Switch Theme:

Terminators should be able to assault when deepstriking  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The way we've been playing it is:

1. If you scatter, you scatter. To bad. You can shoot but that's it.
2. If you roll a Hit, you can shoot and assault.
3. If you scatter onto the enemy, place the squad where they would have landed, but the unit is Entangled and cannot do anything this turn (even shoot).

Stops you from losing massive 300 point Grey Knight Command Squads to an unlucky scatter, and really helps armies that rely on scatter. Without the above, assault troops that Deep Strike simply don't work.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Do you apply that rule to all deepstriking units HBMC?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

All Deep Striking units yes. Grey Knights just get to re-roll the scatter dice, as they're a Teleporting army and need a bit more consistency.

So far it's worked very well. Games aren't won or lost because your 200 point Grand Master with 400 point Retinue scattered 1" too close to a unit of Eldar Guardians...

Daemons work a bit differently.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 06/19/2007 1:22 PM
On a tournament board with scarcely 25% terrain, against a skilled opponent, you will be hard-pressed to find a deep-strike location that is safe that is not on the front line. That is, 90% of the deep strike opportunities you get you will want to use to reinforce your position, or attack an exposed key enemy unit. I have to stress "exposed" because when an opponent expects you to be deep-striking a powerful squad, it is easy to take measures to protect vulnerable elements of their own force. Therefore, you will generally only find an acceptable compromise between the amount of room for scatter error, defensive worth (protection), and advantage at or near the front line, often closer to your own lines.

And given the abilities of a powerful assault unit like Bloodletters or Demonettes, the fact that they can only hit the "front line" (which is also just a plain old lie--you can infiltrate icons) is irrelevant because, failing a substantive counter-assault, they will cover ground quickly with consolidation and a follow-up 6" charge. These facts differ very little in respect to Terminators benefiting from the proposed change to Deep Strike.
'Lie' might be a bit harsh there, friend  (it's true I'm often facetious).  When I think infiltrating I think "in front" of the opponent's regularly deployed army, just off to the side or closer in front.  Very rarely will someone be able to infiltrate a unit completely behind, and in the middle of their opponent's army.  An opponent's deployment should take into account the fact that you have infiltrating units and you're going to be coming in from an angle.

Deep striking is different.  Turn 2 or 3 it's quite possible your force will be spread out, they'll have taken losses and squads may very well be tied up in close combat.  Deep striking units can then have more freedom in where they attack on the board.

Now, demons could be tied to a non teleport homer deep-striking unit, which would be different.  Not to mention decidedly unpleasant XD.

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 06/19/2007 2:28 PM
The way we've been playing it is:

1. If you scatter, you scatter. To bad. You can shoot but that's it.
2. If you roll a Hit, you can shoot and assault.
3. If you scatter onto the enemy, place the squad where they would have landed, but the unit is Entangled and cannot do anything this turn (even shoot).

Stops you from losing massive 300 point Grey Knight Command Squads to an unlucky scatter, and really helps armies that rely on scatter. Without the above, assault troops that Deep Strike simply don't work.

BYE
Do opponents find that deep striking assault troops are too dangerous?  And do you apply the same rules to demons, or do demons use their own rules?

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

No, it doesn't make assault troops powerful, it makes them viable. Without it they land, do nothing, and get shot up/enemy moves away.

It's only on hits, so it only happens 1/3rd of the time, so it's worth the risk.

As far as Daemons, we just use the normal GW rules, with the added Entanglement if they scatter onto enemy troops. So they land, move, shoot, assault as normal.

Major difference we have is that you can only summon one unit of Daemons in per Icon, so if you've got three units of Daemonettes in reserve, and only one Icon on the table, then only one unit can come on. Helps balance the Daemon Bomb.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending






Glendale, AZ

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 06/19/2007 11:30 PM


Major difference we have is that you can only summon one unit of Daemons in per Icon, so if you've got three units of Daemonettes in reserve, and only one Icon on the table, then only one unit can come on. Helps balance the Daemon Bomb.

BYE

One unit per icon per turn, or one unit per icon per game?

Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





If I understand it correctly, he means one unit/icon/turn.

This *might* help mitigate demon bomb because usually only one icon is in a prime position to summon from. If you're forced to summon from a less ideal icon, that might balance things out.

As is, however, all it takes is one infiltrating unit with one icon, and you can have two of the most powerful assault units in the game IN your frontlines. Scatter+5" placement+6" move+6" assault. One of the worst rules ever from GW when combined with infiltrating and rules that modify summoning favorbly (allowing summon on 3+ or automatic).

I'm not suggesting anything like this for terminators. Simply allow them to assault after deep striking, or shoot. Not both. While I like the random scatter rule that has been proposed, I think it's too powerful. Again, shoot or assault. Not both.

The question of allowing movement is tough to resolve in my opinion. Bloodletters/demonettes get to move+assault, but they must be placed near an icon initially. As long as we're playing with deep strike rules, perhaps something should be done to mitigate the chance of losing your 300 point assault terminators to an unlucky scatter...


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I agree with what has been stated so far. I love the assault terminator models, but they just arent all that viable as they stand now. With the rules for SM's looking like they are moving towards one assault cannon per squad and mixed assault/normal termies, Assault terminaotrs will be more viable as they can at least shoot one assault cannon or a heavy flamer on the turn they arrive (but normal termies get the seroius nerf bat).

I have a painted squad of 6 assault terminators that i did a bang up job on with custom cloth back banners, all bitz ordered parts, etc. that almost never see the board because they are just so hit or miss. They either are super stars if i get lucky, or more likely they die horribly having done nothing. I think the points are better spent on more reliable units.

You only compound the problem if you buy them a LRC, which is a total point sink 90% of the time. Again, when it works its a knock out punch, when it fails (which it more often does), you lose. Too random for most players.

If you deepstrike them, they sit there for a turn and everything on the baord shoots them, which is a use in and of itself, but bullet catching is not exactly what i want my elite warriors doing. If you pod them along with an entire pod army, they are pretty good as you can use the pods for cover, but if you play even a slighty moible army, all they have to do is walk away form you and you spend the game trying to run after them as they back peddle and rapid fire you to death.

The only time my assault termies are reliable performers is when i know i am playing as assault army that is coming at me. Then i sit them in my backfield and countercharge with them, where they kick serious arse. But that only works when you know whats coming, in a tourny you dont have that luxory.

So i would say being able to charge after assaulting would not be totally unbalancing. Other amries just need ot have some kind of reactionary ability like an inquisitor with mystics for imperial players.


and as for deamons not being effective? Try playing a real deamon bomb army with bike units. the army is hitting you with 18+ deamonettes, the biker units themselves, and quite possibly bloodthirster turn two. After that, you get hit by the rest of the deamons and the deamon prince, all the while taking defiler shells and or havok tank hunting autcannons. that army is just brutal and against armies like Tau, IG, or pretty much any shooty army, its lights out.

The deamon bomb is a savage army, definitely one of the most powerful in the game. Try playing against it a few times and you will see how frustrating it can be.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Posted By Reecius on 06/20/2007 8:09 AM
and as for deamons not being effective? Try playing a real deamon bomb army with bike units. the army is hitting you with 18+ deamonettes, the biker units themselves, and quite possibly bloodthirster turn two. After that, you get hit by the rest of the deamons and the deamon prince, all the while taking defiler shells and or havok tank hunting autcannons. that army is just brutal and against armies like Tau, IG, or pretty much any shooty army, its lights out.

The deamon bomb is a savage army, definitely one of the most powerful in the game. Try playing against it a few times and you will see how frustrating it can be.



Absolutely agreed. This is what I was trying to say but in not so many words. Long story short, Demon Summoning breaks the Chaos codex, and is one of GW's biggest mistakes in a tournament environment. It's so powerful it's just plain stupid, and knocks many army lists out of the running just because demonbomb is so good at exploiting their weaknesses (Tau and IG are highly invalidated against Demon Bombing Chaos)

Demon Bomb armies have dominated my local RTT circuit, and a Word Bearer's (i.e. demon bomb) army took 1st place at Chicago last year.

I don't think that HMBC's "fix" to demon summoning goes far enough. Perhaps if you had to have an icon assigned for each demon unit, and they have to test for instability in the manner of a Greater Demon summoned into a dead host if their assigned icon is destroyed...

Anyway good points have been made and this is getting a bit off topic. I think it's been thoroughly demonstrated that having assault terminators able to assault after deep strike would not be so unbalancing (because, as tough as demon bomb is, it's not unbeatable).


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Mech Tau invalidated by a CC oriented army? Looks like September will be changing that regardless.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

When you can only summon one unit of Daemons per icon on the table, you have to be patient about summoning. If you've got everything in transports, you're not summoning 'till turn 3 or 4, so whilst the summoming is almost always going to happen (especially with sacred numbers... not that they'll exist in a few months, but anyway...), you can't do a Daemon Bomb any more - you have to actually think about positioning and deployment. You can't just turbo-boost a single unit of bikes right into the enemy lines and bring down a legion of Daemonettes on some poor Tau player.

BYE


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I wasn't sure if that's what you meant before HBMC. That is indeed a good "fix" to stop demons from being so stupid powerful.

It'll be interesting to see if GW realizes the huge number of mistakes they made with the last Chaos codex and corrects them. Of all the armies in the game Chaos is most in need of getting smacked with the one-ton nerf bat.

By the way HBMC I completely disagree with your sig. And most of the serious DA players I know don't mind the changes, and actually *gasp* see potential in the army... The different codexes have been out of whack since the Chaos reprint.


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Between the Sun and the Sky

Everyone keeps saying either that Assault Terminators are ineffective or slow... well, consider the following:

1. It is actually quite possible to move the Assault terminators behind, or even through, LOS-blocking cover. This needs to be done with alot of CC units.

2. A command squad is just as, if not more, expensive, and have worse saves. Who's fending for them?

3. You don't have to move the Terminators towards the enemy to be effective. You can use them to counter-assault or discourage assaults to more valuable parts of the army.

All in all, I don't say Assault Terminators are a bad buy for your points. Black Templars in particular, who, whenever even one dies, rin towards the enemy. However, a Land Raider is always a viable option, and many SM armies already contain one. You can assault out of those.

Catch me if you can.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Posted By Burning Star IV on 06/22/2007 5:41 PM
1. It is actually quite possible to move the Assault terminators behind, or even through, LOS-blocking cover. This needs to be done with alot of CC units.
If they can't assault when they land, then they serve no purpose. Everyone can either just hit them with a tar-pit unit and keep them out of the game, or simply move away so that their move 6"/assault 6" never gets them into assault. And you don't need to be able to see them.

As far as counter-assault goes, counter-assault is better when it's mobile. Assault Marines can do a better job.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

By the way HBMC I completely disagree with your sig. And most of the serious DA players I know don't mind the changes, and actually *gasp* see potential in the army


Well, to beat a dead horse, you really cant argue the fact that from a mathmatical point of view, DA are less effective than normal marines. You may be able to see potential in the list, but honestly, point for point, DA are not as efficient as normal marines. that is an undeniable fact. When you consider the fact that normal marines struggle with Nidzillas and Eldar, it is not a great leap in logic to see that the DA would struggle even more against those armies. Voodoo Boyz just said that in a much more entertaining way.


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I'm not disputing the entertaining nature of the sig, just the content so humorously portrayed.

I know the discussion has run its course several times now from flame war to legitimate (*roll eyes*) maths-hammer, but the codex is only outshone by C:SM because C:SMR hasn't come out yet. And these point "inefficiencies" you talk about have not (that I've seen) been persuasively argued as significant. Sure, certain weapons cost a bit more, but the requirement for full-size squads is effectively nullified by the Combat Squads rule as well as uber-cheap transports to make the remnants more effective...

That's why it bothers me. It's just not true.


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

but the codex is only outshone by C:SM because C:SMR hasn't come out yet.


Yes it is a pale immitation of C:SM, who knows what will happen when the redux occurs, but if SM's get the DA treatment, they will be less effective as well. Hopefully not, but at least normal marines will (rumor has it) still have traits which will most likely still give them the edge over the poor DA's.

And these point "inefficiencies" you talk about have not (that I've seen) been persuasively argued as significant


Well if you cant see that math proves the efficiency or inefficiency of a unit then i dont know what would. There is no other unit of measurement in a game of statistics.

Sure, certain weapons cost a bit more,


That is by deffinition, a loss of efficiency.

the requirement for full-size squads is effectively nullified by the Combat Squads rule as well as uber-cheap transports to make the remnants more effective...


Combat squads does not nullify the full squad requirment. 10 DA tac marines can have 1 special, 1 heavy. Marines can have 10 men with double the armament. That is twice as efficient.

And the Rhino went down, but the better transport (drop pod) went up. That is a loss, not a gain.

It's just not true.


But, it is true. When you pay more to do less, that is inarguably a loss of efficiency. End of story.




Not trying to be a dick, but i just dont like what they did with the DA's and feel that there is absolutely no ground to argue that they became less effective, and i fear it will happen to normal marines too.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Posted By Reecius on 07/13/2007 3:14 PM

Not trying to be a dick, but i just dont like what they did with the DA's and feel that there is absolutely no ground to argue that they became less effective, and i fear it will happen to normal marines too.


Okay--now I'm confused! :|

Are we agreeing with each other?

An increase in points is not automatically a loss in effectiveness.

Your assertions aren't wrong so much as they are misguided in my opinion. 40k is absolutely not a "game of statistics," although competitive players may use statistics to give them an abstract idea of the offensive/defensive power of a unit in order to capitalize upon a tactical situation. Arguing "from the numbers," as it were, is unfortunately very limited in its true applicability.

A slight increase in points for Drop Pods is not "a loss." They were obviously too good in C:SM, and I highly suspect that the same point costs will carry over to C:SM:Redux.

I think you misunderstand my point about Combat Squads. I know exactly how the rule functions, and I was arguing that where one may see a "decrease" in effectiveness because of the 10-man-heavy restriction, others may see an opportunity given the new, cheaper transports and the ability to run a 5-man powerfist squad up the field while the Heavy Weapon gives support, instead of the whole "sacrifice shooting to move" business.

Unfortunately most of the "criticism" of the C: DA that I've seen is so much juvenile whining (no, that doesn't include your statements here) and not so much legitimate assertions regarding significant reductions in "power" of said units (unless you want to talk about the restricted weapon options of certain units, which IMO is now balanced rather than far-too-good).


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

An increase in points is not automatically a loss in effectiveness.


But it is, when you use more resources to do something than someone who uses less resources to accomplish the same end, you are by the very dffinition of the word, less efficient and therefore, less effective.

40k is absolutely not a "game of statistics,"


Then what is it? 40K is the interplay of statisitcs and chance. Every facet of the game revolves around these two factors.

Arguing "from the numbers," as it were, is unfortunately very limited in its true applicability.


How so? There is no other way to argue the game with any kind of precision. What other factors can you intelligently argue? Skill level is too nebulous, and things like terrain placement are too random and non-standarized. The only constants are army comp and statistical probability. In fact, i would argue that the only way to argue the game with any kind of applicability at all, is through statistical analysis.

A slight increase in points for Drop Pods is not "a loss." They were obviously too good in C:SM, and I highly suspect that the same point costs will carry over to C:SM:Redux.


If you truly believe paying nearly double for something that has had no increase in effectiveness is not a loss, then we really have no common ground from which to discuss this any further.

