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.

Does anyone here seriously think eldar players will voluntarily nerf themselves?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
You admit in your own post that they're both pipe-dreams but try to be contrary anyway. Lol, keep digging that hole mate.

How's the view through your +22 Goggles of Delusion?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

I would be fine with orders being 100% reliable if you could only issue like one a turn. That the number of orders you can issue is limited only by the number of command squads you have on the field necessitates some kind of potential misfire, imo, whether it be range or a chance for the order to fail.

The number of Orders you can issue is limited not only by the number of Command Squads you have on the field but also by the type of Command Squad and the number of units you have on the field.

If you have an army, for example, consisting of:
2x Company Command Squads
3x Veteran Squads
2x Valkyrie Squadrons
1x Leman Russ Tank Squadrons

You can put 4 Orders out per turn, potentially 5 if you roll a 6 and get the "Master of Command" Warlord trait.
You could just barely use all 5 of those Orders. Once a unit has been targeted for Orders, it cannot be targeted by another Order--and vehicles cannot be targeted for Orders.

So while 100% reliability with "one per turn" might sound feasible to you, it would necessitate ENTIRELY overhauling the Orders system and who could be targeted by what/how/when it comes into play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Does anyone here seriously think eldar players will voluntarily nerf themselves?

Does anyone here seriously think every Eldar/Space Marine/whatever player is TFG?

I have an opponent whom whines about orders being broken and thinks that they should be a once per game thing like Space Marine doctrines. And that the Master of ordnance should only be able to fire once per game like a Chapter Masters orbital bombardment.

He is also THAT SM opponent of mine.... How did you guess?

Back on topic I do feel that Orders need to become an automatic or a roll a D6, 2+ to get the order off thing. And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.

Chimera chassis vehicles should have acces to "Additional Armour" upgrade, adding +1AV to side armour.

Because being glanced to death by regular bolters is quite lame...

 master of ordinance wrote:
I have an opponent whom whines about orders being broken and thinks that they should be a once per game thing like Space Marine doctrines. And that the Master of ordnance should only be able to fire once per game like a Chapter Masters orbital bombardment.

He is also THAT SM opponent of mine.... How did you guess?

Back on topic I do feel that Orders need to become an automatic or a roll a D6, 2+ to get the order off thing. And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.

You really need to stop pretending that it is because he's a SM player and not because he's a toolbag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hawky wrote:
Chimera chassis vehicles should have acces to "Additional Armour" upgrade, adding +1AV to side armour.

Because being glanced to death by regular bolters is quite lame...

That's an issue with the glancing mechanics, not the vehicle itself.

Vehicles should have an "armor save" against Glancing Hits, to represent the fact that Glancing Hits aren't direct hits.

 vipoid wrote:
Hell, why don't we just start planning the guard book based on GW releasing 8th edition first, which is a complete rewrite of 40k? It's just a pipe dream, after all.

Are we assuming 40k8 to be AoS-like or more of the 6E / 6.5E "7E" stuff?

It matters, because we'd be doing Datasheets instead of unit stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Does anyone here seriously think eldar players will voluntarily nerf themselves?

Most of us do, when there aren't prizes on the line.

Heck, I only own the one WraithKnight, and my Wraithguard are all from before they had D weapons. I don't even own any Jetbikes (although I should get some, after I finish the various WiPs on my bench).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hawky wrote:
Chimera chassis vehicles should have acces to "Additional Armour" upgrade, adding +1AV to side armour.

Because being glanced to death by regular bolters is quite lame...

If by "ugprade", you mean "FREE" side AV11, I'd be OK with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, how does a Hellhound without any Transport capability become a DT?

And won't the fact that HHs are overpriced still make them worthless?

OTOH, making the FW Chimeras legal (twin-HB or Autocannon turret) would be nice.

- Lower costing (more economy). Problems: For pure weapons effects, you're still in competion with the Wyvern and other units, most importantly Sentinels who once fixed need be cheap enough for suicide flamer and melta runs. You also aren't getting much utility from the Hellhound platform, aside from the weapon or tank shock. 12/12/10 won't last long in 7th.

