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 think it's not having a consistent design choice over 7 complete editions of the core rules.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah i guess that was what happened. The guy was playing death guard and by the beginning of Round 3 I had taken out all his heavy weapons. He still had a ton of death guard, but zip he had left on the board could damage AV12, so soddenly two AV12 walkers ripped right through his army. Not even Typhus could hurt him.

It was just a bad game. I don't like that it's so easy to bring things down to mathematical certitude so quickly.

I could be wrong but if choas are like the loyalists, dont they all have krak* grenades? Meaning every one of his models can hurt your walkers?

 jasper76 wrote:
crack grenades

A major design flaw of 7th Ed is that GW wrote it to be 3rd Ed (5th iteration), as seen in all the missing rules they seem to think they wrote but didn't. Examples include, but not limited to:

Building rules (those are in 6th)
Moving through other models (somewhere in 5th)
Vehicle top and bottom AV (3rd)

SJ

Not entirely sure if i'm honest, but random charge distance was a real ripper.

Not neccessarily a design flaw, but if they interacted with the community and took suggestions to balance it more, that would be amazing.

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Not entirely sure if i'm honest, but random charge distance was a real ripper.

Not neccessarily a design flaw, but if they interacted with the community and took suggestions to balance it more, that would be amazing.

I agree. Being two body lenths (model wise) away from an opponent and failing a charge is ridiculous!

ForeverARookie wrote:
The biggest flaw apart from GW's policies is definitely the way turns work. One side shooting everything first means the the second player will have a much reduced army to fight back with from the start, and the problem is worse with larger lists.

It could be fixed by removing player turns entirely and replacing them with a modified game turn like...

1st: Player 1 Movement Phase
2nd: Player 2 Movement Phase
3rd: Shooting Phase: All models have an Initiative. Each unit takes it Shooting Phase action at it's Initiative step. Slain models at the same Initiative step is handled the same way as close combat. Super-heavies would go last for balance.
4th: Charge Sub-phase Units have the option to declare charges using the same Initiative order. If a unit is charged, they may choose to counter-charge or fire overwatch.
5th: Fight subphase: Same as it is now.
*: Repeat 5-7 times.

So, orkses (my army) alwayz going last and eldar alwayz going first? Now i alwayz want to place models last cause otherwise, there's no way my army's gona work with all those fragile vehicles and huge av12 battlewagon sides when ALL the opponents i'm facing are gona 100% of the time alpha-strike me if i even can't reliably hide my army placing second.

If you ask me, it's a worse game design than existing one. Initiative's not supposed to work like this. You should add another stat that represents battle-readiness and pay extra points for it.

Adapt the Lord of the Rings system?

Without the Hobbit cluttering.

Most elegant GW system ever.

ForeverARookie wrote:
The biggest flaw apart from GW's policies is definitely the way turns work. One side shooting everything first means the the second player will have a much reduced army to fight back with from the start, and the problem is worse with larger lists.

Other ways to avoid that would be to reduce weapon ranges so that you can't alpha strike the other army before they can actually do anything. Yes, this is less "realistic", but it's really not that realistic that all the tanks and super-heavies with massive-range weapons got so close in the first place without shooting at each other.

Codex creep aka units good in the old codex are shitte in the new codex. Buy more model please. Not really a flaw, designed that way.

Randomness = fun / balance

If you bring an army that cannot deal with an enemy unit means you left something out.
S8 models like the Wraithknight cannot be hurt by Bolters. You didn't pack a Lascannon? Line up the bodybags.

The idea of the codexes is that there's a counter to everything. Some codexes have problems with that. But there are units there that can fill roles that other units cannot.

Which is why everyone tells you to take anti-tank as well as anti-infantry.
If the enemy takes out your AV, that's a win for them.

 Elemental wrote:

ForeverARookie wrote:
The biggest flaw apart from GW's policies is definitely the way turns work. One side shooting everything first means the the second player will have a much reduced army to fight back with from the start, and the problem is worse with larger lists.

Other ways to avoid that would be to reduce weapon ranges so that you can't alpha strike the other army before they can actually do anything. Yes, this is less "realistic", but it's really not that realistic that all the tanks and super-heavies with massive-range weapons got so close in the first place without shooting at each other.

This, to a degree.

Warmahordes ranges, for example, are drastically shorter than 40K.

A LONG ranged weapon has a range of about 18'', and most are far shorter.

This means that you have to get close to do any damage, and they then get to close with you fast also. You have to actually risk your shooty stuff being eaten in CC whenever they are in range.


Most of my favorite 40K games happened at very close range. Being bombed off the table turn one before you've even moved just isn't fun (for the bombee - the bomber probably enjoys it no end if he's being a dick).

Nothing like setting up a bunch of models, then putting them away again unused, then having to shake the hand of someone whose idea of a fun game is to hide behind a wall


P.S. apologies if i sound a little bitter, but just got back from a tournament where my three opponents were Tau Artillery Smackdown (from behind a wall and with a vsg) , IG Artillery Spam (from behind a wall, and with an Aquila strongpoint) and Eldar waveserpent shield bombardment (from behind 2 walls... )

The krak grenades didn't occur to me....wish it would have, although in honesty, it wouldnt have helped him out. At least it would've given him next to no chance, instead of just no chance.

This was the army the guy brought. It was loaded with death guard. He had a vindicator and a predator. With lucky rolls I took them both out by Round 2. He had melts and plasma, which also got taken out. Anyway by the beginning of Round 3, he still had a gakload of Plague Marines on the board, but there was nothing (except the krak grenades, which obviously did not occur to either of us) that could hurt AV12 deff dreds (sp?).

Was really just venting as this was a 2.5k game, took a lot of time to setup, and I had to read all the rules for the models I was using because they were unfamiliar. Just a really bad game that took 3 x longer to setup than it did to reach an inevitable conclusion.

The way I read krak grenades, he would have gotten 1 attack per round that could've glanced on a 6...it was still inevitable once his heavy weapons were gone.

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
Not entirely sure if i'm honest, but random charge distance was a real ripper.

Not neccessarily a design flaw, but if they interacted with the community and took suggestions to balance it more, that would be amazing.

Random charges exist, because they wanted to introduce pre-measuring. Pre-measuring combined with fixed charge ranges would make it too easy to stay within 6.1" range from the enemy and thus safe from charging.

For 40k, I prefer IGOUGO-system over activation system. This is because rhythm of the game is more comfortable that way: you play your turn, move around and kill some stuff, then you lay back, sip some bee...er, lemonade, watch as your opponent does his turn and you only get up to roll some saves or close combat. It's much more relaxing than being alert the entire match.

Worst design flaw in 40K? The point system. Please explain to me how a Space Marine costs the same as a Genestealer. (ok SM might be a point or 2 more than a Stealer but still way so more effective than a Stealer).

Davor wrote:
Worst design flaw in 40K? The point system. Please explain to me how a Space Marine costs the same as a Genestealer. (ok SM might be a point or 2 more than a Stealer but still way so more effective than a Stealer).

Cannoness costs the same as a Chaos Lord.
How much is a Riptide compared to a Defiler?

 jasper76 wrote:
The krak grenades didn't occur to me....wish it would have, although in honesty, it wouldnt have helped him out. At least it would've given him next to no chance, instead of just no chance.

This was the army the guy brought. It was loaded with death guard. He had a vindicator and a predator. With lucky rolls I took them both out by Round 2. He had melts and plasma, which also got taken out. Anyway by the beginning of Round 3, he still had a gakload of Plague Marines on the board, but there was nothing (except the krak grenades, which obviously did not occur to either of us) that could hurt AV12 deff dreds (sp?).

Was really just venting as this was a 2.5k game, took a lot of time to setup, and I had to read all the rules for the models I was using because they were unfamiliar. Just a really bad game that took 3 x longer to setup than it did to reach an inevitable conclusion.

The way I read krak grenades, he would have gotten 1 attack per round that could've glanced on a 6...it was still inevitable once his heavy weapons were gone.

Sounds like he didn't have much anti-tank to be honest. Any 2500 point guard list I made would have at least 10 meltaguns and 6-7 heavy weapons on my tr oops alone. Position them towards the back of the squad and there is very little your enemy can do to take them out.

What else was in his army? 1 vindicator and a predator sounds pretty light for 2,500 points.

Iirc he had 5 Spawn as well, a unit of Plague Zombies, and Rhinos for his Plague Marines.

There were a ton of Plague Marines. After we called it quits I did tell him to put more heavy stuff in that army list.

 jasper76 wrote:
The way I read krak grenades, he would have gotten 1 attack per round that could've glanced on a 6...it was still inevitable once his heavy weapons were gone.

1 per model, in a 10 man squad thats 10 s6 attacks. Not great, but better than nothing.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The way I read krak grenades, he would have gotten 1 attack per round that could've glanced on a 6...it was still inevitable once his heavy weapons were gone.

1 per model, in a 10 man squad thats 10 s6 attacks. Not great, but better than nothing.

Hmmm. P. 181 specifies one model per unit can use krak grenades in the Shooting Phase, but doesn't specify how many models in a unit can use them in an assault...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually page 180, first paragraph specifies that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase , so I read that as only 1 grenade in an assault phase per unit.

 jasper76 wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The way I read krak grenades, he would have gotten 1 attack per round that could've glanced on a 6...it was still inevitable once his heavy weapons were gone.

1 per model, in a 10 man squad thats 10 s6 attacks. Not great, but better than nothing.

Hmmm. P. 181 specifies one model per unit can use krak grenades in the Shooting Phase, but doesn't specify how many models in a unit can use them in an assault...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually page 180, first paragraph specifies that only one grenade can be thrown by a unit per phase , so I read that as only 1 grenade in an assault phase per unit.

Grenades are only thrown in the shooting phase. Krak grenades in the assault phase are one attack per model at Strength 6.

If he had ~2000pts entirely of plague marines (since what you've said that weren't plague marines were only around 500 points, if that), he should've had enough str 6 stuff to glance a pair of AV12 walkers to death. Easily.

But wave serpents move faster then plague marines. How are they suppose to get in to melee and deliver those kraks?

Davor wrote:
Worst design flaw in 40K? The point system. Please explain to me how a Space Marine costs the same as a Genestealer. (ok SM might be a point or 2 more than a Stealer but still way so more effective than a Stealer).

that's more a flaw with individual codexes rather then the system. I mean the only other way to balance it would be as opposed to saying "here's your FOC you may take x units within these permeters of these many points" you'd instead have "ok let's have a game, how about 3 troops, 2 elites and a fast attack" "ok sure, I'm playing space Marines, I'll take 3 tatical squads, 2 heavy bolter devestator squads, and a land speeder, what are you taking" "ohh I'm taking 3 squads of grey knight terminators 2 squads of Paladins and a Storm raven"

Yeah, most of the 'design flaws' people generally cite are actually flaw of the bad Codex design.

For example, people complained in 5th edition how powerful vehicles were. It's true that they were made bit tougher, but just as big factor was that new set of Codecies made the vehicles - particularly dedicated transports - cheap as heck. Then 6th edition and assault nerf, again part of the problem was that in addition to changes in basic rules, they gave some armies insanely cheap dakka which could be spammed to such extent that it was all but impossible to successfully assault - Tau particularly.

There just seems to be total disconnect in how the game is balanced. It's as if none of the people who write the rules and make the army books talk to each other, much less concert their effort in any way.

BrianDavion wrote:

Davor wrote:
Worst design flaw in 40K? The point system. Please explain to me how a Space Marine costs the same as a Genestealer. (ok SM might be a point or 2 more than a Stealer but still way so more effective than a Stealer).

that's more a flaw with individual codexes rather then the system. I mean the only other way to balance it would be as opposed to saying "here's your FOC you may take x units within these permeters of these many points" you'd instead have "ok let's have a game, how about 3 troops, 2 elites and a fast attack" "ok sure, I'm playing space Marines, I'll take 3 tatical squads, 2 heavy bolter devestator squads, and a land speeder, what are you taking" "ohh I'm taking 3 squads of grey knight terminators 2 squads of Paladins and a Storm raven"

Point systems are necessary for non historical games, but GWs implementation of it is just absurdly awful.

I'd still say the worst design flaws are:
A) The lack of commitment to a real scale, it needs to either scale back to a skirmish game or strip the skirmish rules out of it and go for real mass battles.
B) The IGOUGO system. In a skirmish game it is fine, at the current scale of 40k I have literally nearly fallen asleep waiting for my turn. The turns are too long and alpha strike too powerful for it to work.

I think it is the ID/EW System and it is not for the reasons most people think.
The problem started with the creation of Instant Death. All of a sudden models were being killed off to easy so they created Eternal Warrior for specific Models to balance it out.
To me this was a failure to deal with an issue in a positive way.

It is not the ID/EW is actually the issue, it is the current players reaction to it that is the problem. The moment a model does not have the knee jerk response it "With out EW this model is worthless because he will get killed with on lucky shot so I am not going to use it."

The way we first misread it would have been better. We read it the first time as ID did not need to roll to wound. This would have made it a much more balanced rule. EW would just mean that you still had to roll to wound.

Personally, I think infantry should have a rule along the lines of 'combined ranged attack' in Warmahordes.

i.e. a way to combine a large number of weak shots into a few stronger ones (probably with some restrictions).

 jonolikespie wrote:


I'd still say the worst design flaws are:
A) The lack of commitment to a real scale, it needs to either scale back to a skirmish game or strip the skirmish rules out of it and go for real mass battles.
B) The IGOUGO system. In a skirmish game it is fine, at the current scale of 40k I have literally nearly fallen asleep waiting for my turn. The turns are too long and alpha strike too powerful for it to work.

I second this.

As far as I'm aware, the closest GW have ever come to one army being unbeatable by another was Man O' War - Norse v Dwarfs.

Dwarf ships cannot be boarded unless they have already been damaged, cracking open the armour.

Norse ships have neither ranged weaponry nor rams, and fight only by boarding.

The only option that gave the Norse even a slim chance was taking a wizard.