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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
And your rule books is not getting over ruled by a cheap jpg, its getting balanced or corrected.

Not to mention complaining about changes being in some JPG in facebook is pretty damn silly seeing those are drafts and therefore are not official yet and will be on more easy to spot position when they COME official.

But let's see. PP warmachine faq. "change X to Y" a lot in many pages. That's changes. Your books have therefore been invalidated by PDF...

And WM mk3 is pretty new and already so many changes...With already promised periodic balance changes by...You guess it! Erratas.

Funny that. Some people complain having to buy new codex all the time, some people complain GW should release new codex more often rrather than errata existing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
I like the examples given a few posts ago about nids being 6" marines 4" and so on. It makes a lot of sense.

But, that being said, your highlighting exactly why it's bad. The game already has too many things to keep track of. We don't want to add more, we want to condense and reduce.

With movement stat you would get rid of tons of special rules that were created specifically to alter unit speeds DESPITE lack of movement value.

Reason goes away, those special rules go away.

 _ghost_ wrote:
one of the best examples is the Japanese game Go.

Game is originally chinese though

I like the idea of a movement stat. It works well in the Middle Earth SBG, and 40k could do a lot worse than taking notes from what is almost universally regarded as one of GW's best rule-sets.

I'd like morale to play a bigger part in the game. And I think even in a simplified system it would be possible to do it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'd like morale to play a bigger part in the game. And I think even in a simplified system it would be possible to do it.

The problem with morale being a bigger factor is the inevitable whining when everyone's favorite special snowflakes lose their LD 10/re-rolls/fearless/ATSKNF/etc and have to risk morale penalties. It's necessary to have morale mean something and not just be pointless rules bloat, but a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about it.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with morale being a bigger factor is the inevitable whining when everyone's favorite special snowflakes lose their LD 10/re-rolls/fearless/ATSKNF/etc and have to risk morale penalties. It's necessary to have morale mean something and not just be pointless rules bloat, but a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about it.

You're right, unfortunately. But personally I say 'em.

Moral either needs to be important or scrapped. And I don't want to scrap it.

Even just a reduction in the amount of Fearless units and the power of ATSKNF would be a welcome, if minor, change.

Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Nah, they've already done that with 7th....

I've gotta start a new thread in proposed rules.

If you trim all the fat from the game you'll have more room for tactics. At least that's I think.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

So....AoS?

More like WHFB, except charging doesn't happen in the movement phase.

(So kinda like AoS if AoS didn't use 40k's charging distance method)

I think we can all agree that 40k has become crazy convoluted with rules all over the place. AoS took this from one end of the pendulum to the other. 40k needs to find the sweet spot. Right in the middle. Not too bloated not too slim. So basically somewhere in between the 200+ pages of rules for 40k and the 4 for AoS.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Couldn't a movement stat, perhaps, make the game faster?

Assume Humans move 5".Perhaps Necron move 4" and Eldar 6", who knows. Ork and Tau still 5". Eyeballing now, so maybe they hire me.

If a Marine moves up to 5", he can act normally during the Shooting and Assault phase.
Weapons with heavy, assault, rapide fire (and the pointless Salvo if you really want it) work as now.

If he shots an assault weapon, or is somehow relentless, can Assault of [Movement +d6].

If instead he decides to run, moves twice the movement (12") and his turn stops there. This avoids the run rolls.

So....AoS?

I was thinking about warmachine when I wrote it
(yes the charge there is more like WHFB but you see my point. an I know there the action is more flexible in moving/shoting, but then again the scale and activation rules are different).

And.. I was NOT thinking about, say, fixed to hit and to wound roll, nonsensical shooting and so on. Let's not open that can of worms, perhaps, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rezyn wrote:
I think we can all agree that 40k has become crazy convoluted with rules all over the place. AoS took this from one end of the pendulum to the other. 40k needs to find the sweet spot. Right in the middle. Not too bloated not too slim. So basically somewhere in between the 200+ pages of rules for 40k and the 4 for AoS.

This. I would be even fine with most of the current rules if:

(1) We had mechanics coherent with fluff. A Lascannon, or at least a Vanquisher, would need some mechanic to deal d3 wounds/HP (ET would protect from this, too) to fulfill their role in fluff (this, or a rework of vehicle damage.. SOMETHING). Meanwhile, we have weapons dealing damage in subsequent turns, like a DoT, that is a pain because of bookeping.The last one is a useless mechanic that should not exist. And meanwhile, again, they forgot or omitted the old pinning for artillery and snipers.

(I recognize point 1 is huge, stuff like Monstrous "Creatures vs Walkers" falls here)

(2) we had a reduction of randumb, both stuff like maelstrom and the fact that you have to roll 1873513573657253 times just to get the game started

(3)we removed the whole new Psychic Phase is WHFB magic. And magic was the most problematic part of WHFB

(4) we had an appropriate cost in point of units.

(5) We decided what is the scope and scale. if they want squads and superheavies in the same game, fine. But then give us different FoCs related to the scale in points of the game. You should not bring a Wraithnight at 1000 points, unless a scenario is built around it.

(6) we had a possible rework of cover, like a penalty to hit. And rework of scattering mechanic. You should scatter only if you miss. Is nonsensical as it works now. In case, give a penalty to AB, and integrate it with a new cover mechanic.

(7) EDIT: we change Overwatch; as-is, is a no-brainer. Either rework it as sort of prepared action against charger, or as the new intercept, or remove it. is either made OP by biased design (Tau) or pointless.

(8) EDIT: we removed the too many Rerolls. Some reroll is nice, but we are now rerolling everything. This must be restrained somehow.

Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Well...

Ruin wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back to 2nd Ed. we go? With that, I lose all hope in 40K

We're only talking about reintroducing a movement stat. We're not talking about bringing back the more convoluted rules from 2nd.

Nah, they've already done that with 7th....

So they've brought back Overwatch right off the bat, percentages are back (one of the things I hated most about 2nd, at least the FOC is used in conjuncti... Oh, wait. Unbound.) , save modifiers (the other thing I hated about 2nd) , and people want movement characteristics back? Once again, just port the new units to 2nd, you'll pretty much be in the same spot. Well, the vehicle rules are different I guess.

I guess it's a good thing people have different opinions. Other than hand-to-hand and the Psychic phase, 2nd was a far tighter/better rules set in my opinion. However the scale of the game now will not allow it to be anything like 2nd edition.

Yeah, 2E, even without its wonky balance issued, broke down very rapidly once armies started to get larger than a couple dozen models on each side. Part of why 7E is having so many problems is a return to many of those 2E concepts but with even more stuff on the table.

overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Einachiel wrote:
overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Or maybe none of those options are worth discussing?

You want a way to afford armies that are CC centric a chance against Overwatch? You do three things:
A) Overwatch can only be fired by those models who are actually facing the charging unit.
B) Overwatch can be mitigated by the charging unit if they have Offensive Grenades or Blind Grenades
C) Overwatch becomes a 'mode' that you have to declare a unit will enter into during their Movement or Shooting phase.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Einachiel wrote:
overwatch is a huge problem: it kils the efficiency of any CC army. Is it normal for a squad of termi to get hammered by a squad of 30 guardsmens overwatching? In some way yes... But to afford no chance whatsoever to any army focused on CC that is the core of the problem.

We're talking 'nids and Orks here folks.

Perhaps hi ini models (5+) should get a jinks save while charging.
Perhaps orks should get a FNP against overwatch.

Perhaps overwatch should go far away back to where it came from (2nd ed)

Or maybe none of those options are worth discussing?

You want a way to afford armies that are CC centric a chance against Overwatch? You do three things:
A) Overwatch can only be fired by those models who are actually facing the charging unit.
B) Overwatch can be mitigated by the charging unit if they have Offensive Grenades or Blind Grenades
C) Overwatch becomes a 'mode' that you have to declare a unit will enter into during their Movement or Shooting phase.

I like suggestion B. I'd quibble on A, though: right now, non-vehicle models don't have facings at all. Where the model is pointing literally does not ever matter, so this would be a rather large addition. C, I like depending on implementation. As long as it's not "give up movement and shooting to be able to take a Ld test, and if that passes, models in the unit being charged can fire a single snapshot IFF they get charged by the unit you're bracing against", which has been seriously suggested at least once. Something like "give up shooting; declare a 90 degree arc. If a unit in that region moves or charges, fire at them, maximum one reaction shot per phase but you fire as you normally would, calculating range, line of sight and cover based on their starting position. All weapons that fire must have range and line of sight (unless they have special rules that don't require it, such as Barrage)."

Option C) sounds great! But instead of shooting you can declare overwatch, taste like good ol 2nd ed; love it!

I have suggested c many times. In shooting you either shoot, run, or enter overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to interrupt enemy movement to make a shooting attack at full bs but 1/2 range.

Allows units to cover each other (what overwatch actually is), allows units to lay ambushes, allows assault units to try and send decoys to eat overwatch.

Of course this should be coupled with units being able to charge from delivery methods (deepstrike, vehicles, infiltrate and outflank etc etc..)

 Lance845 wrote:
I have suggested c many times. In shooting you either shoot, run, or enter overwatch.

Overwatch allows you to interrupt enemy movement to make a shooting attack at full bs but 1/2 range.

Allows units to cover each other (what overwatch actually is), allows units to lay ambushes, allows assault units to try and send decoys to eat overwatch.

Of course this should be coupled with units being able to charge from delivery methods (deepstrike, vehicles, infiltrate and outflank etc etc..)

I like the sound of this.

Overwatch was dangerous in 2nd edition, but limited in several ways (not sure how Overwatch works in current 40K).

-A unit declared Overwatch at the beginning of its turn (no movement, no shooting, nothing...just Overwatch).

-Once a unit shoots on Overwatch, it's done. Thus you're limited to essentially shooting one enemy unit (unless the unit is faced separately allowing you to engage multiple enemy units)

-Models could only watch in their designated line of sight (irrelevant now since model facing is no longer considered).

-A unit firing on Overwatch suffers a -1 penalty if the target is emerging from cover, into cover, or charging the Overwatch unit (not combined, just a max of -1 penalty).

-A unit could shoot on Overwatch at any point during the enemy's turn (not limited to phases, etc.).

-A unit on Overwatch can be knocked out of Overwatch by shooting at it (and it subsequently fails a Leadership test).

_____________________

It could turn 2nd ed. games into real stalemates, but the authors also pointed out in the rulebook that heavy cover was suggested for all games of 40K. They openly state that the game will degenerate into a shooting match if no terrain is used --- and with almost no exception they found denser terrain to provide a better game.

 Elbows wrote:
Overwatch was dangerous in 2nd edition, but limited in several ways (not sure how Overwatch works in current 40K).

Overwatch currently is just an exercise in time wasting most of the time. You get to shoot the unit assaulting you but at BS1, so essentially rolling buckets of dice for little effect.

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

AoS had a few mistakes at launch, and the current state of AoS suggests that GW learned a lot about how to clean up a system. One can expect 40k 8E:
- minimally advance the fluff
- retain "Grimdarkness" (tm)
- retain points values
- phase out the FoC in favor of unbound + formations
- create grand alliances with a smaller number of larger Codex books
- simplify rules dramatically
- remove universal special rules in favor of printing them with the unit

I'm not a fan of the Movement Stat returning. Currently there are 9 types of units and occasionally a special rule like Fleet. That's only 7 Movement rates players have to remember and you can tell by just looking at a model how fast it moves.

If the Movement Stat returns then we'll have to learn the movement rates of hundreds of different units. Even if each codex only had 2 different Movement rates (Infantry and Bikes/Cavalry) for each army, that would still be 40+ different movement rates we'd have to memorize.

I just posted a similar answer yesterday.

40k has already had its Age of Sigmar. It was called 3rd Edition. Has anyone played or talked to anyone who played.? It was pretty complicated. It you were going to play a b I g game, better bring a sleeping bag cause your weekend was shot.

3rd Ed simplified 40k. I liked 2nd Ed, I liked 3rd edition. I think thus next edition is going to target itself to compete against skirmish games like Infinity. Skirmish games are popular now because of cost to get it. G dub isn't stupid.

I don't see the current game as overly complicated, but of course I've played a long time. I don't have a p are oblem with all the special rules. I have a problem with clarity of the rules, and point values imbalances.

Gdub needs to do a serious adjustment for point costs. Second, make itself more accessible for game questions, provide timly updates and FAQs, and proofread before stuff goes for printing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

 Phydox wrote:
40k has already had its Age of Sigmar. It was called 3rd Edition. Has anyone played or talked to anyone who played.? It was pretty complicated. It you were going to play a b I g game, better bring a sleeping bag cause your weekend was shot.

3rd Ed simplified 40k. I liked 2nd Ed, I liked 3rd edition. I think thus next edition is going to target itself to compete against skirmish games like Infinity. Skirmish games are popular now because of cost to get it. G dub isn't stupid.

I don't see the current game as overly complicated, but of course I've played a long time. I don't have a p are oblem with all the special rules. I have a problem with clarity of the rules, and point values imbalances.

Gdub needs to do a serious adjustment for point costs. Second, make itself more accessible for game questions, provide timly updates and FAQs, and proofread before stuff goes for printing.

I started 40k at the very tail of 2E, and mostly played 3E / 4E. 3E was great. 3E armies actually started to look like armies, and you could actually play 3E games with 50+ models per side in a not-unreasonable amount of time.

2E was inherently much slower and cumbersome; listbuilding, core gameplay, and resolution were all much clunkier than 3E. Particularly Rulebook 3E.

7E is only slightly more complicated than 2E, and most of that is due to having several times more armies and units than were available in 2E. 2E didn't separate BA from DA, nor give them extra-specially unique Dreadnoughts and Flyers. 2E didn't have Tau or Admech or Titans or Necron codices. Harlequins were part of Eldar. GSC was part of Tyranids. CSM didn't have loads of Dinobots.

GW has never been particularly good with points costs, and I don't think they had as much of an Internet thing actively trying to "break" each Codex upon release. I do think their editing is on par with, or better than, every other game company that isn't Hasbro.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
What is with this cult that believe that "simpler is better" when it comes to game design?

If 40k goes the way of AOS I will probably just be done with it.

Simpler *is* better, that's a fact.
1. Simpler, tighter rules make it far more likely that the players actually play a correct game the way the rules say they're supposed to play it.
2. Simpler, smaller rules make it more likely that the players have the opportunity to play with the entire ruleset.
3. Simpler rules place more emphasis on the tactical game on the actual tabletop, rather than buried in rules arcana and interactions.
It's a shift to more strategic games that emphasize gameplay.

Simpler rules also resulted in some really, really boring 3rd (beginning) and 4th (CSM, Eldar) dexs too, so one has to balance out simple with fun too.

I, for one, would be perfectly happy to go back to playing 3E Rulebook lists. Those games were fun, and were more tactical than what we play today.

Rather than arguing over semantics, let's just call the concept "sufficient complexity". Which gets a lot easier rolling a D10 instead of D6.