour works in practice -good armour stops everything up to a certain penetration, at which point it fails entirely. Its one area that is "realistic"

3) That would hit, % hits wise, low BS armies far more harshly than high BS ones. A -1 modifier to hit drops Ork succesful shots in half, but only affects marines by 1/4.

4) Well, you CAn take armour and FNP. Its just that until recently in fantasy you could take armour, ward and regen...whch was silly. Not too much of an issue with invulnerable, although it would make TH/SS treminators essentially unkillable. Esspeciallly BA ones.