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.

I'm a bit concerned about flyers on low or very low flight stands. When I built my thunderhawk I really took notice of the little plastic extender bit that was on its sprue. Without it, the hawk looks comically low to the ground, so immediately sorta "got it" like "oh right, this thing is huge, I get why they added this". Just from an aesthetic/display perspective it made sense to me. Now, the concern is, flyers with hover I would argue tend to benefit from being somewhat low in the event the player switches one or more to hover mode, the problem is that leaves an incentives to model them on the lowest possible flight stands so as not to become bullet magnets and be seen by more enemy detachment than might be ideal, the pop attack possible in hover mode also makes it less ideal to be too high up. So my current plant is to have a landed and flying height for my flyers with hover mode to indicate in which mode they currently are. Seeing as the game requires you pull them off the board every round anyway unless in hover mode, as fiddly as it may sound to mess with bases/base height, flyers get moved on and off the sideboard all game so it's not like it adds much time. That alternative are counters that indicate hover mode, but more than anything it's an aesthetic consideration. Game pics, especially at eye/table level look a bit absurd if the majority of flyers look like their wings are about to clip into a tree or slice a structure in half. In the case of my flyers, in photos if fhey're low it will be directly because they're in hover mode, and more than likely dropping froops off.

Tried the Basilisks in yesterday's battle. As an artillery support detachment (NO company with the to-hit-bonus).

Basically an anti-tank artillery unit. 1 shot hitting on 5s is not efficient against infantry, but they damaged knights and killed some tanks.

But, after my Legate run forward my Basilisk were out of command, so no First Fire can be issued to them. Decided to advance and use them as tanks, and well, they are a very very good alternative to LR Vanquishers: slightly lighter and cheaper but same role. I think the best use (outside of company-formation) is like a medium tank... or maybe in the Pioneer Co, togeher with quad launchers and the observer Marauder.

SU-152 wrote:
Tried the Basilisks in yesterday's battle. As an artillery support detachment (NO company with the to-hit-bonus).

Basically an anti-tank artillery unit. 1 shot hitting on 5s is not efficient against infantry, but they damaged knights and killed some tanks.

But, after my Legate run forward my Basilisk were out of command, so no First Fire can be issued to them. Decided to advance and use them as tanks, and well, they are a very very good alternative to LR Vanquishers: slightly lighter and cheaper but same role. I think the best use (outside of company-formation) is like a medium tank... or maybe in the Pioneer Co, togeher with quad launchers and the observer Marauder.

I'm excited to get some, the rapier quad guns I keep forgetting are light and can only target infantry, excited to get some artillery that at least can target anything, even if tanks are the better target.

3000 points is what GW would like to sell us… NOT the point value the game plays well at. 1,500-2,000 runs very well. Sorry about those Warlord/Warmaster Titans though. They probably should have set a strategic asset limit to 50%, but noted less sales due to existing titan ownership from Titanicus.

3k is what GW want to sell you to start with.

you could claim they have balanced the game at that level, if there was any evidence they had tried to balance it in any way shape or form

have found locally picking a lower level, say 2k and then adding titans etc works well, allows the toys without also allowing their value in infantry as an alternative

leopard wrote:
3k is what GW want to sell you to start with.

you could claim they have balanced the game at that level, if there was any evidence they had tried to balance it in any way shape or form

have found locally picking a lower level, say 2k and then adding titans etc works well, allows the toys without also allowing their value in infantry as an alternative

Well with the new book, 3k could sadly be 100 activations, 25 formation of 4 detachments of 2 land speeders. Maybe there should be some kind of limit on formations.

But wait, lets get dumb with solar aux too, why not a 29 stormhammer with quad las list? 5x 530pt formations of 5, a 6th 426pt formation of 4, 29 stormhammers with las sponsons.

145 lascannons a turn, 116 of which are 360 arc. 58 co-ax multilaser shots, followed by 58 shots from the main turrets, and another 58 from the hull double barrels, 319 shots a turn. This is a very sane game that certainly needs no limits on formations



So far thoughts are index formation limit to point level, and or, mandate fomations need to have not just compulsory slots filled out but choice slot if any and at least one optional slot.

I seem to be writing the same thing in different threads at the moment but yes will agree with the above.

I think again (and we have seen this with other GW games - Necromunda most notably) this has been designed as a 'game for us, not for them' in the setting of 3k points as a standard game. My evening game arrangement if at home or the club is that you get home from work, make dinner and then set a game for about 7ish. It takes you 30 mins to set up terrain and have a chat, a bit longer to get your miniatures out and start playing. It's now at least 7.30. Ideally I need to be able to finish in 2.5 hours and my experience of this game is anything above 1.5k or certainly 2k points is not achievable in that timeframe. If you have work the next day you can't go playing on until all hours - perhaps if I worked in a games design studio and do this as part of my life anyway I could, and there-in I think lies the problem - you're immediately cutting down the demographic of who this game appeals to (and a problem I think in that GW - with it's aim at nostalgia and pricing level is undoubtedly going for my age group of working people).

YMMV of course - I guess weekend play would give enough time, but most people I play with can't sacrifice weekend days (other family commitments etc) and rely on the week-day club night for their gaming.

yes it could be, but why worry about a problem until it actually occurs?

it could be 100 activations, but why would it be? you want more than your opponent, but only by two or three, more than thats a bit of a waste as you now have a lot of fragile units.

yes a PitA as "no split fire" is a thing however such units individually won't manage much and not many players will be able to use such effectively - those who are will be dangerous anyway.

for all the concern over what "could" happen I have yet to see formation spam on an actual table. 2k games are typically 3-4 formations as minimal size units vanish pretty fast without accomplishing much. it may change with the newer small & cheap stuff but I'm not expecting it to. SA stuff especially given small units make killing the one with the commander remarkably simple.

same with identification of who is from what formation, its just not yet been an issue in any game I've played, yes it could be, but it hasn't been.

nothing wrong with trying to identify potential issues, and potential solutions, but until its an actual problem I'm not overly worrying about it.

even with 3d printing, a force of 200 land speeders seems a bit "edge case". its got potential I'll grant you as not many forces would be able to deal with 100 target units, even if whatever they fire at dies - I've done this sort of list myself with WW2 infantry spam and it can be very effective...

if you are happy to built and paint it

2nd handled this in a nice way, the company cards being both fixed in terms of what you could have and in that the "support" stuff seldom had a company card preventing a force entirely of it

personally my response to someone trying an all land speeder list is likely a similar sort to skew list designed to take it down followed by a suggestion to agree to use more varied lists in future


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
I seem to be writing the same thing in different threads at the moment but yes will agree with the above.

I think again (and we have seen this with other GW games - Necromunda most notably) this has been designed as a 'game for us, not for them' in the setting of 3k points as a standard game. My evening game arrangement if at home or the club is that you get home from work, make dinner and then set a game for about 7ish. It takes you 30 mins to set up terrain and have a chat, a bit longer to get your miniatures out and start playing. It's now at least 7.30. Ideally I need to be able to finish in 2.5 hours and my experience of this game is anything above 1.5k or certainly 2k points is not achievable in that timeframe. If you have work the next day you can't go playing on until all hours - perhaps if I worked in a games design studio and do this as part of my life anyway I could, and there-in I think lies the problem - you're immediately cutting down the demographic of who this game appeals to (and a problem I think in that GW - with it's aim at nostalgia and pricing level is undoubtedly going for my age group of working people).

YMMV of course - I guess weekend play would give enough time, but most people I play with can't sacrifice weekend days (other family commitments etc) and rely on the week-day club night for their gaming.

3k is fine, if you all want and pick the big toys, if you want infantry mostly drop it to 1k5 or so and agree what sort of game you both want to fit around available time. you can play larger games quickly, but it requires the mentality to play it quickly, and as has been noted locally you can get the same sort of gaming enjoyment from smaller games - larger ones fall over because of how the human brain works.

there is a limit to how many "things" most can keep track of, different things especially. its typically 5-9 "things" for most people, with 7 being practical generally. much more than that and you start grouping stuff to keep track of it. you could have 7 big groups or 7 smaller ones, the challenge is similar.

I do get the visual appeal of a 3k game, but say both go tank heavy, halve the number of tanks on both sides and the game is likely to be remarkably similar both in play and outcome - all you are actually doing is making the law of averages slightly less important and allowing for slightly more swingy results. but the end effect is likely the same.

its also likely to get more people into the game, apparently this is why Battlefront shifted the focus of flames towards armour, the sight of large infantry forces was apparently putting peoplf off starting, where as a smaller tank force.. well can paint that in a week or two and be gaming

leopard wrote:
yes it could be, but why worry about a problem until it actually occurs?

it could be 100 activations, but why would it be?

I think you're missing my point, it's not the concern that all speeders or all super heavies lists will somehow become the norm, it's that the games economy is completely disconnected from activations now and there are zero guard rails or limit on formations. That's a problem that isn't going to go away, and will only get worse seening as we're heading towards a third book and don't even have all the unit types.

I think you're confusing my concern with poor intent, people are falling ass backwards into games that never get past turn 2-3 with the best of intent, with wildly different levels of activation. THIS is the problem. I saw today someone post a batrep, they're 8 games in and haven't had a single game make it past turn 4. That is the problem.

I ran my Vanquishers of doom list, game called top of turn three as my marine opponent had one tank left, running for its life.

I only had two more activations than him when the game started, slightly more at the end

game after I thought, ok, done that, tone it down, brought a marine focussed list, nothing spammed, again only a few more activations

this got to the end of the first turn

the issue was never spamming models or activations, the issue is the game is written to be deadly, most units seem to be bordering on ~25% chance of each shot taking a wound off the enemy, and with most models firing at least two such shots this is where the problem is (this is before you get "accurate" handed out like candy)

for what its worth one of my flames armies is mid war period Panzers, these things have "in name only" armour, run your legions units as if you have an army of glass hammers and the game changes a bit

move to limit what can fire back to be really what you are firing at, deny the enemy shots and its all over pretty fast

its why while I have a company of Sicaran they stay in the box, the short range means they are dead before they fire to long range snipers

its so not activations that are the problem, its the "always hits on a 6" removing the ability to keep units safe coupled with a lack of a to hit modifier for cover

you need decent sized units, not MSU, specifically so you can get your shooting down while an MSU enemy is still plinking away

note in both of the above games the marine units were also decent sized, they just died before they got to fire, "first fire" is a very effective order


Automatically Appended Next Post:
note: proposed solution

go back to how second edition built forces

1. pick a company, these are limited in what runs at company strength

2. add up to five support units from the same faction

3. add up to a single "special" unit

means stuff like vanquishers can easily be "support" units

To be honest the way the game is currently written its fun, but gods its not a serious wargame

leopard wrote:


the issue was never spamming models or activations, the issue is the game is written to be deadly

It's both, the game is deadly and in a massive hurry to the grave, on account of undercoated firepower, 6's always hitting and disconnection entirely from activation economy. What used to be at least a majority of detachments being 2 or 4 models to start in armoured formation is now 1-3 with both new malc variants. The game gives point incentive in one book and not the other, so you can say whatever about msu but the great slaughter is saying something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
To be honest the way the game is currently written its fun, but gods its not a serious wargame

That's more or less what I'm saying, I don't think the sheer amount of freedom in army construction will necessarily lead to any total extremes of skew, it's just it doesn't seem like a game that anyone took seriously if this is the end result. It could be made into a wargame but right now all the formations feel like window dressing. Even an FOC would be better than what we have currently,


The army builder app got updated with the new stuff, which is great. It did give me a bit of a sinking feeling however, because again neither side has all the unit types, my fear for the next book sorta goes to either extreme. Either it will feel too light on new content in terms of units and formations, but I almost would prefer light on the content but everything feels like a true addition/expansion to armies, because my fear is more stuff like bikes, and worse, looking at the already extensive drop down for formations, my bigger fear isn't units that might look cool but don't justify themselves, its eve more formations that seem less and less well conceived. They can't even keep a schema like compulsory, optional, choice. That was my issue with the super heavy formation, not that one could run a whole army of super heavies, but just how lazily it was put together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:


go back to how second edition built forces

1. pick a company, these are limited in what runs at company strength

2. add up to five support units from the same faction

3. add up to a single "special" unit

means stuff like vanquishers can easily be "support" units

Is it similar to a forge org chart?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
I seem to be writing the same thing in different threads at the moment but yes will agree with the above.

I think again (and we have seen this with other GW games - Necromunda most notably) this has been designed as a 'game for us, not for them' in the setting of 3k points as a standard game. My evening game arrangement if at home or the club is that you get home from work, make dinner and then set a game for about 7ish. It takes you 30 mins to set up terrain and have a chat, a bit longer to get your miniatures out and start playing. It's now at least 7.30. Ideally I need to be able to finish in 2.5 hours and my experience of this game is anything above 1.5k or certainly 2k points is not achievable in that timeframe. If you have work the next day you can't go playing on until all hours - perhaps if I worked in a games design studio and do this as part of my life anyway I could, and there-in I think lies the problem - you're immediately cutting down the demographic of who this game appeals to (and a problem I think in that GW - with it's aim at nostalgia and pricing level is undoubtedly going for my age group of working people).

YMMV of course - I guess weekend play would give enough time, but most people I play with can't sacrifice weekend days (other family commitments etc) and rely on the week-day club night for their gaming.

1000-1500 points has felt the best so far for time. I just think it's not even doing itself much service as a mass battle game even when played on a weekend with ample time.

not the same as a force org really, not that flexible. companies were monolithic choices, zero options in what they contained

these days you could have options, like 1 in three Leman Russ able to be a Vanquisher, or allow them only as a support choice.

titans were all "special" choices

it was simple to make a list, annoying however in that the book didn't include the cards contents.

1st edition was more "this is what a unit costs, take what you want", but later was given force charts, which were different for each faction which was good

do agree GW have undercosted firepower, and overcosted robustness. e.g. you seem to pay a fair bit to get a second wound when in practice because "no split fire" its generally pointless

e.g. a lone Baneblade is likely taking half a dozen shots at a time, at which point one wound or two wounds is practically the same, the things dead

my point with MSU is not really related to how the books are written. if we both have 12 tanks, yours are in six units of two, mine two units of six, you will certainly have an edge in movement, no doubt about it, but I will have fired all 12 before you have fired 6.

of course my six shots at a time can only ever kill two of yours, but likely will do just that. yours firing in pairs maybe kills one of mine at a time, maybe two

in terms of shooting its more marginal, depends on the number of shots but in general I'm getting more shots down before you



Automatically Appended Next Post:
also have noted since release the number of games of this being played locally has dropped right off

had IIRC six players, one dropped due to not being able to get the stuff I know of, I think two others the same. one won't play me again after the two games we had, and the other works evenings a fair bit

the game isn't dead, its on life support and pining for the fjords

personally I've largely gone back to Battletech Alpha Strike for stompy things shooting each other while I wait for this mess to sort itself out

I enjoy playing it, but gods its neither balanced nor serious, and I suspect it wasn't play tested as written, but tested how the rules writers thought they had written it

leopard wrote:
not the same as a force org really, not that flexible. companies were monolithic choices, zero options in what they contained

these days you could have options, like 1 in three Leman Russ able to be a Vanquisher, or allow them only as a support choice.

titans were all "special" choices

it was simple to make a list, annoying however in that the book didn't include the cards contents.

1st edition was more "this is what a unit costs, take what you want", but later was given force charts, which were different for each faction which was good

Well at this point I'd settle for a box in the matched play section that index formation limit to point level.

found a list, this was just for space marines in 2nd edition, in the base box

- Tactical company (IIRC 18 stands and nine Rhino)
- Land Raider Company (10 of them)

then you had "special cards"
- medic & rhino
- chaplain & rhino
- warlord titan (not reall a marine unit but this was how you brought them)

then you had "support cards"
- Tactical Detachment
- Assault Detachment
- Devastator Detachment
- Veteran Detachment
- Terminator Detachment
- Land Raider Squadron
- Bike Squad
- Land Speeder Squadron
- Vindicator Squadron
- Whirlwind Squadron

so no devastator companies, assault companies etc - I think they came in the expansion)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
not the same as a force org really, not that flexible. companies were monolithic choices, zero options in what they contained

these days you could have options, like 1 in three Leman Russ able to be a Vanquisher, or allow them only as a support choice.

titans were all "special" choices

it was simple to make a list, annoying however in that the book didn't include the cards contents.

1st edition was more "this is what a unit costs, take what you want", but later was given force charts, which were different for each faction which was good

Well at this point I'd settle for a box in the matched play section that index formation limit to point level.

don't think that would help to be brutally honest, its not really limiting anything, in 2k I've never run or wanted to run more than four formations (1x marine armour, 1x marine infantry & 2x auxilia infantry), and I could have combined the Auxilia pair, needed the extra commander though

opponent tends to have three at most because they want more expensive toys like thunderhawks, or "craters" as I call them




Automatically Appended Next Post:
just checked, 2nd allowed a marine special choice of an Inquisitor, and thus becomes, by definition, the best version

leopard wrote:


do agree GW have undercosted firepower, and overcosted robustness. e.g. you seem to pay a fair bit to get a second wound when in practice because "no split fire" its generally pointless

e.g. a lone Baneblade is likely taking half a dozen shots at a time, at which point one wound or two wounds is practically the same, the things dead

Ya that's a good way to put it, undercosted firepower and overcosted robustness. That's been a shared sentiment among many, also the problem of not costing the weapons, you have tough units with big costs you sort of can't afford to take the wrong loadout on, especially over and over.

leopard wrote:

my point with MSU is not really related to how the books are written. if we both have 12 tanks, yours are in six units of two, mine two units of six, you will certainly have an edge in movement, no doubt about it, but I will have fired all 12 before you have fired 6.

of course my six shots at a time can only ever kill two of yours, but likely will do just that. yours firing in pairs maybe kills one of mine at a time, maybe two

in terms of shooting its more marginal, depends on the number of shots but in general I'm getting more shots down before you

The problem is with you killing 2 on average I don't have to care about morale, you still do, losing 3 could mean 3 other 3 roll off the board. And the reality now is, you could have 2 units of 6, I could have 12 units of 1 now on account of the new malcador detachments both being 1-3. So now we have a situation where you have 2 activations and I have 12, morale completely doesn't matter and the lack of split fire makes the firepower of the 6 tank detachment irrelevant. I don't mean that as a perfect "gotcha" or anything, very loose analogy/example built off yours, more just to point out where your example has changed in terms of what's possible with the new units/book.

Ties into the other confusing mixed message of the new book where it deviates from saving points by expanding existing detachments vs starting new ones and basically gives no point savings for any new detachment. Its confusing in terms of, do you now want more msu? The other thing I mean when I say activation economy isn't just the amount of disparity, it's like what does an activation even mean/represent if could be one model or 16, 1 shot or like 50. It's so all over the place, like 1 plane/bomber vs 4.

oh for sure with single unit detachments you will have issues, though those Malcadors are currently paying a hefty baneblade tax to run as singles

there should certainly be a cost just for being a detachment, GW have been out of this sort of activation game for far too long and quite obviously don't have a grip on it

the way Battletech handles such is clever - basically whoever has more "things" is forced to group them and activate together so both sides have the same number of activations and whoever wins initiative always has an advantage

and of course its possible for both sides to MSU and basically ignore morale, to various degrees, marines for example can do reasonably well with single and triple model tank units, Auxilia with quads, and a few singles.

both likely then lose to infantry or speeder spam which does it even better

think a part of the problem is GW not really having a clue what a given unit is for, e.g. the Basilisk they seem to think is some sort of artillery when its actually a slightly better armoured Marder tank killer with little reason to use it in any other way

leopard wrote:


don't think that would help to be brutally honest, its not really limiting anything, in 2k I've never run or wanted to run more than four formations (1x marine armour, 1x marine infantry & 2x auxilia infantry), and I could have combined the Auxilia pair, needed the extra commander though

opponent tends to have three at most because they want more expensive toys like thunderhawks, or "craters" as I call them

It'd help ease my mind, would also do a lot of show that limits are still something that exist in the game. On the specific side under 2k, I think 3-4 formations does a lot to curb potential absurdity. Pioneer company has very little overhead, 122-172, all of that compulsory can infiltrate. This can be done currently, a lot. I get that the theory hammering of worst case scenarios can seem pedantic, but where I am, any problem model is a copy and paste away from having entire plates of them. I'm also trying to avoid myself fielding too much of a good unit or exclusively strong units, which I sadly can do. But going back to specific example of pioneer, infiltrating ogryns that don't care about command, giant units of tercio and 12 ogryns, also infiltrating, that don't care about command because hq is with them. Then you've got air support, and 2 vanguard. And the choice slot again is all pretty good.

The sky hunter phalanx, the marine land speeder/jetbike formation, again has a really low buy in of 120pts, 4 detachments, 8 models. Even at a 1k game, knowing you can only do say 2-4 formations max does change things, because you can get about 8 pioneer or sky hunter phalanx's even at 1k, me saying that shouldn't be isn't to be conflated with a fear that that will ever occur, but my concern is more just having one's cake and eating it too, getting too easily purchased infiltrate, getting access to inexpesnive fast and flexible detachments that can do pop up attacks or just as easily be burner activations that make up a very small percentage of one's army.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
oh for sure with single unit detachments you will have issues, though those Malcadors are currently paying a hefty baneblade tax to run as singles

there should certainly be a cost just for being a detachment, GW have been out of this sort of activation game for far too long and quite obviously don't have a grip on it

the way Battletech handles such is clever - basically whoever has more "things" is forced to group them and activate together so both sides have the same number of activations and whoever wins initiative always has an advantage

and of course its possible for both sides to MSU and basically ignore morale, to various degrees, marines for example can do reasonably well with single and triple model tank units, Auxilia with quads, and a few singles.

both likely then lose to infantry or speeder spam which does it even better

think a part of the problem is GW not really having a clue what a given unit is for, e.g. the Basilisk they seem to think is some sort of artillery when its actually a slightly better armoured Marder tank killer with little reason to use it in any other way

I'd agree the baneblade is a tax, but sadly that's the other change, you can take a stormhammer now, and those things seem just better IMO, 104pts for 5 lasannon shots, 4 of which are 360. In addition to very healthy ranges on both turrets.


Formations just need some kind of limit 4 at 2k sounds fine. It immedately takes stuff from no brainer to careful consideration.

Oh man, the basilisk, I can't wait to get my hands on some and the same time, really wish they had limited the nonsense, esp the formation's special rule.

can't see firing basilisks indirectly here, nice to have the option I guess for nailing that final fleeing enemy tank maybe, they are so slated as tank hunting snipers, especially since they lack the baneblade tax.

and the sotrmhammer maybe "better" its still too many points for too few wounds that can be killed from too far away before it every gets a shot

and yes that pioneer company is good, especially deploying forwards, not a lot thats actually robust though, works the same for both sides

someone decided they wanted stuff to die, and I think having given everything bettwe saves would have made the game even worse for no benefit

whats needed, apart from a sensible points system:

1. no "6 is a hit regardless!"
2. allow for a 7, 8 or 9 to hit with a six then a 4, 5 or 6, as the game used to be
3. provide a to hit modifier for cover for all models
4. allow infantry units that do not move to be considered "in cover" if they also do not fire
5. -1 to hit above say 12"
6. rethink detachments so vehicles are generally 3-10, with lower morale units being larger, and only superheavy stuff acting individually, and put some sort of force structure in whereby the companies taken are controlled

in short... re-write the game, and test it

If you don't get -1 to hit from cover too little terrain.

Here t1 rarely much casualties as people out of los. And even then -1 to fairly many units as there's plenty of terrain.

leopard wrote:
can't see firing basilisks indirectly here, nice to have the option I guess for nailing that final fleeing enemy tank maybe, they are so slated as tank hunting snipers, especially since they lack the baneblade tax.

and the sotrmhammer maybe "better" its still too many points for too few wounds that can be killed from too far away before it every gets a shot

and yes that pioneer company is good, especially deploying forwards, not a lot thats actually robust though, works the same for both sides

someone decided they wanted stuff to die, and I think having given everything bettwe saves would have made the game even worse for no benefit

whats needed, apart from a sensible points system:

1. no "6 is a hit regardless!"
2. allow for a 7, 8 or 9 to hit with a six then a 4, 5 or 6, as the game used to be
3. provide a to hit modifier for cover for all models
4. allow infantry units that do not move to be considered "in cover" if they also do not fire
5. -1 to hit above say 12"
6. rethink detachments so vehicles are generally 3-10, with lower morale units being larger, and only superheavy stuff acting individually, and put some sort of force structure in whereby the companies taken are controlled

in short... re-write the game, and test it

1. I could see if plane detachments had fewer than max 4, but I mostly agree always hitting on 6's needs adressing for a few reasons,

2. I'm not sure if I'd go there, unless perhaps contained to a few special cases.

3. I dissagree here, only in that I see the wisdom in only factoring in 25/50% cover for knights and titans, the other units just trend too short/small. I sorta "get" the having to touch obstacles requirement, it just cuts down a lot of time/arguing over % cover of like an infantry base that itself is only like 10-12mm tall.

4. I'd be fine if infantry could self pin/go to ground to gain like -1/6+ but lose order.

5. Maybe like a possibility of that first or last turn for a night mode kinda thing. Or like -1 unless the unit being targetted has already fired.

6. Yeah I think a re-jiggering of detachment sizes could help along the lines you describe. It would help too if super heavies were 3 wounds.


Little changes can net big results though, like most people I mentione changing overwatch to first fire/taking it away from advance order for everything without point defense. That's a tiny change that can net big results,

There's other little changes too, like making it so weapons with borrowing can't target flyers. Part of the work left undone is not fully rounding out the detail/crunchyness.


Fixing the flyers/6's thing could be also a permissions/wargear thing. Like letting units get AA rounds for 1pt. Could be same weapon profile, its just what gives the unit the ability to target flyers to begin with, so it'd be way of keeping the 6's but just gating the permission to target.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
If you don't get -1 to hit from cover too little terrain.

Here t1 rarely much casualties as people out of los. And even then -1 to fairly many units as there's plenty of terrain.

Well it depends how much area terrain you have or how many pieces of terrain are being played as obstacles.

 Crablezworth wrote:

3. I dissagree here, only in that I see the wisdom in only factoring in 25/50% cover for knights and titans, the other units just trend too short/small. I sorta "get" the having to touch obstacles requirement, it just cuts down a lot of time/arguing over % cover of like an infantry base that itself is only like 10-12mm tall.

Do like Epic Armageddon. There is no factoring. Target has any % obscured= -1 to hit. It does not matter if it is 1% or 99%.

The other changes, I suggested those months ago when I started playing. But so far the only one I am keeping in order to tone down lethality is "If a model has more than one save, it can use all of them".

tneva82 wrote:
If you don't get -1 to hit from cover too little terrain.

Here t1 rarely much casualties as people out of los. And even then -1 to fairly many units as there's plenty of terrain.

you only get -1 to hit if you are a knight or titan, nothing else gets any penalty for even being only partly visible other than you can only hit models you can see

cover is "I can see you clearly" or "I cannot see you at all"

I'd stick in cover for part obscured.

and I'd keep it easy, firing player nominates the target model, if that can be seen clearly its given the units position away - i.e. only need to see one model clearly.

and you get cover by being both obscured by something and within say 2" of that thing, so you can hug a building or obstacle for cover, but if you are further away its ignored. works fine in many other games.

means needing to accept a 6 isn't an auto hit otherwise may as well not bother

game could do with a "height" concept, kept nice and simple. anything smaller than a superheavy is "size 1", super heavy size 2, knights size 3 & 4, titans size 5 and up. terrain gets a size (woods 2, jungles 3, buildings variable),

terrain height > you height, LoS blocked
terrain height = your height, cover -1 to hit
terrain height < your height, clear shot

you now have obstacles of size 1 providing cover to infantry etc, buildings start at size 2, only size one stuff is barricades etc

you very rapidly get into either "lets play something else?" or "lets re-write this game"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

3. I dissagree here, only in that I see the wisdom in only factoring in 25/50% cover for knights and titans, the other units just trend too short/small. I sorta "get" the having to touch obstacles requirement, it just cuts down a lot of time/arguing over % cover of like an infantry base that itself is only like 10-12mm tall.

Do like Epic Armageddon. There is no factoring. Target has any % obscured= -1 to hit. It does not matter if it is 1% or 99%.

The other changes, I suggested those months ago when I started playing. But so far the only one I am keeping in order to tone down lethality is "If a model has more than one save, it can use all of them".

I like the idea of two saves, one to avoid being hit, cover, jink etc, and one to avoid being hurt, armour, invulnerable

order they are taken in doesn't matter as the game lacks "pinned" as a concept

SU-152 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

3. I dissagree here, only in that I see the wisdom in only factoring in 25/50% cover for knights and titans, the other units just trend too short/small. I sorta "get" the having to touch obstacles requirement, it just cuts down a lot of time/arguing over % cover of like an infantry base that itself is only like 10-12mm tall.

Do like Epic Armageddon. There is no factoring. Target has any % obscured= -1 to hit. It does not matter if it is 1% or 99%.

The other changes, I suggested those months ago when I started playing. But so far the only one I am keeping in order to tone down lethality is "If a model has more than one save, it can use all of them".

I think that's too generous as there's not much suppression. I would rather make are terrain and obstacles render better cover than that personally. As artillery is about to get very nasty with basilisks I'd be fine with beefing up area terrain. I'd be ok with allowing -1 for infantry if they "go to ground" like drop their order,

infantry dropping an order for going to ground works, my thinking was "no movement, not firing" gets the benefit, dropping the order is virtually the same effect. or even have a "go to ground" specific order, infantry can use anywhere, vehicles (not superheavies) can use within concealing area terrain

leopard wrote:
infantry dropping an order for going to ground works, my thinking was "no movement, not firing" gets the benefit, dropping the order is virtually the same effect. or even have a "go to ground" specific order, infantry can use anywhere, vehicles (not superheavies) can use within concealing area terrain

Yeah it's nice and simple, I think a big part of making it work though is an environment where overwatch is less common/tied to ff order. Ya could call it an order, either way just replacing its current order with a pinned marker/order works well enough. Naturally gives high rof a sort of pinning effect. Nice too if you're just trying to stay on an objective, I think the only question is, mechanically, do you make it a "cover" save/benefit or its own thing. Part of me think cover so weapons that deny cover still benefit, like demolishers or flame weapons ect. I feel like that would keep it consistent,

could do it either way, my thinking was a flat -1 to hit works across the board, where as say a 5+ cover save means marines get no benefit, but a 4+ so they do is probably too much generally

and yes that sort of "area effect" weapon should ignore it

its what flame throwers are for

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If you don't get -1 to hit from cover too little terrain.

Here t1 rarely much casualties as people out of los. And even then -1 to fairly many units as there's plenty of terrain.

you only get -1 to hit if you are a knight or titan, nothing else gets any penalty for even being only partly visible other than you can only hit models you can see

cover is "I can see you clearly" or "I cannot see you at all"

I get plenty of -1 to hit.

Of course i don't only play garrison terrain but all sorts of terrain (well cliffs I don't have yet)

As i said. You are using too little terrain. There's more to it than garrison.

 Crablezworth wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

3. I dissagree here, only in that I see the wisdom in only factoring in 25/50% cover for knights and titans, the other units just trend too short/small. I sorta "get" the having to touch obstacles requirement, it just cuts down a lot of time/arguing over % cover of like an infantry base that itself is only like 10-12mm tall.

Do like Epic Armageddon. There is no factoring. Target has any % obscured= -1 to hit. It does not matter if it is 1% or 99%.

The other changes, I suggested those months ago when I started playing. But so far the only one I am keeping in order to tone down lethality is "If a model has more than one save, it can use all of them".

I think that's too generous as there's not much suppression. I would rather make are terrain and obstacles render better cover than that personally. As artillery is about to get very nasty with basilisks I'd be fine with beefing up area terrain. I'd be ok with allowing -1 for infantry if they "go to ground" like drop their order,

You call 1 shot at 5+ nasty?

I think everybody is having an unnecessary panic attack and overestimating Basilisks. Even with the company bonus it's just too few shots.

yeah, I dont even count 5+ to hit as worth taking unless you can really pile in the number of shots. And relying on 6+ is as swingy as it ever gets

tneva82 wrote:

leopard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If you don't get -1 to hit from cover too little terrain.

Here t1 rarely much casualties as people out of los. And even then -1 to fairly many units as there's plenty of terrain.

you only get -1 to hit if you are a knight or titan, nothing else gets any penalty for even being only partly visible other than you can only hit models you can see

cover is "I can see you clearly" or "I cannot see you at all"

I get plenty of -1 to hit.

Of course i don't only play garrison terrain but all sorts of terrain (well cliffs I don't have yet)

As i said. You are using too little terrain. There's more to it than garrison.

its less that there is too little terrain, though there will be an element of that, but more that troops who wish to lurk in terrain for that modifier are seldom shot at, because unless there is also an objective in said terrain they can largely be ignored in favour of firing at things in the open near or on objectives.

Cliffs would be good, as written though the way the game suggests setting a table up is largely open ground. I am trying to get a bit more terrain about, largely because I quite like how it looks. the gaming place terrain is, sadly, just buildings and ruins currently. I'm introducing some of the stuff I did for battletech and historical small scale stuff to bring in more woods, hills, rivers etc

sadly a few too many players locally would remove all terrain if they got the chance, not yet having seen how my force has basically wiped them turns one and two because they are in the open

have to say have won a couple of games with enemy infantry lurking in buildings, areas of woodlands etc, basically because while they lurked I was scoring VP, and by the time they came out I had a lead they couldn't overcome.

Terrain is a trap that can work both ways, you need to learn to use it to support movement to get the benefit, not as somewhere to lurk, which is sounds like you are very well aware of