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.

 koooaei wrote:
Which would be awful once again.

Why?

It's ultimately the simplest system. Add in torrent of fire for character control, and the requirement to allocate wounds to already-wounded models to remove wound-spreading shenanigans, and it's far simpler than any other suggestion so far.

Actually, the "choose casualties yourself" rule won't be that bad anymore, due to the precision shots rule.
The problem with wound allocation in 4th ed is that the special weapon bearers / sergeant just wouldn't die, as snipers back then did not act like snipers.

Now that we have proper snipers, the 4th ed method of wound allocation won't be as frustrating.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The problem with wound allocation in 4th ed is that the special weapon bearers / sergeant just wouldn't die, as snipers back then did not act like snipers.

Special weapon troopers not dying isn't a problem. The idea that some other guy in the squad can't pick the meltagun up off the ground after the guy carrying it kicks out is ridiculous.

 insaniak wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Which would be awful once again.

Why?

It's ultimately the simplest system. Add in torrent of fire for character control, and the requirement to allocate wounds to already-wounded models to remove wound-spreading shenanigans, and it's far simpler than any other suggestion so far.

It's a static method which is more simplistic but far from ideal. Death of the closest is at least much more tactical and dynamic. Previously it didn't matter if you shoot from the front, flank or rear. Which made maneuring unimportant. Now you have to think and pick the best angle. Sometimes even forcing you to move.

I just fail to see how tactix and dynamism is worse than a bit more simplicity. If i wanted simplicity, i'd play some square-based game.

Because removing the nearest model isn't any more tactical or dynamic. Its just more tedious. It promotes micro management rather than legitimate maneuvering.

If you want tactical gameplay, or for movement to have a larger impact on the game, you need to make the board bigger in comparison to the number of models on the game board, introduce more LOS blocking terrain (think hills instead of buildings) and introduce a proper objective based system/asymmetric missions, and overhaul shooting mechanics and ranges.

The reason movement and flanking and other similar ideas don't mean much in 40k is that most weapons bigger than a lasgun are reaching across the table on turn 1, and even the basic infantry weapon is doing half that.

Removing casualties from the front is hardly a hallmark of any sort of tactical or dynamic gameplay. Especially for a game that should be operating at the squad level for its size, rather than the model level. Abstraction is key in games this large.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

The problem with wound allocation in 4th ed is that the special weapon bearers / sergeant just wouldn't die, as snipers back then did not act like snipers.

I don't see why that's a problem.

Why is it so awful if the sergeant is hard to assassinate, or if another trooper picks up the special weapon?

 Blacksails wrote:
Because removing the nearest model isn't any more tactical or dynamic. Its just more tedious. It promotes micro management rather than legitimate maneuvering.

If you want tactical gameplay, or for movement to have a larger impact on the game, you need to make the board bigger in comparison to the number of models on the game board, introduce more LOS blocking terrain (think hills instead of buildings) and introduce a proper objective based system/asymmetric missions, and overhaul shooting mechanics and ranges.

The reason movement and flanking and other similar ideas don't mean much in 40k is that most weapons bigger than a lasgun are reaching across the table on turn 1, and even the basic infantry weapon is doing half that.

Removing casualties from the front is hardly a hallmark of any sort of tactical or dynamic gameplay. Especially for a game that should be operating at the squad level for its size, rather than the model level. Abstraction is key in games this large.

Agreed.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I honestly don't think the new missions were created with the intent to balance anything, but rather try and keep players more involved as they decide which objectives to try and complete, and which to pitch to chance a better draw as well as discourage static gunline armies.

I think this is probably pretty accurate. The Maelstrom missions are not played much in my area, but the ones i have played are far more dynamic and feel a lot more fun to play. One guy at the shop where I play comes every week with his AM army proceeds to plop down as many tanks as possible and just start rolling dice and hopes he destroys everything you have before game end. He never moves, never takes infantry out of the tanks, nothing. Most boring ever. To the point I don't think I would bother to play him if he asked. I realize AM armies are kind of supposed to play like that but with this guy it is just SOOOOO static it bores me to tears. If he played a Maelstrom he would be forced to move a little bit.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The fact that it rather drastically shifts the way the game is balanced so that more armies have a better chance of winning and that army comp can be more diverse I think is just happy coincidence more than anything. Given enough time I'm sure players will find optimum builds and armies to use to win Maelstrom games more consistently and often, but for now not enough people are playing them enough times to find the cracks in the armor to suss out a strategy that wins more often. Because players aren't dumb, and optimization is something they do well and often. As such it's only a matter of time before it's found (and it appears it'll be different than the lists we think of normally for more traditional games).

I think this is right on too. It gives many more armies a chance. Another person who i regularly play with basically want to play "purge the alien" every game, which lets face it, the eternal war missions could all really be played this way, so he brings a min/max type list that puts out massive amounts of damage every turn and the games with him are really an arms race of sorts. Of course he is now introducing 3 kinghts to his standard lists. Tough to play against that every time and for sure limits what I can take if I want a chance at not getting blown off the table by turn 3. If he was willing to play a Maelstrom mission every once and awhile his lists might take on a different character. I would like to play where before the mission type was rolled there was one more roll to decide if the mission type was going to come from eternal war missions or Maelstrom missions. If that idea was embraced I think you would probably see a lot more diversity in the armies being selected. Anything to encourage that is a good thing in my mind.

The overall problem between the editions is the fact that GW is consistently inconsistent in how it writes its rules. Its become a symbol for whats wrong with the rules when they seem to be more like a debate that you would find in a court of Law rather than a game.

I'll agree with those who say 5th was "better" to an extent, the parking lots might have been annoying for some but that edition was where 40k was ever so close to modern mechanized warfare in all but name. Games actually went very fast, almost the speed of a warmahordes game in a way.

However even if the current codex run are better balanced, what is frustrating is how inconsistent it is. IG/AM didn't change very much at at apart from points costs, but then the nerf bat was taken to the orks in a few areas that was frankly baffling.

All of this does not hide the fact that the game has become a bit of a chore to play. And when you can simply pick up and go with warmahordes you can see why people are doing so. Personally, even if the warmahordes rules feel "gamey" they work dam well, 40K could be like this if somebody actually sat down and made things crystal clear with no grey areas and other such "loopholes".


But that isn't going to happen...

Loborocket wrote:
One guy at the shop where I play comes every week with his AM army proceeds to plop down as many tanks as possible and just start rolling dice and hopes he destroys everything you have before game end. He never moves, never takes infantry out of the tanks, nothing. Most boring ever. To the point I don't think I would bother to play him if he asked. I realize AM armies are kind of supposed to play like that but with this guy it is just SOOOOO static it bores me to tears. If he played a Maelstrom he would be forced to move a little bit.

Actually, this is something that irritates me about the new IG book. I mean, I always thought the point of IG was lots of infantry, backed up by tanks. However, the new book seems to be about having as many tanks as possible, and if you'd like to have maybe a couple of minimum infantry squads too, that would be nice. No pressure though. Hell, they even have an option now of having a tank as your warlord - who brings up to 2 squad mates along. That really grates on me.

 Art_of_war wrote:
The overall problem between the editions is the fact that GW is consistently inconsistent in how it writes its rules. Its become a symbol for whats wrong with the rules when they seem to be more like a debate that you would find in a court of Law rather than a game.

Sad but true.

 Art_of_war wrote:

I'll agree with those who say 5th was "better" to an extent, the parking lots might have been annoying for some but that edition was where 40k was ever so close to modern mechanized warfare in all but name. Games actually went very fast, almost the speed of a warmahordes game in a way.

I think the other aspect is that 5th's rules felt more streamlined and more tactical - rather than being bloated with randomness and unnecessary additions.

 Art_of_war wrote:

However even if the current codex run are better balanced, what is frustrating is how inconsistent it is. IG/AM didn't change very much at at apart from points costs, but then the nerf bat was taken to the orks in a few areas that was frankly baffling.

Not sure about IG not changing much - they had a lot of units and characters stripped, many poor units either remained unchanged or got even worse, and they didn't really get much to bring them into the current edition. In many ways, they feel like a 7th edition book, though not in a good way.

 Art_of_war wrote:

All of this does not hide the fact that the game has become a bit of a chore to play. And when you can simply pick up and go with warmahordes you can see why people are doing so. Personally, even if the warmahordes rules feel "gamey" they work dam well, 40K could be like this if somebody actually sat down and made things crystal clear with no grey areas and other such "loopholes".

I agree.

But, I think one problem is that GW don't change the core rules. They only patch them. I believe the core rules were originally designed for a historical game, rather than a modern/futuristic one. And, I don't believe they've aged very well. One of the worst parts is that you have movement done in all 3 phases of the game. Why? Why can't all movement be done in the movement phase? Surely that's the entire point of having a movement phase in the first place? But, then you have other things - like adding fliers and a psychic phase, without changing the rest of the rules around them.

 vipoid wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
One guy at the shop where I play comes every week with his AM army proceeds to plop down as many tanks as possible and just start rolling dice and hopes he destroys everything you have before game end. He never moves, never takes infantry out of the tanks, nothing. Most boring ever. To the point I don't think I would bother to play him if he asked. I realize AM armies are kind of supposed to play like that but with this guy it is just SOOOOO static it bores me to tears. If he played a Maelstrom he would be forced to move a little bit.

Actually, this is something that irritates me about the new IG book. I mean, I always thought the point of IG was lots of infantry, backed up by tanks. However, the new book seems to be about having as many tanks as possible, and if you'd like to have maybe a couple of minimum infantry squads too, that would be nice. No pressure though. Hell, they even have an option now of having a tank as your warlord - who brings up to 2 squad mates along. That really grates on me.

Yeah I played against the army with the warlord tank and 2 others as part of the squad last week. That guy even had 2 turret type things that could not move if he wanted them to. Of course he had 2 squads of 5 or 10 infantry dudes too. In that game the sit and never move did not work though. We happened to roll "the relic" as the mission, so i ran my orks up and grabbed the relic and ran. Mostly just hid behind a big rock in the middle of the table and tried to get in as much of a line as possible to avoid hits from his 10 large blast plasma shots he was getting each turn. It was basically a roll off between his damage and my FNP rolls to see if he could kill all of my orks before game end. Lucky I had a lot of bodies and he had basically nothing that could pick up the relic on its own.

Without reading the rest of the answers, I've had less fun playing 7th than any other edition of the game (and that's saying something, because I could say the same about 6th at the time).

The imbalance between codexes and even different choices within each codex has gotten so bad that the only solution GW seems to come up with is to throw more random tables into the game, so that the 'bad' armies still have some chance of winning a game once in a while.

Meanwhile, the Maelstrom missions are about as far from what a wargame should be as possible, and lead to the sole strategy being to bring more mobile stuff to the table.

 vipoid wrote:


I don't see why that's a problem.

Why is it so awful if the sergeant is hard to assassinate, or if another trooper picks up the special weapon?

You're confusing common sense: picking up a weapon, for GW ham fistedly fixing a problem: people gaming the wound allocation system.

I've said many times that there simply isn't enough variance between stats with a d6, a switch to at least a d10 if not a d100 would be far better.

At 28mm there will always be compromises between ranges and movement of things, even your average pistol should be able to cover far more of the table IRL than it does in game.

I don't like the wound pool, my brother and I still do it that wounds created from an individual weapon can only be allocated within that weapon's range.

 Looky Likey wrote:
You're confusing common sense: picking up a weapon, for GW ham fistedly fixing a problem: people gaming the wound allocation system.

Honestly, it seems far less ham-fisted them LoS, but I get what you mean.

In any case though, I still don't see what's so bad about sergeants and/or special weapons usually being the last to die. It just doesn't seem like a big problem to me.

 Looky Likey wrote:

I've said many times that there simply isn't enough variance between stats with a d6, a switch to at least a d10 if not a d100 would be far better.

Not sure about a d100, but I agree that a d6 just doesn't provide enough variance. Hell, it's why we have stats that can go from 1-10, yet virtually everything hangs around the 3-5 range. If you could actually use all 10 without making things horribly unbalanced, then you could have some more interesting variations.

 vipoid wrote:

 Looky Likey wrote:
You're confusing common sense: picking up a weapon, for GW ham fistedly fixing a problem: people gaming the wound allocation system.

Honestly, it seems far less ham-fisted them LoS, but I get what you mean.

In any case though, I still don't see what's so bad about sergeants and/or special weapons usually being the last to die. It just doesn't seem like a big problem to me.

 Looky Likey wrote:

I've said many times that there simply isn't enough variance between stats with a d6, a switch to at least a d10 if not a d100 would be far better.

Not sure about a d100, but I agree that a d6 just doesn't provide enough variance. Hell, it's why we have stats that can go from 1-10, yet virtually everything hangs around the 3-5 range. If you could actually use all 10 without making things horribly unbalanced, then you could have some more interesting variations.

I think people didn't like having to wipe the entire squad off the table to remove the danger, more of an issue for huge guard blobs, but as somebody has already mentioned that precision shots has fixed that.

Does a BS higher than 5 actually do anything now? Or have I missed that in the rule book? Just depressing to me that my assassins don't get a reroll for shooting.

 vipoid wrote:


But, I think one problem is that GW don't change the core rules. They only patch them. I believe the core rules were originally designed for a historical game, rather than a modern/futuristic one. And, I don't believe they've aged very well. One of the worst parts is that you have movement done in all 3 phases of the game. Why? Why can't all movement be done in the movement phase? Surely that's the entire point of having a movement phase in the first place? But, then you have other things - like adding fliers and a psychic phase, without changing the rest of the rules around them.

I wanted to address this one point - in 2nd edition you actually didn't have an Assault Phase but rather a Close Combat phase where blows were struck. Charges were made before Movement was done, and were calculated as your Movement x 2. You didn't "Run" in the Shooting Phase but rather you just doubled your movement if you wanted to forego your shooting.

It sounds like what you'd prefer is 2nd Edition phase order (Charge, Movement, Shooting, Close Combat) with psychics in there somewhere (I think after Movement?). That actually sounds fairly intuitive to me. We use a similar system in Necromunda and it doesn't cause any problems.

Note: The above may be incorrect as I haven't played 2nd in probably two decades, but that's how I remember it working...

 Looky Likey wrote:
I think people didn't like having to wipe the entire squad off the table to remove the danger, more of an issue for huge guard blobs, but as somebody has already mentioned that precision shots has fixed that.

But, by the same token, why should it be easy to remove the danger from a unit?

 Looky Likey wrote:
Does a BS higher than 5 actually do anything now? Or have I missed that in the rule book? Just depressing to me that my assassins don't get a reroll for shooting.

BS6+ gives you a worse version of twin-linked. If you miss, then you can reroll the dice, hitting on a specific value:

BS6 - hit on a reroll of 6+
BS7 5+
BS8 4+

etc.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

I wanted to address this one point - in 2nd edition you actually didn't have an Assault Phase but rather a Close Combat phase where blows were struck. Charges were made before Movement was done, and were calculated as your Movement x 2. You didn't "Run" in the Shooting Phase but rather you just doubled your movement if you wanted to forego your shooting.

It sounds like what you'd prefer is 2nd Edition phase order (Charge, Movement, Shooting, Close Combat) with psychics in there somewhere (I think after Movement?). That actually sounds fairly intuitive to me. We use a similar system in Necromunda and it doesn't cause any problems.

That does sound better.

Thing is, I'd also want to give units a movement value, and remove some of the unit types. As it stands, having a ton of different unit types - many just slight variations on others - feels unintuitive and is frequently a pain to remember.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


But, I think one problem is that GW don't change the core rules. They only patch them. I believe the core rules were originally designed for a historical game, rather than a modern/futuristic one. And, I don't believe they've aged very well. One of the worst parts is that you have movement done in all 3 phases of the game. Why? Why can't all movement be done in the movement phase? Surely that's the entire point of having a movement phase in the first place? But, then you have other things - like adding fliers and a psychic phase, without changing the rest of the rules around them.

I wanted to address this one point - in 2nd edition you actually didn't have an Assault Phase but rather a Close Combat phase where blows were struck. Charges were made before Movement was done, and were calculated as your Movement x 2. You didn't "Run" in the Shooting Phase but rather you just doubled your movement if you wanted to forego your shooting.

It sounds like what you'd prefer is 2nd Edition phase order (Charge, Movement, Shooting, Close Combat) with psychics in there somewhere (I think after Movement?). That actually sounds fairly intuitive to me. We use a similar system in Necromunda and it doesn't cause any problems.

Note: The above may be incorrect as I haven't played 2nd in probably two decades, but that's how I remember it working...

By sheer irony warmahordes works pretty much the same way, but on a per unit/model basis: movement/charge: shooting/close combat (note you cannot do both unless you have a "special rule" that allows you to do both). There are other bits i haven't added in but that is the general order of play (meanwhile you must try to not to make a mess of your activations otherwise things will go a bit wonky )

That being said 40K might not survive a major mechanics change as it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater (currently very ditrty). However random charge distances and overwatch are a bugbear, the old charge range of 6" was far better, it allowed a modicum of relaibility in threat ranges, even with premeasuring allowed CC would happen more often. Overwatch was an "interesting" addition however it wouldn't be so much of a problem if there was actually a reward for winning an assault I.e the old barmy consolidation rule. All that needs is a tweak to say that it can occur once after the initial assault and perhaps a rule to state that the consolidation can only happen into one unit not multipe units (however that might be going too far jamming up a gunline is rather handy...)


Overall a big clean up would make thing better, the mechanics wouldn't need to change, if all the rules were cosnistent and precise there would not be the YMDC threads on "how does this intercat with that". But then that does not solve the problem of each codex having its quirks, you can have claer and good base ruels but if the faction balance is out of whack we know what happens.

I suppose its what makes PP games increasingly popular, the factions do have their own flavour but they all work within the ruleset, and some do ignore certian things but its balanced by other weaknesses that are there to be exploited. To a newcomer it might not feel that way during the learning curve though...

 vipoid wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

I wanted to address this one point - in 2nd edition you actually didn't have an Assault Phase but rather a Close Combat phase where blows were struck. Charges were made before Movement was done, and were calculated as your Movement x 2. You didn't "Run" in the Shooting Phase but rather you just doubled your movement if you wanted to forego your shooting.

It sounds like what you'd prefer is 2nd Edition phase order (Charge, Movement, Shooting, Close Combat) with psychics in there somewhere (I think after Movement?). That actually sounds fairly intuitive to me. We use a similar system in Necromunda and it doesn't cause any problems.

That does sound better.

Thing is, I'd also want to give units a movement value, and remove some of the unit types. As it stands, having a ton of different unit types - many just slight variations on others - feels unintuitive and is frequently a pain to remember.

Just like WHFB...or Rogue Trader

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

The problem with wound allocation in 4th ed is that the special weapon bearers / sergeant just wouldn't die, as snipers back then did not act like snipers.

I don't see why that's a problem.

Why is it so awful if the sergeant is hard to assassinate, or if another trooper picks up the special weapon?

 Blacksails wrote:
Because removing the nearest model isn't any more tactical or dynamic. Its just more tedious. It promotes micro management rather than legitimate maneuvering.

If you want tactical gameplay, or for movement to have a larger impact on the game, you need to make the board bigger in comparison to the number of models on the game board, introduce more LOS blocking terrain (think hills instead of buildings) and introduce a proper objective based system/asymmetric missions, and overhaul shooting mechanics and ranges.

The reason movement and flanking and other similar ideas don't mean much in 40k is that most weapons bigger than a lasgun are reaching across the table on turn 1, and even the basic infantry weapon is doing half that.

Removing casualties from the front is hardly a hallmark of any sort of tactical or dynamic gameplay. Especially for a game that should be operating at the squad level for its size, rather than the model level. Abstraction is key in games this large.

Agreed.

I think its fine to just let the player who owns the unit to choose the casualties, unless the unit is being fired upon by someone with a Sniper skill, which would mean the shooter could pick the casualty. And yes, that means if a guy with a missile launcher gets pegged, then the missile launcher is gone. I think that helps speed up some game play, yet still gives a unit with a sniper a nice degree of tactical fun.

KTG17 wrote:

I think its fine to just let the player who owns the unit to choose the casualties, unless the unit is being fired upon by someone with a Sniper skill, which would mean the shooter could pick the casualty. And yes, that means if a guy with a missile launcher gets pegged, then the missile launcher is gone. I think that helps speed up some game play, yet still gives a unit with a sniper a nice degree of tactical fun.

I don't mind that, so long as precision shots from Sniper weapons are on 6s.

Otherwise it seems a bit harsh for races who don't have the luxury of tough, survivable characters. Snipers picking off specialist weapons and sergeants is fine but, IMO, snipers picking off Company Commanders is less enjoyable.

 vipoid wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

I think its fine to just let the player who owns the unit to choose the casualties, unless the unit is being fired upon by someone with a Sniper skill, which would mean the shooter could pick the casualty. And yes, that means if a guy with a missile launcher gets pegged, then the missile launcher is gone. I think that helps speed up some game play, yet still gives a unit with a sniper a nice degree of tactical fun.

I don't mind that, so long as precision shots from Sniper weapons are on 6s.

Otherwise it seems a bit harsh for races who don't have the luxury of tough, survivable characters. Snipers picking off specialist weapons and sergeants is fine but, IMO, snipers picking off Company Commanders is less enjoyable.

That problem might be overblown though. You've still got 3 wounds, LoS, and a 5++. Also, Sniper Rifles wound a T3 model just as easily as they wound a T10 model - on a 4+. I don't really want to calculate how many Sniper Rifles it takes to down a Company Commander with all of that built in, but it's a lot of fething Sniper Rifles.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That problem might be overblown though. You've still got 3 wounds, LoS, and a 5++. Also, Sniper Rifles wound a T3 model just as easily as they wound a T10 model - on a 4+. I don't really want to calculate how many Sniper Rifles it takes to down a Company Commander with all of that built in, but it's a lot of fething Sniper Rifles.

Bear in mind, changing wound allocation back to 4th would also include the removal of LoS.

Also, with regard to needing a lot of snipers, have you by any chance heard of Deathmarks?

 vipoid wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

I think its fine to just let the player who owns the unit to choose the casualties, unless the unit is being fired upon by someone with a Sniper skill, which would mean the shooter could pick the casualty. And yes, that means if a guy with a missile launcher gets pegged, then the missile launcher is gone. I think that helps speed up some game play, yet still gives a unit with a sniper a nice degree of tactical fun.

I don't mind that, so long as precision shots from Sniper weapons are on 6s.

Otherwise it seems a bit harsh for races who don't have the luxury of tough, survivable characters. Snipers picking off specialist weapons and sergeants is fine but, IMO, snipers picking off Company Commanders is less enjoyable.

Yep. That is what I was thinking of, really.
You don't have to worry about important characters though; they tend to be pretty tough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That problem might be overblown though. You've still got 3 wounds, LoS, and a 5++. Also, Sniper Rifles wound a T3 model just as easily as they wound a T10 model - on a 4+. I don't really want to calculate how many Sniper Rifles it takes to down a Company Commander with all of that built in, but it's a lot of fething Sniper Rifles.

Bear in mind, changing wound allocation back to 4th would also include the removal of LoS.

Also, with regard to needing a lot of snipers, have you by any chance heard of Deathmarks?

Considering how close they have to be in order to bring their full power to bear, they better succeed their assassination mission.
Otherwise they will have a very angry Chapter Master to deal with.

 vipoid wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That problem might be overblown though. You've still got 3 wounds, LoS, and a 5++. Also, Sniper Rifles wound a T3 model just as easily as they wound a T10 model - on a 4+. I don't really want to calculate how many Sniper Rifles it takes to down a Company Commander with all of that built in, but it's a lot of fething Sniper Rifles.

Bear in mind, changing wound allocation back to 4th would also include the removal of LoS.

No, I would leave Look Out Sir in, precisely to cover that situation. Although possibly key it to an Initiative or Leadership roll, rather than just an automatic number.

 insaniak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
That problem might be overblown though. You've still got 3 wounds, LoS, and a 5++. Also, Sniper Rifles wound a T3 model just as easily as they wound a T10 model - on a 4+. I don't really want to calculate how many Sniper Rifles it takes to down a Company Commander with all of that built in, but it's a lot of fething Sniper Rifles.

Bear in mind, changing wound allocation back to 4th would also include the removal of LoS.

No, I would leave Look Out Sir in, precisely to cover that situation. Although possibly key it to an Initiative or Leadership roll, rather than just an automatic number.

Yes. Snipers to deal with hidden special weapons, LoS to deal with snipers. It all works out.

Honestly I love seventh.

Yes, there are lists that obliterate everything else. Sure. Whatever. It's 40k, competitive 40k players are the scum of the earth and always have been.

For anyone that's not a total jerk, 7th with a few quick fixes is perfect. I love that the things I despised in 7th (flier spam and ADL spam) are gone, and that static gunlines got a huge nerf with maelstrom of war, which rewards you for having a list with shooting and assault and mobility. Units now have a value BEYOND "what can they kill" and while maelstrom is a little random, 90% of the time the army who should win, does win by establishing objective control. At the same time though, even while losing you can contest and deny enemy objectives to still stand a fighting chance. Special reserves units have never felt more useful, and heavy tanks aren't just piniatas anymore popping like balloons at a stiff breeze.

I generally have enjoyed the game less and less since about mid 6th edition. Once GW started mass producing books, bringing super heavies into the standard game, and eliminating the FOC.

My feeling on things is that GW seems to have a few good ideas every edition, but then they overhaul too many things at once instead of small tweaks.

I like 4th ed terrain, TLOS makes things clunky and makes modeling for advantage a thing. Clearly defined abstract terrain is a great idea. I also like how wound allocation worked

In 5th, I thought the rules were well stream lined and functioned well, but that vehicles were a bit too powerful.

In 6th I liked the idea of Hull points but they did not get it quite right, and I though psychic powers were decent being in the main book.

In 7th I like the vehicle changes, and challange changes. But feel like the psychic phase is a bit wonky, and too many parts of the game drag on (some of which was also true in 6e.). I thnk a psychic phase is a good idea, but the rules are not quite what they should be (the fantasy system is better), things like LOS, Pile in, and tons of randomness are still bad and slow the game down too much. Also super heavy rules are still bad.

the_scotsman wrote:
competitive 40k players are the scum of the earth and always have been.

Nothing like insulting a significant portion of the player base to really solidify your opinion of an edition.

Damn those people who have fun differently than me! They must be terrible people, the whole lot of them!

 Blacksails wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
competitive 40k players are the scum of the earth and always have been.

Nothing like insulting a significant portion of the player base to really solidify your opinion of an edition.

Damn those people who have fun differently than me! They must be terrible people, the whole lot of them!

When ad hominem is all you've got, ad hominem is all you use.

Breng77 wrote:
In 6th I liked the idea of Hull points but they did not get it quite right, and I though psychic powers were decent being in the main book.

I feel that vehicles don't have enough hull points. As it stands, glancing hits seem a bit too strong and penetrating hits seem a bit too weak.

One idea I had was to increase the number of Hull Points on all vehicles, but make some/all penetrating hits strip multiple hull points. e.g. you could have Immobilised/Weapon Destroyed results also strip an additional hull point.

Out of interest, what do people think of AP3 or worse weapons not being able to explode closed-top vehicles?