If you feel that the new pricing is more accurate to its capabilities, then i agree, but that has nothing to do with effectiveness. It is a loss to pay more for the same, no question.

others may see an opportunity given the new...

which IMO is now balanced rather than far-too-good


I think this sums up the difference in our points of view nicely. You are making an argument from what you see as a more balanced codex which, in your opinion, gives more to the game as a whole. You also seem to see the changes in the codex as a new way to play in stead of a decided loss in power.

I look at it in terms of black and white effectiveness. I am not concerned with nebulus concepts like "tactical flexibilty" or "units that provide oppertunities for smart generals" etc. the game is too restricted in its scope and duration to factor in things like that. What you want is specialization, optimization and points efficiency in your units. There is a reason why, more often than not, "power" lists when games. They are more points effective which gives them a competetive edge. The DA's lose this edge over normal marines which makes them weaker. Two equally skilled players, one with a DA list, one with a vanilla marine list, will see the vanilla player win almost every game.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/6/tpage/3/view/Topic/postid/176682/Default.aspx

for an excellent example of why math/probability/statistics is a poor way to "argue" this game.


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Was that meant to prove something? All you did was use numbers to make a point that numbers dont prove anything in a game of numbers?

Please tell me then, what you think would be a better way to measure the game?

   
Made in sg
Executing Exarch





The only thing that thread shows is that you are bad at using math/probability/statistics to "argue" this game.

Wehrkind wrote:Sounds like a lot, but with a little practice I can do ~7-8 girls in 2-3 hours. Probably less if the cat and wife didn't want attention in that time.
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




yeah i agree don't "argue"

with peace there is war. with war there is Destruction. Learn to be ready for war 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





If you really aren't getting the hint that this is not just a "game of numbers," then there's really no point in discussing any of this with you.

Numbers are useful...to a point. You seem to be blind to this proverbial "line in the sand."


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I dont mean to sound like such a jerk and you have been getting beat up on a lot lately, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the game, but you have done NOTHING to prove that the game does not resolve around numbers. You say it doesn't but you offer no proof to validate your opinion.

If you have something to back up yourstatements, i am all ears. If not, rethink your position, because if you boil this down, it truly is a game of numbers where we use cool models to represent these bundels of statistical probabilities. We could play the game with the same rules with a piece or graph paper and some dots drawn on it.

   
Made in au
Revving Ravenwing Biker






Sydney, Australia

Interesting quandry we have fenced ourselves into,
I haven't read all of the previous posts (but reading the last couple seems to indicate that the concept of assaulting from deep strike isn't the issue anymore)

As a proviso,
Not to toot my own horn, I've studied to masters level and work in Stats (and have been told that I'm pretty good at it) so when it comes to the anaysis of wargames by statistical and anaylicat methods I like to think I sometimes go overboard (and hence some of my peers become over bored with the arguements)

Anyway,
Looking at the stance of both parties (IE can only be argued in statistical sense - the game isn't about stats, Well kinda :-)
Both parties are approahcing the same concept from a different perspective, there is need for both analysis (in isolation) to get a true grasp of the implication of rules, concepts and dynamics before fully assessing the impact that they would have in game against many different types of situations.

In our particular gaming group (HBMC, Milesteg etc) we consistantly use Stats to evaluate the game (but there is a limit to the effectiveness of stats because in game tactics determines how gear, units and dymanics are used. Using an example that Reecuis used (Dark angel Vs Space Mairnes), if this is true, what do the stat's say and what does conventional thinking say. Both have their place and both need to be used (generally in isolation otherwise you can use stats to justify almost anything :-)

In general, I will agree that a model goes up from 20 to 25 points you have lost a signifant amount of power, but there are many more dynamics that need to be looked at. Some models have been deminished and others have been bolstered (This is speaking from complete ignorance as I have never played new or old DA nor planning too run my savings down to do so...yet :-)

Oh and on to the graph paper idea,
you know there are games that do this, I know :-( (don't hate me because of my nerdish gleenings)
But they just don't have the same feel to seeing your opponents unpainted Landraider crush Tau (Props to HBMC :-) or 30 Eldar skimmers descend from the top story of a 4 level cities of death building (Milesteg!!!)

When it comes down to it though,
the easiest way to talk about warhammer is MATHS!!! (We all celebrate and throw up our calculators in triumph!)

The limits of forums and differing opinions on strategim mean that whilst other arguements and approaches are valid (and often better in the long run) the starting point and end point comes to the fact that the warhammer world is instrinsicly engrained in maths and stats.

Sorry to write so much on a non-related topic,
it just hit a nerve.

(NB: I know I didn't really answer anything, but that was half the fun!)

:-)
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

I agree with you, tactics and in game choices have a huge influence on the game. However, as you stated, when discussing the game, the system becomes far too complex when trying to bring those elements into the picture (well at least for my mind it does =)

I do not have a masters in stats (well done!) but i have a basic grasp of running the probabilities for certain outcomes in a game of 40K. Even while i am playing i am always running the numbres through my mind trying to determine what the best choice is to make in game, and sometimes i even succeed!

But I agree with you, the game in practice does not revolve around numbers to the exclusion of all other factors, but in discusion, the onlyway to discuss it really, is though maths.

   
Made in ca
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers






Well I kind of moved near Toronto, actually.

I don't know how anyone can say that basic statistics should not be used to help assign points costs.

There are other factors, yes, such as movement rates and many qualitative factors that game designers just have to have a "feel" for. Such as how much space miniatures take up on the table, how terrain works, the fact that vehicles block LoS, and I'm sure many others.

But statistics are a great measuring stick, especially for 40k, where "buckets of dice" are used on one hand, and so many things are based on a single important dice roll on the other (leadership and shooting at vehicles).

Back to the topic at hand, if GW were ever to excersise some imagination I would like to see a (gasp) new unit or two for Space Marine armies that takes advantage of their teleport technology. Something like a "demonbomb" 4+ save lightly armoured assault squad or HQ selection. Or the ability to deep strike existing squads ala the Necron Veil.

But Lightningclaw Terminators are a big step up from Lictors and those crappy CSM(2007) Demonpacks.

Dakka Articles: Eldar Tactica | In Defence of Starcannons (math) | Ork Takktika Quick Tips
taco online: WoW PvP
ur hax are nubz 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut






Brisbane/Australia

OK, I may be coming into this discussion a bit late, so I will add my 2 cents worth(Actual value lower!). As far as Deep striking Termies, they should bloody-well be able to assault on the turn they land. Why, in his right mind, would any Commander set up his 5 Ass. Termies in front of a swarm of 'Nids? And have them stand there picking thier noses? If as the fluff indicates, these suits have been maintained over 1000's of years, are they so slow? Does this mean after every battle, the Tech-priests etc. hose out every suit? Because lets face it, thats all you can do after 30 Guardsmen rapid-fire(DAKKA-DAKKA) into 5 guys(that cost as much as all of them put together!!!) with shiny Hammers, standing 4.5" away. According to GW, marines are"Rapidly deployed/surgical strike type". So why smoke a ciggie, after you teleport into a hostile zone for a turn. Maybe there isn't just tobacco in it........................

"Dakkanaut" not "Dakkaite"
Only with Minatures, does size matter...
"Only the living collect a pension"Johannes VII
"If the ork codex and 5th were developed near the same time, any possible nerf will be pre-planned."-malfred
"I'd do it but the GW Website makes my eyes hurt. "Gwar
"That would be page 7 and a half. You find it by turning your rulebook on its side and slamming your head against it..." insaniak
MeanGreenStompa - The only chatbot I ever tried talking to insisted I take a stress pill and kept referring to me as Dave, despite my protestations.
insaniak "So, by 'serious question' you actually meant something entirely different? "
Frazzled[Mod] On Rule #1- No it literally means: be polite. If we wanted less work there would be no OT section.
Chowderhead - God no. If I said Pirates Honor, I would have had to kill him whether he won or lost. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: