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.

The thought occurred to me that the whole 'Attacks are made at I1 if assaulting through difficult terrain' was horribly flat for a Warhammer-style negative modifier (if 'bonus' = 'positive modifier', the right word for the negative escapes me at the moment). While it's kind of cool that stuff like Obliterators and Terminators are perfectly armed to ignore one of the few drawbacks to Slow and Purposeful, something that negatively affects everything would be more interesting. So here's the proposal: Instead of having all models assaulting through Difficult Terrain attack at I1 unless armed with Assault Grenades, all models assaulting through Difficult Terrain lose their bonus attacks for assaulting (not including bonus attacks from Counter-Attack, but including bonus attacks from stuff like the Blood Claw rule) unless they have Assault Grenades and pass a Leadership test prior to the assault move or counter-charge (vehicles count as Ld10 for the purposes of this rule).

The reason I exempted the bonus attacks from Counter-Attack is that you already have to pass a Leadership to get them.

So it's a horrible kludge, but what do you think?

So difficult terrain is the same as defensive grenades? Interesting...

Takes away the point of defensive grenades and is just too klunky.

Define "klunky"

I like it quite a bit. It's a lot cleaner than the current rule.

umm... nah the regular rules are better

I don't see the point in the existing rule change.

The point is that the Warhammer rules usually curve to represent interactions between different elements; WS vs WS, for example, or S v T is the best example.

A similar change was made between 4th and 5th edition when Preferred Enemy was changed from a flat 3+ to hit to a re-roll on the usual to-hit.

I'm sorry, but this is a terrible idea. It would just break the game. Tyranid's little bugs would become useless, IG would just get even better and...

I dont even want to start expanding on this.

Could you explain why little bugs would become useless? It seems to me that you don't know how to assault defended positions with Tyranids. This is a discussion forum; please expand (or at least attempt to justify your opinions and why we might want to share them).

The current system works just fine.

Honestly, I wish that nobody came with assault grenades included in their points cost. I think it should be an upgrade for any unit to buy, because it is getting slightly out-of-hand, with how many models can just ignore cover and assault through it.

Your proposal wouldn't help in the slightest.

Actually, part of my proposal deals with the issue of Assault Grenades completely negating the effects of cover/difficult terrain (again, flat) and ties the effectiveness of Assault Grenades to the leadership of the unit using them (follows the 2D6 curve). So if you feel that the proliferation of Assault Grenades is getting out of hand, my proposal helps to ameliorate that proliferation by making them either paper or scissors to cover's rock instead of just paper.

But there's an interesting point about cover that you seem to miss: in 5th edition the 4th edition problem of assaulting units in cover has been replaced with the problem of assaulting units in difficult terrain. Assault Grenades do nothing to negate the effects of difficult terrain on an assault move.

Nurglitch wrote:Actually, part of my proposal deals with the issue of Assault Grenades completely negating the effects of cover/difficult terrain (again, flat) and ties the effectiveness of Assault Grenades to the leadership of the unit using them (follows the 2D6 curve). So if you feel that the proliferation of Assault Grenades is getting out of hand, my proposal helps to ameliorate that proliferation by making them either paper or scissors to cover's rock instead of just paper.

But there's an interesting point about cover that you seem to miss: in 5th edition the 4th edition problem of assaulting units in cover has been replaced with the problem of assaulting units in difficult terrain. Assault Grenades do nothing to negate the effects of difficult terrain on an assault move.

Yet, I don't see assault armies doing too poorly for the change from 4th to 5th.

Your point being?

I gotta agree with everybody else. The rule is fine as it is.

Besides, there are quite a few units in the game based entirely on the fact that they get extra attacks on a charge.

Cover isn't made to take that away, that's another one of the reason why defensive grenades are so "rare".

Of course the rule is fine as it is. It was fine as it was in the 4th edition (when it was different), and ditto for 3rd edition. The fact is that no proposed rules posted here are ever going to be used beyond the calvin-ball games that the posters play.

What I would like to discuss is what people think about how the rule works, specifically given that Warhammer appears to work best using a curve as I described.

I mean, it's nice that you either think it's good or bad, but I'm more interested in the hows and whys. Saying "The rule is fine as it is" is worthless unless you're also going to explain why it is that the rule is fine as it is. You know, discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I don't post here because I want people to say "OMG Nurglitch, that idea is great, I'm only going to play Warhammer like that from now on." Quite frankly I'm astonished when anyone likes my suggestions. But I'm not interested in whether you think any of my proposals are good or not, I'm interested in why you think my proposals are good. Do you understand the difference between expressing a preference and explaining your motivation for holding that preference?

Whether you like it or not, please provide some explanation. And while you're at it, provide worthwhile explanation. For example, if I asked someone to explain why elephants are big, the reply that elephants are big because they are chunky is worthless because that just begs the question of why elephants are chunky. If you say that big things have a particular set of dimensions, and that elephants fit those dimensions, and how those dimensions relate to those assigned to antonyms such as "small", then you're providing useful and interesting feedback.

This is called "constructive criticism", by which a person helps the person proposing an idea (or performing an action, etc) to explore the implications and worth of their idea beyond merely subjective statements of preference.

So please, explain why cover should flatten Initiative to 1 rather than subtract a single attack from the total. If you're going to appeal to "works better" or "works great the way it is" or some other appeal to a vague notion of 'work', then cash out the value of terms like 'work', 'fine', 'clunky', and so on. You know, discussion.

zeekill wrote:I'm sorry, but this is a terrible idea. It would just break the game. Tyranid's little bugs would become useless, IG would just get even better and...

I dont even want to start expanding on this.

yeah. no more speaky.

I like this idea. the thought that it would make rippers bad? rippers are beautiful at keeping targets at bay, thats their purpose. thats all swarms purpose, not so much to do damage.

IG need to get better.

the entire idea seems to me to add flavour to the whole 40k terrain, which is pretty much ignored in assault phase.

Simply put;

1) remove automatic assault grenades, and make them purchasable upgrades for those units instead. (this doesn't mean make the unit cheaper, it means don't give them the advantage for free.)

2) reduced initiative makes sense due to having to struggle through/over/around the cover. It shows that once they get through/over/around the cover, they can attack as normal...but that delay allows most opponents to attack them first.

3) reduced attacks would greatly benefit some units, while it would squash others. For example, an Eversor assassin would be much less useful by losing d6 attacks, while a lowly Guardsmen would barely notice the difference.

All my thoughts are summed up in #2 really. I believe the current system reflects just that, that the unit is able to fight normally, albeit last, once it has moved through the cover.

I like the idea, because I find the interaction of IN and cover in the current ruleset to be wholly unsatisfying. At present charging into cover is a significant problem, crippling even, for units that base a lot of their value in striking first. Some of these units are presented with the option of taking grenades (can ‘stealers still get the option of flesh hooks?) which gives you the choice of being a point cheaper and being largely ineffective against any unit in cover, or paying the extra point and being able to avoid the effects of charging into cover entirely. The first option is an interesting risk, the latter is boring but extremely effective.

For assault units that aren’t built around striking first, such as ork boyz, the effect of cover and the option of grenades is laughable. They’re faced with the threat of being forced to attack last in a combat they were going to attack last in anyway, and given the option of grenades that would allow them to keep their IN value and still attack last.

Nuglitch’s suggestion has two advantages. It provides a consistant negative impact on all units, every assault unit suffers the negative impact of losing their bonus attack. Secondly, it requires a LD check in order for grenades to negate that disadvantage – this means grenades are effective for all assault troops, but don’t just allow an assault unit to automatically ignore cover – there is still a possible downside from charging into cover.

grayspark wrote:Besides, there are quite a few units in the game based entirely on the fact that they get extra attacks on a charge.

Basing the merit of a core rule around how it impacts the strength of units in the game is, well, how GW got the ruleset to where it is today. The core rules should stand or fall on whether they improve or diminish tactical decision making, and units should be built or adjusted from there.

Che-Vito wrote:1) remove automatic assault grenades, and make them purchasable upgrades for those units instead. (this doesn't mean make the unit cheaper, it means don't give them the advantage for free.)

The problem here is that for certain units, such as tactical marines, it just doesn’t make sense to see them in the field without grenades. You don’t genetically engineer a superhuman, equip him in a tonne of power armour, and then decide to save a few bucks by skimping on a frag grenade. But in game tactical marines don’t often charge and so the lower possible cost for grenades would still be too much. It’s more sensible to just assume units that would always have grenades should just be given grenades.

2) reduced initiative makes sense due to having to struggle through/over/around the cover. It shows that once they get through/over/around the cover, they can attack as normal...but that delay allows most opponents to attack them first.

Losing the momentum of the charge and so losing the benefit of charging (+1 A) also makes sense.

3) reduced attacks would greatly benefit some units, while it would squash others. For example, an Eversor assassin would be much less useful by losing d6 attacks, while a lowly Guardsmen would barely notice the difference.

Yeah, like I said to grayspark above, you don’t build the core rules around trying to balance units as they’re already written. You build the core rules for the best tactical environment, and then build or adjust individual units from there.

Hi folks.
There seems to be a difference of opinion based on wether the current strategic focus of the rules is prefered.
When what you put in your army list determined alot of the interaction in the game.(Buy grenades x happens.Dont buy grenades Y happens.)

And the proposed tactical focus where in game decisions have more effect.(Players assesing the risk assaulting through cover hopeing for a good LD roll to let grenades work.)

There is not realy a right or wrong in this case.Just your own prefered option.IMO.


TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

On the contrary, there is a 'right or wrong' in game design. Right is extending the game's design principles like GW did in the transition from 4th to 5th edition, while wrong is coming up with a new and different rule (sometimes by the same name as another, existing rule) every time you want to implement a rule.

Hi Nurglitch.
'Right and wrong' in game design is dependant on the design brief.

'Make a tacticaly rich straight forward simulation suitable for anyone over 10 years old to play.'
Will be have a completley different set of 'right decisions' to..
'Maximise the associated minature sales by making the latest and most expencive products appear to be the best in the game.'
As the first requires an inclusivley written coherant and well defined set of rules.
The second only requires 'inspiring' rules that make the products 'sound cooler than anything done before.'

And I did specify 'IN THIS CASE.'

As both the existing method , and your revised method are NOT the most elegant or efficient way of handeling the subject matter.(Do you agree?)
The original method follows the strategic focus on the current development , re-enforcing what you (BUY and then) bring to the table.
Where as your revised method allows more tactical chioce for the player.

I often wondered,if you were writing a new set of rules for 40k starting from scratch,would you personaly keep anything from the existing 40k rules?
(You dont have to answer if you dont want to ...I am just being noesy. )

ATB
Lanrak.

Lanrak:

If we had access to the design brief, you might have something. But we don't have access to the design brief. As after-market users we're more like paleontologists trying to figure out the 'purposes' of an extinct animals physiognomy.

But if we take your approach, then I suggest that a more tactical approach is not exclusive with selling more models. Indeed, if you look at the Universal Special Rules from 4th edition you're notice that they all have similar changes. Hit and Run, for example, now requires an Initiative roll for its successful use where previously it did not. I already gave the example of Preferred Enemy in my original post.

Indeed, I think that many of the strategic improvements has lead to something of a renaissance in 40k, and represent a gradual progression towards a very different (and better) game over the next few editions.

Indeed, I think that many of the strategic improvements has lead to something of a renaissance in 40k, and represent a gradual progression towards a very different (and better) game over the next few editions.

It is rather interesting how they always seem to put in things each version that are vast improvements.

Of course sometimes they're rather obvious stuff like running, and ramming, but they still are able to make them so important to gameplay.

Hi Nurglitch.
We do not know for definate what GW design brief is.
However , the more strategic focus of WHFB and 40k, (special units with special rules for specific tasks.)
And the rules released with the latest minatures.
Sort of infers marketing the latest minature realeses might have more prominence in the design brief , than over all game play and game ballance issues.

(Especialy as the Company Chairman said ''... we are in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to kiddies...'And Jervis said '...the games are just the icing on the cake...'and'...the rules are not that important...' .)

I did not say tactical or strategic approach sells more models?( I did not mean to infer this if I did.)
My point is games that focus on game play untill the game is 'finalised'.Then introduce the asthetics elements over the top of the solid and apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.
Tend to achive far more in a shorter time of development,than those games who let asthetic elements drive the game development into complicated abstractions.

I agree that WHFB and 40k have been making very slow gradual progress over the years.

The game developers at GW could have improved the games far faster than they do.BUT they have to come up with a new edition every 5 to 6 years.And each edition has to be 'better' than the last.

If WHFB introduced the ideas of 8th ed for 5th ed , what 'improvments' could the devs make for 6th and 7th and 8th ed?

And have you noticed how they always leave 'something so obviously flawed ' in there so they get a 'free' reason to update to the next ed of the rules.

The choice is GW core games for EXPENCIVE baby steps towards a slightly better game in every 5 years or so.
OR chose another rule set that is already where you want it to be NOW, at a fraction of the cost.

Is this why GW are loosing customers to other game systems that are more game play focused?

Anyhow, I stand by my statment that your alternative is JUST as valid as the one in the book.
Its just as much of a 'Kludge'.(But in an over complicated and abstract rule set like 40k what else can you get?)

However, it switches from the standard strategic focus of 40k to offer slightly more tactical choice.And so is just down to personal preference.

In short I belive your ideas are well though out and a valuable addition to 40k gamers who wish to use them.
BUT the real problem to rapid improvment of ther game ,is the overcomplicated abstracted mess the 40k rules have become over the last 12 years.

ATB
Lanrak.