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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the "model size" idea is pretty clever, but it also feels like a lot of effort to shoot Guilliman.

It's not just Guilliman, to be fair.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Some of the size categories proposed also would seem to penalize characters for taking terminator armor, which Im not sure I like.

Bear in mind that my ruling allowed for a difference of one size category - so a terminator HQ would still be able to hide behind normal SMs.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The S+T idea is elegant, but i might suggest the requirement for picking out a target be greater than a difference of 1. Like, a Nurgle lord would be unobscured by normal csm, for example, which doesnt feel right. What it seems you're looking for is more like, you dont want a Hive Tyrant to be able to hide behind Gaunts. (For the record I dont know how many wounds a Hive Tyrant has, but you get my drift.)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

I'm also thinking that it might be both better and easier to just use unmodified Toughness (rather than adding in Strength as well). I think toughness has a better relationship with size than strength does.

So, how about: "You may ignore models with unmodified toughness values that are 2 or more below the unmodified toughness of the character, when determining whether any enemy models are closer."

So, a T6 character can hide behind T5 units, but not behind units with T4 or less.

 MagicJuggler wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why not just say half the models in a unit must be within the bubble for the unit to receive the buff?

Define within. Is a unit that "clips" the bubble inside it? What about a Baneblade that is just a single tank tread inside? Otherwise, the bubble now favors elite shooting over mobs. How do Napoleonic Sternguard sound?

Then define them just like WMH does with "within" vs "completely within".

 vipoid wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think the "model size" idea is pretty clever, but it also feels like a lot of effort to shoot Guilliman.

It's not just Guilliman, to be fair.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Some of the size categories proposed also would seem to penalize characters for taking terminator armor, which Im not sure I like.

Bear in mind that my ruling allowed for a difference of one size category - so a terminator HQ would still be able to hide behind normal SMs.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The S+T idea is elegant, but i might suggest the requirement for picking out a target be greater than a difference of 1. Like, a Nurgle lord would be unobscured by normal csm, for example, which doesnt feel right. What it seems you're looking for is more like, you dont want a Hive Tyrant to be able to hide behind Gaunts. (For the record I dont know how many wounds a Hive Tyrant has, but you get my drift.)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

I'm also thinking that it might be both better and easier to just use unmodified Toughness (rather than adding in Strength as well). I think toughness has a better relationship with size than strength does.

So, how about: "You may ignore models with unmodified toughness values that are 2 or more below the unmodified toughness of the character, when determining whether any enemy models are closer."

So, a T6 character can hide behind T5 units, but not behind units with T4 or less.

Feel free to disregard the statement about Guilliman, it was mostly the immediate standout case.

Overall I like the idea and think its better then the simple 10 wound cutoff. But it does seem to put Daemon Princes in a tight spot, while leaving Azrael free to give every unit around him a 4++. (Which makes me think Guilliman is the target, as i cant think of other ginormous charcters that hand out such ginormous buffs.)

 Insectum7 wrote:
Feel free to disregard the statement about Guilliman, it was mostly the immediate standout case.

Overall I like the idea and think its better then the simple 10 wound cutoff. But it does seem to put Daemon Princes in a tight spot, while leaving Azrael free to give every unit around him a 4++. (Which makes me think Guilliman is the target, as i cant think of other ginormous charcters that hand out such ginormous buffs.)

Well, Guilliman is probably the worst offender in terms of balance, but I do think it's bad in terms if verisimilitude for, for example, CCBs to be able to hide behind Warriors.

Regardless, I get what you're saying. To be honest, this is one of my biggest issues with the current Character mechanic in general - it's all-or-nothing. Either you can shoot a character with no penalty or they're entirely immune to fire with no middle ground.

I really don't know what the answer is.

 vipoid wrote:

Er . . . what?

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here.

The official designers already made a good show of unoriginality making many characters an IG officer bestowing rerolls (and removing uniqueness of a specific army in the process).
But at least, you have to keep track of the positioning. to bestow the buff, the character must be close to the unit.

The rule you suggest removes even that game element. Is just a remodelled "unlock unit X" dressed up as a continuous aura activated regardless the distance.
And needs even less skill.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Er . . . what?

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here.

The official designers already made a good show of unoriginality making many characters an IG officer bestowing rerolls (and removing uniqueness of a specific army in the process).
But at least, you have to keep track of the positioning. to bestow the buff, the character must be close to the unit.

The rule you suggest removes even that game element. Is just a remodelled "unlock unit X" dressed up as a continuous aura activated regardless the distance.
And needs even less skill.

Because cramming all your models next to your character for aura buffs is "skill".

 Insectum7 wrote:


Because cramming all your models next to your character for aura buffs is "skill".

It is certainly is more strategic than having the buffs always on and hiding the character behind a building! Not to mention it is more immersive, the character is supposed to be leading the troops.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Er . . . what?

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here.

The official designers already made a good show of unoriginality making many characters an IG officer bestowing rerolls (and removing uniqueness of a specific army in the process).
But at least, you have to keep track of the positioning. to bestow the buff, the character must be close to the unit.

The rule you suggest removes even that game element. Is just a remodelled "unlock unit X" dressed up as a continuous aura activated regardless the distance.
And needs even less skill.

Because cramming all your models next to your character for aura buffs is "skill".

Is mediocre at best, but still needs more positioning and forethought than "take character X, get buff Y regardless of the position on the table".
In that way we go from mediocre to bad.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Because cramming all your models next to your character for aura buffs is "skill".

It is certainly is more strategic than having the buffs always on and hiding the character behind a building! Not to mention it is more immersive, the character is supposed to be leading the troops.

I disagree. Having an army wide buffs encourages more movement and positioning in actual dialogue with the opponents army. Aura/Squad buffs encourage glommed units and phalanxes.

I took Sicarius in about every game in 6th and 7th, partially because he gave Ld 10 to everybody in my army in a table-wide buff. It didn't break the game, and freed up my forces to, you know, move independently. It feels better IMO. Napoleon didn't march around in his front line. I like my commanders to be commanders, thank you.

Now, OTHER armies have had aura buffs that I think work great, like Necrons, whose various abilities actually encouraged phalanxes. But that was fine by me, because in pictures and fluff, Necrons were depicted as slowly moving phalanxes of Warriors. That worked great.

But when I'm using Abaddon not to lead spearheads, but to sit in the middle of a block of 60+ models acting as a firebase, the game is less interesting. I don't like commanders being encouraged to babysit, but that's what the current paradigm encourages.

The 3rd ed "We'll Be Back" was a rather good example of how to do "auras" and unit positioning right IMO. Since wiped-out units could join other units that were within 6", or within 12" of a Tomb Spyder unit within 12", you cared a lot about how you set your phalanx up. Further complicating matters was how Monoliths had to make the choice between using their teleportation gateway (which also granted WBB rerolls, but you could only teleport a unit from Reserve, or that was within 18" of the Monolith), or firing the Particle Whip.

All in all, there was a simple elegance to a lot of the Oldcron army list, even if it showed its age terribly in 5th edition. That said, there was still a certain hilarity in being able to attach a Destroyer Lord to a Tomb Spyder that had manufactured 2 Scarab Bases, leading to a Stealth T6 swarm where one model was ignoring Invulnerable Saves, and the unit acted as a "relay point" for repositioning your models as they reanimated into another unit.

What I think could be a solution is to penalize the number of points an army can take with certain auras, and express that in a percentage. For example: if you take RG, you get 5% less points. So in a 1000 point game, RG would cost another 50 points. In a 2000 point game, it would be 100 points.

I would limit this to named characters. For all non-named characters/HQs, I would put aura's in a point cost to the model, and make them optional. You want the Primaris Lt, pay another X points if you want the reroll.

 Perth wrote:
I think characters should be treated almost like psykers, each one has a set number of buffs they can hand out to a unit per turn, from a faction specific list like IG orders.

For example, a space marine lieutenant can make one unit within 6" Reroll 1s to hit, Reroll 1s to Wound, Fire after advancing, ect.

Captains pick two units, Chapter Masters get three, RG gets four, or maybe 3 on an upgraded list.

Hmmm Lets take this a step farther. Rather than a Psychic Phase have a Character Phase. During this Phase, psychics, buffs, etc can be performed by all characters. With some interaction and ability to deny the witch/buff, perhaps the assassin can make a special attack, etc. So characters get to do their special thing in their own phase

 admironheart wrote:

 Perth wrote:
I think characters should be treated almost like psykers, each one has a set number of buffs they can hand out to a unit per turn, from a faction specific list like IG orders.

For example, a space marine lieutenant can make one unit within 6" Reroll 1s to hit, Reroll 1s to Wound, Fire after advancing, ect.

Captains pick two units, Chapter Masters get three, RG gets four, or maybe 3 on an upgraded list.

Hmmm Lets take this a step farther. Rather than a Psychic Phase have a Character Phase. During this Phase, psychics, buffs, etc can be performed by all characters. With some interaction and ability to deny the witch/buff, perhaps the assassin can make a special attack, etc. So characters get to do their special thing in their own phase

Eww. You might as well just go back to 2nd Ed Dark Millennium Strategy Cards at that rate.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 admironheart wrote:

 Perth wrote:
I think characters should be treated almost like psykers, each one has a set number of buffs they can hand out to a unit per turn, from a faction specific list like IG orders.

For example, a space marine lieutenant can make one unit within 6" Reroll 1s to hit, Reroll 1s to Wound, Fire after advancing, ect.

Captains pick two units, Chapter Masters get three, RG gets four, or maybe 3 on an upgraded list.

Hmmm Lets take this a step farther. Rather than a Psychic Phase have a Character Phase. During this Phase, psychics, buffs, etc can be performed by all characters. With some interaction and ability to deny the witch/buff, perhaps the assassin can make a special attack, etc. So characters get to do their special thing in their own phase

Eww. You might as well just go back to 2nd Ed Dark Millennium Strategy Cards at that rate.

Or it'd make sense since Age of Sigmar already does that and this edition already borrows a lot from that game. It's called the Hero Phase, happens before movement, and it's when magic and Command Abilities can be used.

Unless you mean to "never go full Sigmar". I'm sure that's a meme somewhere.

 Arkaine wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 admironheart wrote:

 Perth wrote:
I think characters should be treated almost like psykers, each one has a set number of buffs they can hand out to a unit per turn, from a faction specific list like IG orders.

For example, a space marine lieutenant can make one unit within 6" Reroll 1s to hit, Reroll 1s to Wound, Fire after advancing, ect.

Captains pick two units, Chapter Masters get three, RG gets four, or maybe 3 on an upgraded list.

Hmmm Lets take this a step farther. Rather than a Psychic Phase have a Character Phase. During this Phase, psychics, buffs, etc can be performed by all characters. With some interaction and ability to deny the witch/buff, perhaps the assassin can make a special attack, etc. So characters get to do their special thing in their own phase

Eww. You might as well just go back to 2nd Ed Dark Millennium Strategy Cards at that rate.

Or it'd make sense since Age of Sigmar already does that and this edition already borrows a lot from that game. It's called the Hero Phase, happens before movement, and it's when magic and Command Abilities can be used.

Unless you mean to "never go full Sigmar". I'm sure that's a meme somewhere.

Eliminate phases. Alternate Activations!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
... and could actually be picking up on an issue I've noticed recently that encompasses 8th Edition as a whole.

A lot of the trouble with Conscripts is auras/character buffs. A lot of people's problems with Guilliman are auras/character buffs. A lot of why Celestine is so good are auras/character buffs, and part of the good thing about the Swarmlord is his auras/character buffs.

Perhaps 8th Edition is having trouble with synergy and achieving a balance there. I do think that in a vacuum, unit-to-unit or army-to-army (ignoring character buffs) the edition is pretty balanced (especially after that Flyer nerf). But the synergies that characters can add are very difficult to pin down in GW's point system, and I think they're causing trouble. Should the unit being synergized with bear the burden and be priced assuming you have the character nearby, meaning that if you don't bring the character, the unit is overpriced? Should the character be priced according to his synergy in optimum conditions, meaning that using them in a role where they aren't being 100% optimal they are overpriced? Should it be a rough average of the synergetic capabilities, meaning they are overpaying if they're not using it at all but underpaying if it's being optimized?

This is a head-scratcher for me, and I wanted to see if anyone else had any input on 1) if they think characters/synergies are part of the current 8th edition trouble spots and 2) how one could go about fixing it if so.

Its the Sigmar aspect of 8th. Aura buffs.

tl;dr: the deathstar didn't go away, it just changed shape.

Am I the only one to chafe at the use of the word synergy to describe the interaction that happens between character auras and units in 40k? What RG does for anything in the SM codex, what chapter masters do for their chapters or the equivalent characters in other armies do, are no more synergistic than a road is synergistic with the cars that drive upon its own surface. They were specifically designed with that role in mind.

GW has never really been good at attributing the points distribution of how things end up interacting on the tabletop. These models are force multipliers and RG is the worst offender. It is a difficult process to examine how many points that multiplier might be worth without the shortcomings of GW points assignment.

I think if RG just re-rolled misses or wound rolls and not both, he would still be taken, just not as much as he is. But the global buff of 'my dice get a second chance at destroying your minis' is just about the best global buff (really, 2 buffs) that anything could have been given. I'm hard pressed to think of a buff that would be better that just doesn't reek of satire (like a global buff of +1 to saves as well as re-rolls to those same saves).

They didn't get the buffs or the points right, but are in a place where they can't really correct the problem because there are too many sides to it; he's cheaper than he should be; he's stupidly survivable and then can resurrect on top of it; oddly, he can be tucked away with the character rules; as a force multiplier, he is a very effective fighter and so is immune to the desperate assault to try to wrap him up; his aura is like two auras from other characters, only better.

The force multiplier auras are one of two problems I can see with the game. The other being undercosted troops, when taken en-masse tend to provide the opponent with no good targets for their own attacks and create lopsided turn-to-turn casualty swaps.

But I will say, that comparing most factions together outside of the force-multiplying effects and the super spammable selections, the factions tend to be quite a bit closer together.

 heckler wrote:
Am I the only one to chafe at the use of the word synergy to describe the interaction that happens between character auras and units in 40k? What RG does for anything in the SM codex, what chapter masters do for their chapters or the equivalent characters in other armies do, are no more synergistic than a road is synergistic with the cars that drive upon its own surface. They were specifically designed with that role in mind.

Probably, yes.

syn·er·gy
ˈsinərjē/
noun
noun: synergy; plural noun: synergies; noun: synergism; plural noun: synergisms

the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

"the synergy between artist and record company"
synonyms: cooperative interaction, cooperation, combined effort, give and take
"there's no synergy between the two, so no costs are saved"


Pretty sure the auras and troops produce a greater effect when combined than they can manage solo. They're the new deathstar and like it or not... that's synergy.

You probably aren't the only one to chafe at it, no.

But it's synergy.

Also, the road is in fact synergistic to the use of the car, and given modern tax systems, vice versa. The road allows for a smoother, safer, more organized car ride. The owners of the car pay taxes that maintain the road, allowing the road to be better at its job.

I know it's silly but... yes, actually, that IS synergy. Synergy is a very broad concept.

Alternating activations would be horrible in 40k unless the game used a whole hell of a lot less models. 4 turns would take way too damn long.

One thing that I do chafe at is the fact that in another thread we are talking about GWs inability to distinguish between things costing points for being good at things and things costing points for being bad at things. Everyone argues ork shooting is priced correctly because if they ever get into CC they are better then their opponents there.

Well in the case of girlyman, his aura buff also effects CC I Believe, so shouldn't he cost even more because he is applying basically 4 aura buffs not counting his other aura which gives a movement buff?

GW just needs to pay more attention to playtesting and less attention to telling people how things should be done. I am still waiting for the guys over at FLG to explain to me why the Stompa is so good according to them.

The only thing that makes pricing auras so complicated is how wide some of their buffs are.

If Guilliman only affected "Friendly <Ultramarines> TACTICAL SQUADS and ASSAULT SQUADS", it would be easier to set a correct point cost for it. It would also favor a certain game-style (lots of Tactical squads and Assault squads) which would otherwise not exist.

Notice how no one ever complains about Badrukk's aura ?

 Nym wrote:
The only thing that makes pricing auras so complicated is how wide some of their buffs are.

If Guilliman only affected "Friendly <Ultramarines> TACTICAL SQUADS and ASSAULT SQUADS", it would be easier to set a correct point cost for it. It would also favor a certain game-style (lots of Tactical squads and Assault squads) which would otherwise not exist.

Notice how no one ever complains about Badrukk's aura ?

I agree completely. As it stands, every game I have played against Girlyman has been a non-moving Gunline that can delete entire squads with alacrity. Girlyman sits in the middle of 4-6 Tanks/Razorbacks a couple of infantry squads and just mows everything down with his reroll to hit and wound on everything. Put it this way, he is usually giving TL to 8 Lascannons, 2-4 Asscans and a plethora of small arms/heavy weapons. TL on a Lascannons was what, 10pts per weapon last edition? then buffing those Plasma toting primaris marines so they don't over heat and die half as often is another buff. then throw on shred to everything, yeah your looking at a 20pt per weapon (depending on weapon) upgrade so just the 8 lascannons are worth 160pts for the auras alone. He needs a hefty increase in price or a hefty nerf.

 Byte wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
... and could actually be picking up on an issue I've noticed recently that encompasses 8th Edition as a whole.

A lot of the trouble with Conscripts is auras/character buffs. A lot of people's problems with Guilliman are auras/character buffs. A lot of why Celestine is so good are auras/character buffs, and part of the good thing about the Swarmlord is his auras/character buffs.

Perhaps 8th Edition is having trouble with synergy and achieving a balance there. I do think that in a vacuum, unit-to-unit or army-to-army (ignoring character buffs) the edition is pretty balanced (especially after that Flyer nerf). But the synergies that characters can add are very difficult to pin down in GW's point system, and I think they're causing trouble. Should the unit being synergized with bear the burden and be priced assuming you have the character nearby, meaning that if you don't bring the character, the unit is overpriced? Should the character be priced according to his synergy in optimum conditions, meaning that using them in a role where they aren't being 100% optimal they are overpriced? Should it be a rough average of the synergetic capabilities, meaning they are overpaying if they're not using it at all but underpaying if it's being optimized?

This is a head-scratcher for me, and I wanted to see if anyone else had any input on 1) if they think characters/synergies are part of the current 8th edition trouble spots and 2) how one could go about fixing it if so.

Its the Sigmar aspect of 8th. Aura buffs.

Except that in AoS it's not a big problem as you can target characters freely. On the other hand the problem there is that, the characters are so easy to kill, that the armies that are dependent on the character buffs (like Death, where it's due to the traditional fluff) have problems.

I think Auras should be universally changed so that the units need to be wholly within, not just one model. People some times do ridiculous looking stuff to get the aura by spreading the units.

Other option would be if objectives had to be placed further away than 12" from each other. So one cannot place them all together and easily hold them all with units affected by same aura.

Of course simultaneously with above the ranges of auras would maybe need to be adjusted.

On Reboute, it should follow the line of the chapter abilities... that is to say, it should effect Infantry, Bikes, and Dreads, leaving out the rest. (Ditto for Captains, Lts, and so on) ... in one pass, you get a massive reduction in brokenness while still keeping the intent intact.

Why not just change auras to effect models not units within range?
So, for instance, five marines of a ten man squad are within 6" of Girlyman. Only those five will be able to re-roll to hit and to wound rolls, and without a specific provision to vehicles, you won't end up with four Predators piggybacking off of the buff

It'll certainly help discourage the gunline strategy, whereas a single Tac marine barely within the benevolent gaze of the primarch can somehow inspire his comrade standing several hundred yards away, preoccupied with punching an Ork Boy to preform better in combat.

It also wouldn't unnecessarily punish horde armies who rely on characters for leadership. For instance, one Guardsman is within 6" of a Commisar, buffing his leadership to nine. Since the unit uses the highest leadership, it makes the ability functionally identical to its previous iteration.

Lastly, and in my opinion, most importantly, it helps to set a concrete point of reference for point balancing. Whereas now you can string out units from a character, creating some strange perversion of an octopus, that can be functionally infinite in length (and thus, infinitely difficult to balance), there would be the limitation that you can fit only so many Tac Marines into the aura space, or so many Terminators, or Nobz, Grotesques, Pain Engines, etc.

It wouldn't gut their functionally, it might help partially discourage stacking elite units next to it, and there certainly would be a noticeable decrease in table spanning blobs of infantry.

TheBaconPope wrote:
Why not just change auras to effect models not units within range?
So, for instance, five marines of a ten man squad are within 6" of Girlyman. Only those five will be able to re-roll to hit and to wound rolls, and without a specific provision to vehicles, you won't end up with four Predators piggybacking off of the buff

It'll certainly help discourage the gunline strategy, whereas a single Tac marine barely within the benevolent gaze of the primarch can somehow inspire his comrade standing several hundred yards away, preoccupied with punching an Ork Boy to preform better in combat.

It also wouldn't unnecessarily punish horde armies who rely on characters for leadership. For instance, one Guardsman is within 6" of a Commisar, buffing his leadership to nine. Since the unit uses the highest leadership, it makes the ability functionally identical to its previous iteration.

Lastly, and in my opinion, most importantly, it helps to set a concrete point of reference for point balancing. Whereas now you can string out units from a character, creating some strange perversion of an octopus, that can be functionally infinite in length (and thus, infinitely difficult to balance), there would be the limitation that you can fit only so many Tac Marines into the aura space, or so many Terminators, or Nobz, Grotesques, Pain Engines, etc.

It wouldn't gut their functionally, it might help partially discourage stacking elite units next to it, and there certainly would be a noticeable decrease in table spanning blobs of infantry.

I Can cram well over 120 models into a 9inch bubble around my Big Mek with a KFF. That won't solve this problem.

I find it kinda ironic that GW tried to do away with death stars and instead ended up making them a hell of a lot easier to do.