Twin-HB or AC Chimeras would be a nice option and it fits well with internal balance, as a tough transport than doesn't anticipate close assault or flanking, but can use its range to support the forward forces. Keep in mind it would more or less force a revision of the Taurox. (Good!)

Lower cost. IG are a gun horde army, so let their guns be cheap.

Taurox isn't an IG vehicle, so it doesn't matter. Stormtroopers should GO AWAY. GIVE US OUR BANEBLADES!!!

I'd actually intended that as sarcasm. :S

Regardless, it's an interesting question.

I'll admit that when I wrote that, I was imagining a rewrite of 40k from the ground up (the sort of idea that pops up in most 'how to fix 40k' threads). I actually hadn't considered the possibility of it turning into something along the lines of AoS.

Personally, since I don't believe a rewrite is likely and AoS can burn in hell, I'd hold out hope for something more akin to 5th edition (as Master of ordinance suggested above).


On that note, if we went back to 5th edition, what would people miss from the current book?

 vipoid wrote:


On that note, if we went back to 5th edition, what would people miss from the current book?

Overwatch. Maybe.

Sorry, I meant the current IG book.

 vipoid wrote:
Sorry, I meant the current IG book.

Wyverns, maybe? The Gfirron would be back in the book, though it's still currently usable through IA1. The better prices on non-Ordnane Russ tanks in the 6E book are nice.

Aside from those things, I can't think of much.

Having everyone else go back to the same version of Codex: Imperial Guard that I'm still playing means that they all get back Lumbering Behemoth and lower cost Russes, right?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Having everyone else go back to the same version of Codex: Imperial Guard that I'm still playing means that they all get back Lumbering Behemoth and lower cost Russes, right?

Yep.... Well the Vanquisher and some of the others go up in price but on the whole it is a major improvement.

/thread.

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but I've been looking at the Hail Caesar system (for historicals) and they have a quite interesting orders system.
Basically, (and this is a vast over simplification that I'm trying to put into 40k terms. I'm already aware of how inaccurate it is to the actual game) Commanders have a rating (usually 8), and each turn they roll to see how many orders they can give, which is based on how much lower than their rating they roll.

What I'm thinking is your officer takes a Ld test, and if they roll their Ld or their Ld-1, they issue 1 order, if they roll their Ld-2 or lower they can issue 2 orders, and if they roll their Ld-3 they can issue 3 orders.

Of course, this wouldn't work if most officers are running around with Ld9-10, and nerfing the officer's Ld isn't exactly the best idea...

I'd rather simplify things such that Jr. Officers always generate 1 order, and Sr. Officers always make 2. Roll a d6, and on a 1, all Orders stop.

I don't see the difference between rolling on a chart for effects vs rolling a leadership check.

The Ld stat exists and has common rules for making those checks. Might as well either make orders auto-pass, or just be a regular, plain old leadership check.

Fine, auto-pass, no test, no chart.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No Leadership for Orders.

Seriously. Why do people want unlimited range for Orders but then still want to keep the stupid Leadership test?

If you want to keep the "random" element because you think Orders are broken/unbalanced, then do it like the Armoured Battlegroup:
Roll a D6. Consult the table for results.
1--Garbled Communication: The Order fails and no more orders may be issued by any models in the army this turn.

2-3--Could You Repeat That Sir?: The order has no effect, but both the command vehicles and the target vehicles may continue as normal.

4-5--Orders Received Sir!: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately.

6--Inspired Tactics: The Order is successfully received and is resolved immediately and does not count against the total limit of Orders the command vehicle may issue this turn. The command vehicle may attempt to issue another Order up to a maximum of two in each turn.

Something like that would be easy as hell to work for the infantry.

I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

master of ordinance wrote:And Vox networks need to give an unlimited range.

I'd be happy to accept increased range rather than unlimited, but more importantly only the PC should be able to give orders to the rest of their platoon. Aside from the Company Commander, no Platoon Commander has any business giving orders to a platoon different from his, it's a different channel after all. This should prevent shenanigans of one surviving squad of guardsmen from 3rd Platoon receiving FRFSRF orders from the 1st Platoon Commander on the other side of the board.

I'd suggest a Senior Officer order that allows them to transfer the command of units, or one that allows two depleted guardsman units in coherency to combine squads (like an ad-hoc combined squads before deployment). It would be well worth it to deny the enemy a KP by combing rag-tag units into strengthened ones.

A (no doubt expensive) upgrade for vehicles to benefit from orders would be appreciated as well. Would 20-25pts per vehicle in the squadron be considered a fair price? Not an auto-take but tempting enough.

Some pretty good ideas!

Why not, in the interests of speed & simplicity, roll for the number of successful Orders at the start of the turn against the officer's own LD? You basically then say something like "ok I have 2 orders available", and those then auto-pass when given to your units.

It's not much different in execution but it's easier to plan your turn, given orders won't actually fail. You simply might have less of them.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.

Testing for Orders isn't a "demonstration of leadership", it's a test to see whether someone can listen. Because remember it's not a Leadership test for the Officer but rather the ordered unit.

Might as well make it an Initiative test if that's your logic for why it should be a Leadership test.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:

I would take the odds of a leadership test over a 50/50 chance any day. You've effectively doubled the chance of a complete breakdown in all orders for that turn, with no reflection on the individual officers ability to lead the troops they are commanding. If there was ever a time where taking a Leadership Test would be appropriate, actual demonstrations of leadership would be it.

Testing for Orders isn't a "demonstration of leadership", it's a test to see whether someone can listen. Because remember it's not a Leadership test for the Officer but rather the ordered unit.

Might as well make it an Initiative test if that's your logic for why it should be a Leadership test.

FFFFFF...... Hell NO!
An Initiative test would be even worse than the current system.

I can maybe see the Ld test as being a measure of the squad's discipline. If they're panicking (because, say, they're humans fighting otherworldly monstrosities ), then they're more likely to ignore the order. "Who cares about bringing down the stupid bloodthirster? It's all the way over there, and those bloodletters are almost on top of us!"

So, I think it could reasonably be seen as a test of whether or not the commanding officer can get them focussed on the task at hand. But then, this would also be a reason for Ld bonuses/rerolls (like the LC's Aura of Discipline) to work on Ld for Orders as well.

That being said, I'd be open to a different system for orders - I just don't see why it needs to be incredibly unreliable. It's not as if orders or IG infantry need toning down.

[quote=vipoid 651867 8066094 55b4f23109bb4f5979f77edc0c9a96ba.jpg

That being said, I'd be open to a different system for orders - I just don't see why it needs to be incredibly unreliable. It's not as if orders or IG infantry need toning down.

Or make orders checks based on the Ld of the officer issuing the orders.

Seems like the most logical, reasonable, and simplest way of doing things. Voxes allow unlimited range. Done.

How about orders are issued on the officer's leadership, with a penalty after a certain distance, which voxcasters remove?

Example: Company Commander issues an order to one squad within 12", and another beyond 12". The first one is taken on his unmodified Ld, the second at a -2 penalty.

 Blacksails wrote:
Or make orders checks based on the Ld of the officer issuing the orders.

Seems like the most logical, reasonable, and simplest way of doing things. Voxes allow unlimited range. Done.

As we are looking at playing it.
Vox makes Commands Unlimited.
Within the Command Radius you get a Ld re-Roll.
Keeps it simple.

Quite frankly, Orders should follow the Psyker rules, except that PCS Officers know all 3 Orders, and CCS Officers can cast more times.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite frankly, Orders should follow the Psyker rules, except that PCS Officers know all 3 Orders, and CCS Officers can cast more times.

No. We have a hard enough time as it is and other races get the same effect for free - IE Tau getting an extra shot just for having a fireblade with them.

IG should get free stuff and bonuses in addition to Orders.