Switch Theme:

Would GW Make Radical Changes to Fix 40k 8th?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




It didn't work in 2nd at all. It was a disaster.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Parshall, ND

A simple fix to the stratagems (This is really simple, but kind of rough)

You can only use the (Chapter/Regiment/etc...)stratagems of your Warlord and only on units that share the right keyword

So My Company Commander can only issue Voystag Stratagems to other Voyst units. Astra Militarium Stratagems to other Astra Militarium, etc...

My space marines with him can only use the basic stratagems in the main book. However if there were Imperium Stratagems then they could use those also

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Why "fix" stratagems when 75% are already useless?
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine





The concept of the new AP system is fine. I always thought it was dumb that either your armor worked or it didnt, way too binary. The degredation of armor saves is a good idea, and I can get behind reducing the AP on some guns though so its not as impactful as right now. That way MEQs will still have decent saves more often than they do now, though that is more of across the board weapons balance/CA change than a need for a new edition.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/26 15:27:40


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
You never know when that leman russ will punch you back

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Yarium wrote:
I also don't think radical changes are necessary. Heck, I don't even agree with points #1 and #2, and #3 is loose at best.

#1/#2 - These are kind of both the same "problem". Right now, admittedly, tough armour doesn't mean much, but that's really only the case in tournament-style lists or if you're always playing against the pointy-eared ones or their robotic enemies. Those two factions put down so much -4AP it's crazy, and that level of AP makes a 3+ save exactly as effective as a 6+ save. This is why Horde Lists have come to dominate the meta; their models, worth so few points per model, are exactly as survivable against this kind of stuff as the beefy/tough T4 and 3+ save models. In the current system and meta, that means your horde infantry units should cost more points per model, and/or your -3 and -4AP weapons should cost more points per weapon as well (in fact, I would lean towards the latter rather than the former, but a bit of both would go a long way).

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with 3+ saves and cover. What's wrong is the gaming environment around those models. Make these changes, and 3+ will be seen on the table once again, as -4AP weapons become less abundant, and horde lists become smaller. This is something that really can only be seen now after 1 year of constant games where a pattern can emerge.


#3 - Okay, Soup isn't really the problem. The problem is CP spam, and we all know which legendary group of 32 Guardsmen are responsible for that. Outside of that, I haven't had much a problem with Soup, even of the Chaos and Eldar variety. Chaos, as a whole, share many of the same weaknesses and strengths across their factions, as do the Eldar. The worst offenders outside the legendary 32 are psychic powers cross-faction buffing, and Vect's Agents being just absolutely everywhere, but those are pretty minor compared to "all the CP, every game". The fix here, in my opinion, should be made to the way CP is generated. There's a lot of options there, and each will take time to figure out as well, so there's no quick end-all-be-all fix. Any fix here will generate new problems, but we'll have to wait and see what those problems are.


Re#1/2:

You are actually incorrect about a number if things here. The issue actually isn't high AP weapons being under-priced. They are actually overpriced. It is actually the AP1 and AP2 weapons that are underpriced, and/or 2+ and 3+ saves that are overpriced. I'll try to explain why:

The first thing you have to think about is what i think of as "wound thresholds." Everytime a model gains a wound, it becomes harder to kill with certain weapons. The first important wound threshold is 1. The strength of only having 1 wound is that you ignore any extra damage from weapons that pay to do more than 1 damage. The strength of units with single wound models is that they require a separate shot to remove each model. For example, a unit of ten guardsmen is going to require 10 failed wounds to kill the squad no matter what gun is shooting at them. This means that to effectively kill single wound models, you need to use mortal wounds or weapons with single damage values so you aren't wasting the stats the weapon pays for. When you have two wounds, you gain the advantage of requiring twice as many single damage weapons to remove the model, but still die to 2+ damage. Because there are a number of 2 damage weapons with relatively high rates of fire, and most 2 wound models are expensive and come in small numbers, this is currently not considered to be a very valuable number of wounds (see primaris marines, bikes, etc). 3 wounds is the beginning of true durability, because it doubles the number of 2D weapons needed to remove models, and begins to require 3 damage or D6 damage guns to remove a model per failed wound. Because the number of shots guns with 3 or D6 damage tend to have, units with 3 wounds tend to be able to take a reasonable amount of punishment. 4 wounds doesn't help against the 2 damage weapons, but it does help against 3 damage guns, and means you only die to D6 damage guns half the time, instead of 4/6 of the time like models with 3 wounds do. The only notable thing about 5-6 wounds is that it requires three 2 damage weapons to remove a model, and that the likelihood of being 1 shot by a D6 damage weapon is reduced. 7+ wounds is when something gets really tough, as almost nothing (except the very biggest weapons in the game) can 1 shot you, and you typically require at least two failed saves against D6 weapons to die.

It's worth noting that although it's possible to cause the enemy to waste their damage by killing a model with more damage than it has wounds, you never really waste single damage weapons. A single damage weapon will always get it's full value shooting at any target, though it might not always be the most efficient option. Low damage weapons also tend to have higher numbers of shots, which forces more saves, and is more reliable at causing damage (for example, you normally would prefer to have the enemy roll six 4+ saves causing 1 damage each than one 4+ save doing 6 damage, because although the average damage is the same, a successful save on the 6 damage gun means you do no damage 50% of the time, whereas you are still likely to do 2-3 damage even if the opponent rolling the single damage saves gets "lucky") For these reasons, weapons with 1-2 damage and lots of shots tend to be the most efficient damage dealers.

The AP / Armor and S / T relationships are linked to the wound / damage situation because in most cases, a weapon that does a lot of damage will also have a high Str and high AP, and weapons that do low damage tend to have low S and low AP. This means that generally, the multi-damage weapons are going to be good at killing things that have high T, decent armor saves, and lots of wounds, and the low damage guns are going to be good at killing things with low amounts of wounds, armor, and T.

Another thing to be aware of is that the better your armor save is, the more you are hurt by AP values. AP increases the number of failed saves by a model with a 2+ armor save by 100% per point of AP (AP1 makes you go from failing 1/6 to 2/6 saves, etc). It only decreases the number of failed saves for 3+ armor by 50%, 4+ by 33%, 5+ by 20%, and 6+ by 20%. The worse your armor save, the less AP hurts you, and some AP can even be wasted (AP3 vs a 6+ save, for example). This means that given the number of guns that have an AP value (most of them), armor is not a very valuable stat, and each progressing increase in armor is less valuable than the last. It also means that given the variety of armor saves in the game, AP becomes less valuable the more of it you have (since you can waste it, and usually -2 reductions to a model's save is enough to damage it effectively).

An additional factor to consider is invul saves. Invul saves reduce the value of AP by simply ignoring it. Ideally, you want enough AP to reduce the armor of a unit without wasting any AP on their invul save. This is another reason why more than about -2AP tends to be wasted against competitive targets. If you look at most of the competitive vehicles in the game right now, they probably have a at least a 5++ invul, and the really good ones probably have a 4++ (which knights can make a 3++). This is a problem because as i said earlier, most of the guns that are good at damaging vehicles pay for high AP values, which the invuls then ignore, making them very inefficient.

What all this boils down to is that in the current state of the game, armor saves and low rate of fire, high AP, high damage guns, and units with 2 wounds tend to be overpriced, while units with 1 wound, guns with 1-2 points of AP, and multi-wound models with invul saves tend to be underpriced. The only factors I can think of to add to add to this are negative to hit modifiers being too good against too many armies, and CP generation being messed up, and you get the current state of the meta.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Will GW make more radical changes to the game if they feel it'll save 8th? Yes. Will those be the changes listed in this thread? Probably not.

GW's concern is to try and ensure that we're playing the game they intend to be playing. If we find a way to break the game their priority is to patch the break (Smite Spam, Soups, ect) and try and ensure we're not playing outside the sandbox they designed for us.

Now if there continues to be a problem with certain things (say Marine armies with no Marines) they may try to address the issue, but they're more concerned with setting up strong boundary lines so the casual (or at least the developer's meta) and competitive sides of the game play with the same tools in similar ways.

Can we see changes that address Power Armour being so weak? Perhaps, but seeing as Terminator Armour feels even more like scrap tissue paper than Power Armour and still hasn't seen a major change to fix it, I'm going to say it's not going to be coming soon.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





JmOz01 wrote:
A simple fix to the stratagems (This is really simple, but kind of rough)

You can only use the (Chapter/Regiment/etc...)stratagems of your Warlord and only on units that share the right keyword

So My Company Commander can only issue Voystag Stratagems to other Voyst units. Astra Militarium Stratagems to other Astra Militarium, etc...

My space marines with him can only use the basic stratagems in the main book. However if there were Imperium Stratagems then they could use those also


This is easier said than done. You'd need a wording that still allows strats to target enemy units as appropriate. If you just say 'can only target Voystag' that breaks some Stratagems in this way.

You may end up needing to mass errata strats, which would greatly put off GW from using the idea.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don’t know if they would be radical changes but I’d like to see…

1. Using CA to do some point redistribution to fix some units that are clearly in a place they don’t belong. I’m Space Marine orientated, but I think that Centurions, Terminators, Land Raiders, and some of the others getting a point reduction would be good to see. And perhaps some of the stuff like aggressors getting a small increase to keep the ork players off the ledge.
2. I’d like to see some clean up in the Assault Rules. I think they are about 85%. Getting them some clean up would be useful.
3. I think everyone can nearly universally agree that some clean up in the CP/Stratagem/Point returners is needed.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Stux wrote:
JmOz01 wrote:
A simple fix to the stratagems (This is really simple, but kind of rough)

You can only use the (Chapter/Regiment/etc...)stratagems of your Warlord and only on units that share the right keyword

So My Company Commander can only issue Voystag Stratagems to other Voyst units. Astra Militarium Stratagems to other Astra Militarium, etc...

My space marines with him can only use the basic stratagems in the main book. However if there were Imperium Stratagems then they could use those also



This is easier said than done. You'd need a wording that still allows strats to target enemy units as appropriate. If you just say 'can only target Voystag' that breaks some Stratagems in this way.

You may end up needing to mass errata strats, which would greatly put off GW from using the idea.


It's pretty easy, actually: "if your warlord is a <faction> model, you unlock <faction> strategems found in this codex in addition to the ones found in the rulebook."

Then you just follow the strategems as normal.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 15:56:20


 
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





That bits easy. I was talking about the idea that the strats could only target your Warlord's faction.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




But most strategems can already only target friendly units of that faction
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




U.k

I think you should lose CPs for using specialised FoC. Like supreme command and spearhead. U should also lose CPs for each different keyword in your army. Like all dark angels, no loss. Dark angles and guard, -3. Pay for allies and what they bring.

Cover works ok but I’d rather go back to negative hit modifiers than 3rd-7th edition style cover saves. Lost sight rules need changing not cover. We play a more sensible version but apparently you can’t allow for common sense in the 40k community anymore.

AP is fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
It didn't work in 2nd at all. It was a disaster.


2nd edition had no disasters. It’s was a golden age. I loved that game and still do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 16:38:57


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Andykp wrote:
I think you should lose CPs for using specialised FoC. Like supreme command and spearhead. U should also lose CPs for each different keyword in your army. Like all dark angels, no loss. Dark angles and guard, -3. Pay for allies and what they bring.

Cover works ok but I’d rather go back to negative hit modifiers than 3rd-7th edition style cover saves. Lost sight rules need changing not cover. We play a more sensible version but apparently you can’t allow for common sense in the 40k community anymore.

AP is fine too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
It didn't work in 2nd at all. It was a disaster.


2nd edition had no disasters. It’s was a golden age. I loved that game and still do.

You can't expect common sense anywhere. I mean Deadpool summed it up best:


That said, no matter how cover gets redefined in the future there will always be arguements about what counts as in cover or not because anytime someone suffers a penalty or a bonus from unit positioning it'll be gamed one way or another.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




1. I think it would be better and make more sense to remove saves altogether. If a model gets wounded, its armor clearly didn't protect it. Done. Make the game more reliant on being in cover and general good decision making than rolling dice for survivability.

2. Make being in cover impose a negative modifier to the shooter's to-hit roll, or increase the target's evasion stat. Cover does not make you more physically resilient, it makes you more difficult to hit in the first place. LOS also needs to be reworked and somewhat abstracted (but not to warmahordes 2d terrain level) so that every little opening doesn't grant LOS.

3. Remove allies. Period. There are too many factions and units in the game for it to be balanced and allow meaningful decisions if people can mix-and-match units. It may sell more models, but it isn't good for gameplay. Unless you prefer a very bland game to compensate for 20-something different factions and their combinations.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





jcd386 wrote:
What all this boils down to is that in the current state of the game, armor saves and low rate of fire, high AP, high damage guns, and units with 2 wounds tend to be overpriced, while units with 1 wound, guns with 1-2 points of AP, and multi-wound models with invul saves tend to be underpriced. The only factors I can think of to add to add to this are negative to hit modifiers being too good against too many armies, and CP generation being messed up, and you get the current state of the meta.


These were all good points, and I appreciate you taking your time to go through them. However, I think you're missing the effect of how the meta adjusts the experience of individuals. I had a monstrous post ready, but really, this one line is all I really need to say. We have a difference of opinions on what is hurting 3+ save armies.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




2nd ed had more one turn tablings than all other editions combined. Oh and pulsa rokkit spam. 2nd can go die in a fire.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Blastaar wrote:
1. I think it would be better and make more sense to remove saves altogether. If a model gets wounded, its armor clearly didn't protect it. Done. Make the game more reliant on being in cover and general good decision making than rolling dice for survivability.

2. Make being in cover impose a negative modifier to the shooter's to-hit roll, or increase the target's evasion stat. Cover does not make you more physically resilient, it makes you more difficult to hit in the first place. LOS also needs to be reworked and somewhat abstracted (but not to warmahordes 2d terrain level) so that every little opening doesn't grant LOS.

3. Remove allies. Period. There are too many factions and units in the game for it to be balanced and allow meaningful decisions if people can mix-and-match units. It may sell more models, but it isn't good for gameplay. Unless you prefer a very bland game to compensate for 20-something different factions and their combinations.


1) This is silly. A child behind glass is more well protected against fists than an adult in football pads, but the adult in football pads can take more hits from a baseball bat.

2) Cover does, in fact, sometimes make you more physically resilient. You are talking about concealment, which is different from cover. Hiding in a bush is concealment, but doesn't make you more physically resilient. Hiding behind a concrete berm is cover - because it absolutely does make you resistant to bullets. Incidentally, most cover is also concealment (you can hide behind the concrete berm from observation as well as bullets) but not all concealment is cover.

3) IOW: Fluff should die that rules may live, despite the only attraction of 40k being the fluff.
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




I think 3+ saves are fine, and SM armies are just hurting because their generic dudes are bad at shooting and bad at assault relative to their points. Cheaper SMs (Sisters) are solid. Better armed SMs (Deathwatch) are solid. Tacticals and Assault Marines just aren’t especially dangerous for their points.

Obviously, all this is fixable just by tweaking points. A Marine at 13 might suck, but keep adjusting points downward and you will hit a value where the unit is strong again.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Thinking of cover versus concealment, I kind of wish we had terrain rules for this. Like if you can't see most of a unit/model it has a -1 to hit, but if you shoot at it with weapons that have an AP value (say of -3 or better) then it doesn't get a bonus to it's armour.

It'd make positioning and terrain more important while also making those expensive weapons with good AP values get a little more love on the table instead of seeing plasma spam on everything.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




U.k

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed had more one turn tablings than all other editions combined. Oh and pulsa rokkit spam. 2nd can go die in a fire.


Shocked and hurt! second edition was beautiful and glorious. U obviously played with bad people. If they said 9th edition was going to the same as second and they would ban tournaments I would be so happy.
   
Made in gb
Horrific Hive Tyrant





meleti wrote:
I think 3+ saves are fine, and SM armies are just hurting because their generic dudes are bad at shooting and bad at assault relative to their points. Cheaper SMs (Sisters) are solid. Better armed SMs (Deathwatch) are solid. Tacticals and Assault Marines just aren’t especially dangerous for their points.

Obviously, all this is fixable just by tweaking points. A Marine at 13 might suck, but keep adjusting points downward and you will hit a value where the unit is strong again.


I don't want to tweak down though. I think the niche a marine should fill is around the 13pt mark, they just need something adjusting up to meet that point cost.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Andykp wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed had more one turn tablings than all other editions combined. Oh and pulsa rokkit spam. 2nd can go die in a fire.


Shocked and hurt! second edition was beautiful and glorious. U obviously played with bad people. If they said 9th edition was going to the same as second and they would ban tournaments I would be so happy.

Second edition had some problems too. Like the virus bomb thing that killed models without helmets.

It was a great beer and pretzels game, but it was hardly perfect.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Andykp wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed had more one turn tablings than all other editions combined. Oh and pulsa rokkit spam. 2nd can go die in a fire.


Shocked and hurt! second edition was beautiful and glorious. U obviously played with bad people. If they said 9th edition was going to the same as second and they would ban tournaments I would be so happy.


"Bad people"? How about bad rules that allowed them to do this?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Yarium wrote:
jcd386 wrote:
What all this boils down to is that in the current state of the game, armor saves and low rate of fire, high AP, high damage guns, and units with 2 wounds tend to be overpriced, while units with 1 wound, guns with 1-2 points of AP, and multi-wound models with invul saves tend to be underpriced. The only factors I can think of to add to add to this are negative to hit modifiers being too good against too many armies, and CP generation being messed up, and you get the current state of the meta.


These were all good points, and I appreciate you taking your time to go through them. However, I think you're missing the effect of how the meta adjusts the experience of individuals. I had a monstrous post ready, but really, this one line is all I really need to say. We have a difference of opinions on what is hurting 3+ save armies.


Well, when I say the meta I mean the game as a whole, globally, taking into account as many factions, armies, and units into account. If you played infinite games with every possible army list combination against every other list combination, I'm confident the general balance issues I mentioned would remain consistent.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Stux wrote:
meleti wrote:
I think 3+ saves are fine, and SM armies are just hurting because their generic dudes are bad at shooting and bad at assault relative to their points. Cheaper SMs (Sisters) are solid. Better armed SMs (Deathwatch) are solid. Tacticals and Assault Marines just aren’t especially dangerous for their points.

Obviously, all this is fixable just by tweaking points. A Marine at 13 might suck, but keep adjusting points downward and you will hit a value where the unit is strong again.


I don't want to tweak down though. I think the niche a marine should fill is around the 13pt mark, they just need something adjusting up to meet that point cost.

I can agree with this. Pushing points further down doesn't solve the problem, and instead there needs to be something to make them worth their points instead. Though if we're not giving them Primaris stats then the Marines (in general) need an overhaul. Here are some I just thought of while mulling this over and while I do say "all Marines" (meaning of every flavor that it can apply to), I feel any of these changes would make Tactical Marines more viable on the table because they'll see some bonuses that could

I can think of a bunch of things GW could do with Marines, but balancing them in the game is tough, even if it matches lore:
+ give all Power Armoured Marines a bonus against AP turning AP-1 into AP0, and so on (to a minimum of AP0) making them more likely to weather heavier firepower to represent the superior nature of Marine PA versus non-Marine PA (since Marine PA fits more stuff and protective plating over other versions of it that are worn by non-Marines, though this is a rule that'd probably carry over to Custodes as well due to how good Custodes armour is supposed to be).
+ give all Marines a 6+ fnp (obviously annoys Plague Marines, but if they have a 5+ or better they're still more resilient and it'd show off the way Chaos perverts the natural gifts of the Astartes more) rule standard to represent how well they shrug off wounds (this would buff scouts as well, but it'd make Tacticals stay on the board better as well since a 3+/6+++ is better than a 4+/6+++, especially against AP modifiers or when in cover).
+ swap all bolt pistols for a basic melee weapon (chainswords or combat knives for +1 attack) with the option to swap either for a pistol. So on tacticals it'd be Bolter + Combat Knife and on Assault Marines they'd start with two chainswords but have the ability to swap either for a bolt pistol so you can change how you play them. On some armies it'd be better to go full blender while others would prefer double tapping instead.

I mean there are a lot of ways to buff Marines and I wouldn't apply every option I've mentioned at the same time but rather any one of them (my personal favorite is the melee weapon and bolter combo so the Marines get an extra attack without needing to muck with their statline and you can swap the bolter or melee for a pistol if you feel to build the unit differently). I'd steer away from anything that changes their AP on their weapons since they share almost all of their weapons with Scouts which would just buff the Scouts further.

Basically give more options or some kind of improvement to general durability as that'd make the marine armies feel like they punch at weight without just mucking with their statline. The game has a lot of room to change and grow going forward and maybe we'll see something to correct the balance of Marines after the codexes finish rolling out and they start working on the 2.0 books (assuming we don't go to campaign books that evolve army options instead going forward).
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
1. I think it would be better and make more sense to remove saves altogether. If a model gets wounded, its armor clearly didn't protect it. Done. Make the game more reliant on being in cover and general good decision making than rolling dice for survivability.

2. Make being in cover impose a negative modifier to the shooter's to-hit roll, or increase the target's evasion stat. Cover does not make you more physically resilient, it makes you more difficult to hit in the first place. LOS also needs to be reworked and somewhat abstracted (but not to warmahordes 2d terrain level) so that every little opening doesn't grant LOS.

3. Remove allies. Period. There are too many factions and units in the game for it to be balanced and allow meaningful decisions if people can mix-and-match units. It may sell more models, but it isn't good for gameplay. Unless you prefer a very bland game to compensate for 20-something different factions and their combinations.


1) This is silly. A child behind glass is more well protected against fists than an adult in football pads, but the adult in football pads can take more hits from a baseball bat.

2) Cover does, in fact, sometimes make you more physically resilient. You are talking about concealment, which is different from cover. Hiding in a bush is concealment, but doesn't make you more physically resilient. Hiding behind a concrete berm is cover - because it absolutely does make you resistant to bullets. Incidentally, most cover is also concealment (you can hide behind the concrete berm from observation as well as bullets) but not all concealment is cover.

3) IOW: Fluff should die that rules may live, despite the only attraction of 40k being the fluff.


1. And that has what to do with removing saves? SvT IS armor penetration. It's silly that there could potentially be a weapon with high strength and but poor AP, wounding models easily but somehow they make their 5+ or 6+ and walk away unscathed. A powerful blow can deal damage without piercing armor, y'know. All the save mechanic does is shrink the dice pool and reduce the number of wounds, which can be achieved in a better way that gives the player agency.

2. Depends on the cover. Hiding behind a bush makes you more difficult to see, hiding behind a wall makes you more difficult to see and provides a barrier between your body and the other guy's bullets. The point of cover is that the cover gets hit, not you. Do you really want separate rules for concealment and cover in 40k?

3. Nice overreaction. There is very little fluffy about mashing together units from 5-6 different codices to create your super-strong Justice League with no weaknesses so you can steamroll your opponent, which allies allows. If you want to do that, do it in narrative play. This is, ostensibly, a game, and the experience of playing said game should come first. If only GW could write rules on par with (most) of their fluff.....
   
Made in gb
Legendary Dogfighter




england

GW sells models. Not rules.
They don't care that 8th edition is a mess.
Because they know you'll still buy stuff.
So why bother fixing a system that quite obviously received 0 playtests.

Get rid of the D6.
Fix cover saves to be worth taking cover.
Fix the AP system.
Scrap random shots.
Scrap random damage.
Bring back fire arcs.
Stop solving everything with invulnerable saves.
Fix bogging the game down with so many rolls.
Fix CP.
Fix stratagems.
Stop codex creeping with the goal of earning money off each release instead of adding to the game.
Stop adding a £20 game pass every 6 months.
Stop treating the fans like rabid fanboy idiots just because some of them are.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 17:58:23


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





It simply is a matter of the open ability to list build without restrictions. The special is no longer special and is the norm/expected. Why take 1 special weapon in a squad of 5 when you can take a very similar sqd that lets you take 4. Optimization just trumps generalization. Open play leaves the average behind, and only the optimal moves forward. However, if you create a specific game/scenario with specific lists, then the ordinary (say a tactical sqd) can excel.

Honestly, what GW/organizers could do is create specific lists that people take and reward it with command points, or just make it that those lists are the only one allowed. Not as a replacement for the current edition, but as an option. They could make scenario packs that have predetermined lists etc. It would be a lot of work, but could be fun to play.

Gaming groups can certainly come together and self manage their games, but something official would be required for open play and I'm not sure anyone really wants to do it.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Blastaar wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
1. I think it would be better and make more sense to remove saves altogether. If a model gets wounded, its armor clearly didn't protect it. Done. Make the game more reliant on being in cover and general good decision making than rolling dice for survivability.

2. Make being in cover impose a negative modifier to the shooter's to-hit roll, or increase the target's evasion stat. Cover does not make you more physically resilient, it makes you more difficult to hit in the first place. LOS also needs to be reworked and somewhat abstracted (but not to warmahordes 2d terrain level) so that every little opening doesn't grant LOS.

3. Remove allies. Period. There are too many factions and units in the game for it to be balanced and allow meaningful decisions if people can mix-and-match units. It may sell more models, but it isn't good for gameplay. Unless you prefer a very bland game to compensate for 20-something different factions and their combinations.


1) This is silly. A child behind glass is more well protected against fists than an adult in football pads, but the adult in football pads can take more hits from a baseball bat.

2) Cover does, in fact, sometimes make you more physically resilient. You are talking about concealment, which is different from cover. Hiding in a bush is concealment, but doesn't make you more physically resilient. Hiding behind a concrete berm is cover - because it absolutely does make you resistant to bullets. Incidentally, most cover is also concealment (you can hide behind the concrete berm from observation as well as bullets) but not all concealment is cover.

3) IOW: Fluff should die that rules may live, despite the only attraction of 40k being the fluff.


1. And that has what to do with removing saves? SvT IS armor penetration. It's silly that there could potentially be a weapon with high strength and but poor AP, wounding models easily but somehow they make their 5+ or 6+ and walk away unscathed. A powerful blow can deal damage without piercing armor, y'know. All the save mechanic does is shrink the dice pool and reduce the number of wounds, which can be achieved in a better way that gives the player agency.

2. Depends on the cover. Hiding behind a bush makes you more difficult to see, hiding behind a wall makes you more difficult to see and provides a barrier between your body and the other guy's bullets. The point of cover is that the cover gets hit, not you. Do you really want separate rules for concealment and cover in 40k?

3. Nice overreaction. There is very little fluffy about mashing together units from 5-6 different codices to create your super-strong Justice League with no weaknesses so you can steamroll your opponent, which allies allows. If you want to do that, do it in narrative play. This is, ostensibly, a game, and the experience of playing said game should come first. If only GW could write rules on par with (most) of their fluff.....

I mean if we want to really get it right in this whole save versus wounding thing, the opponent would roll to hit, you'd roll to save and then they'd roll to wound.

So 10 bolter Tacticals shooting at Tacticals at 12" would look like:
20 shots
13.33 hits
4.44 failed saves
2.22 wounds inflicted

Versus what we do now:
20 shots
13.33 hits
6.67 wounds
2.22 failed saves

So yeah, while technically more correct, it wouldn't change the outcomes at all to deal with saves before wounding due to how math works. Basically because it changes nothing to do it in another order it makes it speedier to have one person roll all their dice then the other instead of taking turns.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/26 18:05:08


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Why not just give marines/terminators all one additional wound? Seems an elegant solution to me.

Plus, make it so that you pick a lead army on a list and can only generate and use strategems from that list.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: