Switch Theme:

How to fix dreadnought auto-includes?  [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 gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.


I mostly meant to consolidate all the boxnaughts. But honestly, yeah, ALL dreads should be consolidated into "Dreadnought" and "Heavy Dreadnought", just like tanks should be consolidated into "Transport tank", "tank" and "heavy tank"

Right. And we could rename the game "Morbid Dark 40,000". A game that does that already exists.

I'm all for having the cosolidationist posters consolidated into just using one account on here - would make for an improved experience, I feel.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Thats bait
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I don't see why you'd restrict it to 1 honestly. Buff other vehicles, consolidate all dreads in one datasheet. When is the last time 3 Helbrutes were really scary?
Or GW could add a new stat to the datasheet that says how many copies of a certain model we can take (heck, just replace Leadership since its such a useless stat)


Two factors each with two approaches.

Square Pegs must go in Square Holes, or There's More Than One Way To Skin a Cat.
The Thing I Don't Like Must Be Banned, or The Things I Like Should Be Just As Good.

Look at history - how often does one of these Flavor Of The Month lists show up. The "answer" is always to ban/nerf the most "annoying" part. I kind of thing instead of chasing our tail on these things, we should change the paradigm so that:

A) Its too risky to give up a TAC approach for a Min/Max - because there are just too many ways to make a list that works.
B) a TAC list means taking some of everything, not everything that works against most things.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One datasheet for all of the box dreads would probably work, but Redemptors and all of the fw dreads too? That would be like having one datasheet for Predators, Vindicators, and Land Raiders combined. They're all too different. The weapon options alone would take up two pages.


I mostly meant to consolidate all the boxnaughts. But honestly, yeah, ALL dreads should be consolidated into "Dreadnought" and "Heavy Dreadnought", just like tanks should be consolidated into "Transport tank", "tank" and "heavy tank"

Right. And we could rename the game "Morbid Dark 40,000". A game that does that already exists.


Sure, but that would also help reduce skew and bloat tbh. But in a perfect world, i'd just have the datasheet themselves restrict how many copies you can take. Tho this whole thread is trying to fight a symptom rather than the source of the problem.

Just buff vehicles and people will play them

I'm not against units having limits on their datasheets, and still think that would have been a better way to show that "Relic" units were "rare" than a CP tax. But I think you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence: just make tanks good, and people will play them. Give them the -1 damage ability, cut points for the ones that are overpriced, done.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

I'm against making things cheaper, unless they really are expensive. Like a stompa. Scale of the average army is already pretty high for my tastes.

Vehicles like SM ones aren't really expensive pointswise. There are tanks that cost like 3-5 man squads of specialists. Isn't that already appropriate?

I prefer them being worthy of such points costs than being cheap. I'd go far beyong the -1 damage ability for example, for starters I'd just double vehicles' wounds. Most of the current wounds stats for vehicles are still related to index 8th edition when powerful weapons were D2, D3, DD3 or DD6 and little to no ways to enhance them.

Lots of stuff is already supercheap in points considering how much it costs in money.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Breton wrote:
A) Its too risky to give up a TAC approach for a Min/Max - because there are just too many ways to make a list that works.
B) a TAC list means taking some of everything, not everything that works against most things.


I think the problem with B is that it doesn't really work in a turn based system.

I.E. lets say you have a list which has 1/4th anti chaff, 1/4th anti MEQ, 1/4th anti Heavy and the final 1/4 is some small scoring units and characters.
Its a fairly balanced TAC set up, should have tools to cope with anything anyone can throw at you.

But lets say I turn up with a 100% vehicle list. And lets say I get turn 1. And unsurprisingly, I focus all my initial firepower into your anti-heavy units.
And lets say you can't hide them - because I'm too fast or long ranged or can do a turn 1 charge, whatever.
Well, I'm potentially going to kill them all (it being 9th and all). Or at least dent them rather severely.

So its your turn 1 and you've got almost no dedicated anti-heavy units. So you are now going to be in a real difficulty doing much damage to my list.
You could perhaps hide your anti-heavy units off the table - but then I get two full turns to mess with you before they show up. In the current game that's often too much.

I think this is why 40k's "good units" have usually been mathematically good versus everything. And you don't get an A counters B counters C counters A rolling meta - beyond maybe some slight tweaking of say 200-300 points which gives a nod to the lists likely to make it to top tables in a big tournament.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






Yeah, 40k is all about how much you can do on your first turn, if GW ever changed the turn sequence for a better system (cough cough.. Alternating activations... cough cough), TAC lists could do much better IMO.

Keep in mind that they still work within the current rules, just not competetively
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Im very against giving all vehicles/monsters/walkers etc the -1 damage rule, It would make the death-guard less special and its fine on space marine dreadnoughts

All in all I think giving tanks better armor saves and cost less points is the way to go. They wont need invulnerable saves, as with a 2+ save and in cover they should be getting atleast a 6+ save. Some of the heartier tanks could use a feel no pain roll of 5-6+ tho, like say a super heavy like a knight or bane blade
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






bat702 wrote:
Im very against giving all vehicles/monsters/walkers etc the -1 damage rule, It would make the death-guard less special and its fine on space marine dreadnoughts

All in all I think giving tanks better armor saves and cost less points is the way to go. They wont need invulnerable saves, as with a 2+ save and in cover they should be getting atleast a 6+ save. Some of the heartier tanks could use a feel no pain roll of 5-6+ tho, like say a super heavy like a knight or bane blade

How do you get cover on a tank?

"INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it."

FNP is just extra wounds, 6+ is 20% more 5+ is 50% more. There is no reason for the extra roll, rolling to hit and for damage is random enough.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 vict0988 wrote:
bat702 wrote:
Im very against giving all vehicles/monsters/walkers etc the -1 damage rule, It would make the death-guard less special and its fine on space marine dreadnoughts

All in all I think giving tanks better armor saves and cost less points is the way to go. They wont need invulnerable saves, as with a 2+ save and in cover they should be getting atleast a 6+ save. Some of the heartier tanks could use a feel no pain roll of 5-6+ tho, like say a super heavy like a knight or bane blade

How do you get cover on a tank?

"INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it."

FNP is just extra wounds, 6+ is 20% more 5+ is 50% more. There is no reason for the extra roll, rolling to hit and for damage is random enough.


Mathematically, you're correct. However, I do think that actually rolling for those extra wounds feels better than just having extra wounds (especially because people enjoy those events where a lone Plague Marine Champion survives attacks that should have killed him).

You can argue that those feelings aren't worth the hassle of the ability but I don't think it should be discounted outright.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I did not enjoy rolling back and forth 11 times for my Destroyers to see the Damage characteristic of the shot and whether the Plague Marine survived it. It was such a big hassle that it made me slightly cross, it's not from a highbrow sense of game design superiority. FNP should only exist within WL traits and relics and only because adding Wounds or T can have unintended consequences there.

Then there is how hard it is to gauge durability of FNP units for people without a degree in Mathhammer. How many times have I debated with people about whether FNP increases durability by 17% or whatever? I don't know it's a lot and I don't think GW knew what they were playing with in terms of how durable Plague Crawlers were on paper.

I'm not really annoyed by "roll a D6 on a 4+ deal D3 mortal wounds" in the same way, even if "D6-3 mortal wounds" would be less hassle and would be better game design IMO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/18 19:58:04


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





Tyel wrote:
Breton wrote:
A) Its too risky to give up a TAC approach for a Min/Max - because there are just too many ways to make a list that works.
B) a TAC list means taking some of everything, not everything that works against most things.


I think the problem with B is that it doesn't really work in a turn based system.

I.E. lets say you have a list which has 1/4th anti chaff, 1/4th anti MEQ, 1/4th anti Heavy and the final 1/4 is some small scoring units and characters.
Its a fairly balanced TAC set up, should have tools to cope with anything anyone can throw at you.

But lets say I turn up with a 100% vehicle list. And lets say I get turn 1.


Yes, you are correct. Only implementing half of a two part plan will not work well.
Part 1: Make the game too unforgiving on skew lists, by rewarding TAC lists.
Part 2: Make TAC mean some of each, not all of just these.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Tyel wrote:
Breton wrote:
A) Its too risky to give up a TAC approach for a Min/Max - because there are just too many ways to make a list that works.
B) a TAC list means taking some of everything, not everything that works against most things.


I think the problem with B is that it doesn't really work in a turn based system.

I.E. lets say you have a list which has 1/4th anti chaff, 1/4th anti MEQ, 1/4th anti Heavy and the final 1/4 is some small scoring units and characters.
Its a fairly balanced TAC set up, should have tools to cope with anything anyone can throw at you.

But lets say I turn up with a 100% vehicle list. And lets say I get turn 1. And unsurprisingly, I focus all my initial firepower into your anti-heavy units.
And lets say you can't hide them - because I'm too fast or long ranged or can do a turn 1 charge, whatever.
Well, I'm potentially going to kill them all (it being 9th and all). Or at least dent them rather severely.

So its your turn 1 and you've got almost no dedicated anti-heavy units. So you are now going to be in a real difficulty doing much damage to my list.


If all of those hypotheticals occur? Well congrats, you probably got me. I guess I didn't make a good enough Take All Comers list, now did I? That failure (& probable loss) is mine to own. I didn't foresee x happening.... So I'll just learn from the experience & make a better list &/or adjust my playstyle next time.
There's no point in there where because I chose to build my list a certain way & faired poorly, that the other guys stuff needs nerfing.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Man, if you face a vehicle heavy list just protect (hide?) your valuable anti tank and anti elite units. Simple.

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Blackie wrote:
Man, if you face a vehicle heavy list just protect (hide?) your valuable anti tank and anti elite units. Simple.


And that, my friends, is the reason why planes had to be nerfed

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Jidmah wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Man, if you face a vehicle heavy list just protect (hide?) your valuable anti tank and anti elite units. Simple.


And that, my friends, is the reason why planes had to be nerfed


That, and the fact that placing 4 planes correctly prevents the enemy from assaulting litterally anything on the board.

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Terminator with Assault Cannon





ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Breton wrote:
A) Its too risky to give up a TAC approach for a Min/Max - because there are just too many ways to make a list that works.
B) a TAC list means taking some of everything, not everything that works against most things.


I think the problem with B is that it doesn't really work in a turn based system.

I.E. lets say you have a list which has 1/4th anti chaff, 1/4th anti MEQ, 1/4th anti Heavy and the final 1/4 is some small scoring units and characters.
Its a fairly balanced TAC set up, should have tools to cope with anything anyone can throw at you.

But lets say I turn up with a 100% vehicle list. And lets say I get turn 1. And unsurprisingly, I focus all my initial firepower into your anti-heavy units.
And lets say you can't hide them - because I'm too fast or long ranged or can do a turn 1 charge, whatever.
Well, I'm potentially going to kill them all (it being 9th and all). Or at least dent them rather severely.

So its your turn 1 and you've got almost no dedicated anti-heavy units. So you are now going to be in a real difficulty doing much damage to my list.


If all of those hypotheticals occur? Well congrats, you probably got me. I guess I didn't make a good enough Take All Comers list, now did I? That failure (& probable loss) is mine to own. I didn't foresee x happening.... So I'll just learn from the experience & make a better list &/or adjust my playstyle next time.
There's no point in there where because I chose to build my list a certain way & faired poorly, that the other guys stuff needs nerfing.


Well that and lets say all those hypotheticals occur, but your TAC list still outscores the min/max vehicle list at a 4:1 ratio because your TAC list scores up the wazoo for being a TAC list while his All-Vehicle list only scores 1 time out of 4 for being min/max and not meeting most of the scoring requirements?

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: