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.

It's an awesome concept, and one I fully endorse and approve of - but only when it's use to create rules for a model, rather than a model for the rules.

I understand we're getting a Land Raidercentric version in Chapter Approved in a few weeks (I think it's out around Chrimbo?), but for Open Play only. So that's nice (and I'm hoping we get a raft of conversion tutorials alongside).

Still not sure it's something we the gamers can really be trusted with though!

It's nice concept but for competive gaming seriously bad idea. Either vehicles will suck balls enough nobody really bothers with it or there are cracks wide open for land raider to drive through for broken combos.

If anything, rules exist to be broken, at least if done responsibly. Hi-profile gamebreakers are what lead to oddities like the 2e Space Wolf Reprint, going "No, you cannot take an entire unit of Assault Cannon/Cyclone Launcher Wolf Guard!"

Mind you, the 3rd ed VDR was done by Jervis and was full of his "don't break this, you naughty powergamer" elitism. I wonder what it would be like if someone like Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch (GURPS) were to take a crack at a more flexible pointing system, knowing he's not working under the constraint that the system should let a player field an intelligent telepathic blueberry muffin...

 MagicJuggler wrote:
If anything, rules exist to be broken, at least if done responsibly. Hi-profile gamebreakers are what lead to oddities like the 2e Space Wolf Reprint, going "No, you cannot take an entire unit of Assault Cannon/Cyclone Launcher Wolf Guard!"

Mind you, the 3rd ed VDR was done by Jervis and was full of his "don't break this, you naughty powergamer" elitism. I wonder what it would be like if someone like Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch (GURPS) were to take a crack at a more flexible pointing system, knowing he's not working under the constraint that the system should let a player field an intelligent telepathic blueberry muffin...

We already have telepathic blueberry muffins.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It's an awesome concept, and one I fully endorse and approve of - but only when it's used to create rules for a model, rather than a model for the rules.

I very much agree!
This is key to VDR and any kind of unit-creation mechanic in any game. It's still possible to abuse it, but when you look at a model and say "how can I make rules that represent this" you usually get a much less beardy result than looking at the rules and saying "how can I make a highly effective unit". We've generally had good luck with game systems that have unit-creation mechanics by more-or-less following the "create rules for a model" philosophy.

I would put fourth that VDR -as cool as it was- was always an odd fit for 40k. 40k is a system that has always catered to listbuilders by offering them a huge array of choices from which the enterprising math-gamer can construct game-breaking combos. To cater to that type of gameplay, while at the same time saying "now when you use VDR think differently" is a bit of a contradiction.

This is why, above all things, I endorse the existence of Open War and "Narrative" levels of the game. To me, this gave GW a huge "out" for all kinds of more amusing stuff. Unbalanced scenarios? Fine, just don't use Matched Play. Silly new ideas? Cool, just don't use Matched play, etc. This is the perfect excuse for tournament organizers to simply say "This is a Matched Play event" and they don't have to worry about stuff like that. It introduces Open War decks, VDR rules returning, etc.

Now, all of this was possible in earlier editions through various White Dwarf articles or simple player agreements --- but now it's a better platform for GW to put stuff out which is more on edge than proper matched play materiel.

Want to run stripped down Chimeras in a role similar to Russian BMD (air deliverable light armour)? Cool ,make some rules. I'll be doing a large CSM tank at some point --- and if I can use rules from GW, even better. I would have done it anyway, but a guide would be nice!

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.

***

Regarding the VDR, it was cool - I recall looking at building a Pred with twin Auto-cannon and Hurricane Bolter sponsons, until I realised how poor the metal Hurricane Bolters were

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.)

And that doesn't allow for MFA? I can think of couple ways to do that right off the bat.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Ruin wrote:
You... you, do know how LOS works in WMH right? There is literally no way to MFA with it due to a model's base size being an integral part of its rules. If I put Butcher on a small base, that isn't MFA, that's straight up cheating. Conversely, I can take the Juggernaut from Thagrosh the Painter and put it on its large base it's supposed to be on would not be MFA as its base size given in its rules determines it volume.

How that works with GW games where you are allowed to use base it originally came with so as to not be a jerk and force expensive/impossible without damaging model rebasing?

Specify volumes for base sizes that GW produce, from 20mm round upwards (including square options as appropriate). Alongside a unit entry, state the base sizes which have been supplied in the past (so a standard tactical SM should state 25mm or 32mm, off the top of my head), and that the model can be based on any of these, and will be treated as the appropriate volume for LOS purposes.

A smaller base makes you a smaller target, but gives you less area to shoot *from*, as well.)

And that doesn't allow for MFA? I can think of couple ways to do that right off the bat.

Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

And half the old armies owned by people have those smaller bases, anyway. I know I refuse to rebase 100+ Space Marines across several armies, and I have about 15 metal terminators on 25mm bases.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

Yes. So you mount up your assault terminators/space marines on 25 rather than 40/32. Instant gaming advantage. As it is due to concentration of firepower now that templates are no more small base helps shooty units too...

tneva82 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Please, elaborate - that was also a first stab at it. You state what size base(s) a model can be on based on what it has been sold with, and you dictate the volume they are assumed to take up for the purpose of LOS. I really don't see the wiggle room, though I'd need to think on things like vehicles which don't have bases.

If smaller base=harder to get LOS to then howabout put in some CC troops into small base. Helps hiding them, who cares they have harder time shooting their bolt pistols or whateva. Their main weapons have range of 1".

And frankly simply being able to cram more guys into smaller base HELPS shooting units as well.

I think Dystartes meant you could choose from the base sizes that models have come with previously, not simply that you can mount them on any base you like. So most infantry will only allowed to be based on 25mm, Space Marines 25 or 32mm, Terminators 40mm or 25mm and so on.

Yes. So you mount up your assault terminators/space marines on 25 rather than 40/32. Instant gaming advantage. As it is due to concentration of firepower now that templates are no more small base helps shooty units too...

I wouldn't call it MFA to use the bases models originally came on if you're using older models.

If someone rocks up with modern Termies mounted on 25mm bases then it just gives you a good indication that it's probably someone you want to avoid playing against

The problem with MFA is if someone does something like making a model prone, or making a model that relies on LOS excessively tall... not using a base that a model originally came with.

Yeah well terminators are easier to spot but whatabout all those PA guys? Those on 25mm base even when you buy new box=instant gaming advantage.

tneva82 wrote:
Yeah well terminators are easier to spot but whatabout all those PA guys? Those on 25mm base even when you buy new box=instant gaming advantage.

Do we really care? Space Marines have been on 25mm bases since forever, 32mm bases are pretty new so I think it's fair enough that someone would base their new Space Marines like their old ones. It's just a problem you have to live with when GW changes the bases that models came with. I wouldn't mind if someone did the same with Terminators, if they had a lot of old school Termies putting new ones to match, the difference with Termies is that old Termies have rigid boring poses and are too small compared to the current ones so I can't see too many people basing their new Termies on to 25mm to match their old models.

Going for smaller base sizes isn't really terribly relevant to the discussion at hand anyway (ie. conversions) as I haven't met too many people who convert models on to smaller bases, it's almost always larger bases.

It's kind of just a thought exercise for a problem that doesn't seem even remotely prevalent.

For what it's worth, 8th ed might be the first edition in a long time in which smaller bases actually provide an advantage due to how terrain requires the whole unit to stand in it to gain cover,

I don't think it's a problem either, considering GW doesn't generally write good rules. What's one more that doesn't work as intended?