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.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: pet peeve of mine- change the over watch rules so that you can shoot incoming units regardless of how far away they started from the target unit. I mean it makes no sense. This is especially true with RL area effect weapons like flamers.
New Lt to his troops "Fire as they come into range men."
Veteran Sgt, "We can't Sir! They started their charge outside the max range of our guns so we can't get a proper bead on them."
Lt, "???"
Only if you can point out how in RL a modern military (WWII and beyond) would actually repel an assault with a flamethrower. As someone that has a better than average knowledge of WWII infantry warfare, a pet peeve of mine is thinking a flamethrower is an effective defense to assault. It would be just about the last thing I would want be armed with if the enemy wanting to attach bayonets and get stuck in. It simply wasn't the purpose of the weapon and has a lot reasons why.
You can't think of shooting only occurring during the shooting phase/over watch. I think it is important to consider the assault roll the combination of a bunch different things instead of the ability to cover the distance to the target or giving up and heading back to maybe cover you had. A successful charge could be performing an effective fire and maneuver tactic not giving them a good bead on the assaulters. It could also be baiting the flamer into using a good chunk of fuel before committing. It is also entirely possible that a successful charge doesn't even have the two units actually engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. It might just be point blank gun/grenade range between a squad of tacticals and guardsmen neither of which are actually armed with melee weapons. Point is, I think it is important to treat the Charge roll as an abstraction to a bunch of various elements, situations, conditions, etc. that either prevent a unit from engaging with the enemy as such a range that it takes of the entirety of their attention.
Pet peeve of mine is people insisting that a game set in a fantasy future with all manor of impossible things happening already (cavalry charge against robots bristling with guns?!?!) must have some element of ultra realism to the gameplay. I'm in favour of mechanics that improve the gameplay, either by giving more tactical options, or reducing those of your opponent. It does not have to have a real life counterpart to make it viable. I hope you don't complain about deny the witch roles as they have no real life counterpart?
Anyway, even with some added element of realism, you may not like the idea of a flamer as a defensive weapon, but if it was being used as one, and you had to charge that position would you charge straight into the flame if it was been fired in your direction? You may go round it, but that's more time taken to reach your target.
No.... So whilst it may not be an effective defensive weapon, it can still be used as one.
I have an idea to make flamers more relevant for OW without increasing the killyness (necessarily) and adjusting the range.
When an enemy unit makes a charge against a unit with a flamer weapon, the enemy units charge distance is automatically reduced by 2". The enemy can choose to ignore this penalty but it will automatically take maximum flamer hits from a flamer weapon of the defending players choice as a consequence to this (D6 = 6 hits, D3 = 3 hits etc)
Please note that this ability would not stack with other multiple flamers. Other flamer weapons in a unit would continue to act as they usually do with the range they currently have.
And before people moan about this reducing the viability of CC even more, I would change how random charge rolls work anyway. I'd change them from 2D6 to 1D6 plus movement. Charge rolls are fun and add drama to the game, but at the same time, they make CC too unreliable, I think this would be a good compromise between the two.
Not entirely sure if this comment is directed at me or Leo_the_Rat. But I completely accept the flamer works the way if does in 40k because the game says it does. I have no interest in making it weaker or stronger. I already think that flamer does a pretty good job of defending against charges by forcing them to be more than 8" away making basically a coin flip (and actually worst than 50/50 for a unit with no special charge ability). Again, I abstract out a lot of thing making in attempt to make the rules fit a narrative as I didn't spend hundreds of dollars and hours buy/painting miniatures to play a subpar, abstract war game. Auticus says it quite well. I don't equate the tabletop distance to anything definite. Overwatch makes a good example of this in that a unit has its full access of every sort of weapon if the assaulters make the charge a 2". Which from Leo's narrative could read: Lt to his troops: "Fire...[hit with by chainsword]" But Overwatch is only made better by the Charge taking place closer. But I don't see many players complaining that the charged unit shouldn't get Overwatch since they wouldn't have enough time. All of that stuff is abstracted into a single Assault roll, and I am okay with that since 40k games should be at a scope where players to micromanage exactly how the assault occurred only that it did or didn't and the assaulter did or didn't take capitulates on the way in.
What I was saying about flamers being defensive weapons is I personally find it nearly as weird to use them defensively as to use them against aircraft. If my Lt gave me the choice trying to take a hill with 3 machine gun nests or a hill with 30 entrenched flamethrower operators, I would choose flamethrower hill every single time. Machineguns make great defensive (and pretty good offensive) weapons. Flame throwers not so much. Again, I don't think the rules for flamers need changing as their presence already effectively affect Charges by giving them a much high chance of failure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/31 19:47:43
Leo_the_Rat wrote: pet peeve of mine- change the over watch rules so that you can shoot incoming units regardless of how far away they started from the target unit. I mean it makes no sense. This is especially true with RL area effect weapons like flamers.
New Lt to his troops "Fire as they come into range men."
Veteran Sgt, "We can't Sir! They started their charge outside the max range of our guns so we can't get a proper bead on them."
Lt, "???"
Only if you can point out how in RL a modern military (WWII and beyond) would actually repel an assault with a flamethrower. As someone that has a better than average knowledge of WWII infantry warfare, a pet peeve of mine is thinking a flamethrower is an effective defense to assault. It would be just about the last thing I would want be armed with if the enemy wanting to attach bayonets and get stuck in. It simply wasn't the purpose of the weapon and has a lot reasons why.
You can't think of shooting only occurring during the shooting phase/over watch. I think it is important to consider the assault roll the combination of a bunch different things instead of the ability to cover the distance to the target or giving up and heading back to maybe cover you had. A successful charge could be performing an effective fire and maneuver tactic not giving them a good bead on the assaulters. It could also be baiting the flamer into using a good chunk of fuel before committing. It is also entirely possible that a successful charge doesn't even have the two units actually engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. It might just be point blank gun/grenade range between a squad of tacticals and guardsmen neither of which are actually armed with melee weapons. Point is, I think it is important to treat the Charge roll as an abstraction to a bunch of various elements, situations, conditions, etc. that either prevent a unit from engaging with the enemy as such a range that it takes of the entirety of their attention.
Pet peeve of mine is people insisting that a game set in a fantasy future with all manor of impossible things happening already (cavalry charge against robots bristling with guns?!?!) must have some element of ultra realism to the gameplay. I'm in favour of mechanics that improve the gameplay, either by giving more tactical options, or reducing those of your opponent. It does not have to have a real life counterpart to make it viable. I hope you don't complain about deny the witch roles as they have no real life counterpart?
Anyway, even with some added element of realism, you may not like the idea of a flamer as a defensive weapon, but if it was being used as one, and you had to charge that position would you charge straight into the flame if it was been fired in your direction? You may go round it, but that's more time taken to reach your target.
No.... So whilst it may not be an effective defensive weapon, it can still be used as one.
I have an idea to make flamers more relevant for OW without increasing the killyness (necessarily) and adjusting the range.
When an enemy unit makes a charge against a unit with a flamer weapon, the enemy units charge distance is automatically reduced by 2". The enemy can choose to ignore this penalty but it will automatically take maximum flamer hits from a flamer weapon of the defending players choice as a consequence to this (D6 = 6 hits, D3 = 3 hits etc)
Please note that this ability would not stack with other multiple flamers. Other flamer weapons in a unit would continue to act as they usually do with the range they currently have.
And before people moan about this reducing the viability of CC even more, I would change how random charge rolls work anyway. I'd change them from 2D6 to 1D6 plus movement. Charge rolls are fun and add drama to the game, but at the same time, they make CC too unreliable, I think this would be a good compromise between the two.
Not entirely sure if this comment is directed at me or Leo_the_Rat. But I completely accept the flamer works the way if does in 40k because the game says it does. I have no interest in making it weaker or stronger. I already think that flamer does a pretty good job of defending against charges by forcing them to be more than 8" away making basically a coin flip (and actually worst than 50/50 for a unit with no special charge ability). Again, I abstract out a lot of thing making in attempt to make the rules fit a narrative as I didn't spend hundreds of dollars and hours buy/painting miniatures to play a subpar, abstract war game. Auticus says it quite well.
I don't equate the tabletop distance to anything definite. Overwatch makes a good example of this in that a unit has its full access of every sort of weapon if the assaulters make the charge a 2". Which from Leo's narrative could read: Lt to his troops: "Fire...[hit with by chainsword]" But Overwatch is only made better by the Charge taking place closer. But I don't see many players complaining that the charged unit shouldn't get Overwatch since they wouldn't have enough time. All of that stuff is abstracted into a single Assault roll, and I am okay with that since 40k games should be at a scope where players to micromanage exactly how the assault occurred only that it did or didn't and the assaulter did or didn't take capitulates on the way in.
What I was saying about flamers being defensive weapons is I personally find it nearly as weird to use them defensively as to use them against aircraft. If my Lt gave me the choice trying to take a hill with 3 machine gun nests or a hill with 30 entrenched flamethrower operators, I would choose flamethrower hill every single time. Machineguns make great defensive (and pretty good offensive) weapons. Flame throwers not so much. Again, I don't think the rules for flamers need changing as their presence already effectively affect Charges by giving them a much high chance of failure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/31 19:49:47
I know that people keep talking about limiting Titanic units to 2K+ battles but I would expand that and say the same rule should apply to all Lords of War units. Just because something is physically (and relatively) small does not mean it should be found on a skirmish level battlefield. (I'm thinking specifically about models like Rowboat).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I know that people keep talking about limiting Titanic units to 2K+ battles but I would expand that and say the same rule should apply to all Lords of War units. Just because something is physically (and relatively) small does not mean it should be found on a skirmish level battlefield. (I'm thinking specifically about models like Rowboat).
Agreed. Primarchs and such also contribute to making normal troops less relevant.
It isn't even possible for me to describe how much i agree with this. This is hands down the single best change they could make. It would not only massively improve the ability to balance because currently it's impossible to balance a game where one entire side get's to shoot everything before the other side get's to react.
It also would make for a much deeper more tactical game where players are actually interacting and countering each others actions instead of everything coming down to alpha-strikes and the ability to survive alpha strikes.
It's only one way to do that, though, and in a game where the armies can be as varied in size as they can be in 40K it leads to other problems.
The imbalance from one side getting to shoot before the other gets to react could also be dealt with by giving the other side a way to react when shot at, or simply by making shooting less effective at wiping out entire units in a single turn.
We do get to react. We get to roll saves.
It also doesn’t need to be IGUGO per unit. It could be per phase. All move one player, the second player moves going like that.
You can mitigate the first person getting a shooting advantage by moving out of line of sight, or into cover etc, maybe that required an advance roll. I think it would naturally balance the phases providing there is appropriate terrain. I.d also bring back firing arcs personally as well.
Think about how many more neat and stategic interactions units could have if there were alternating activation.
Look at current 40k, so many things are meaningless and don't play out how i think the designers feel like they should because in the end almost all that matters is who shoots first and how many wounds you have. This is why most armies have 1-3 viable units and a bunch of stuff that never get's taken.This also is why the game plays out how it does where just having giant hordes of totally garbage units is the hands down most effective play (outside of a few edge cases.) this is a symptom of the problem with the fundamental structure of the turns in 40k.
If you had alternative activation there could be much more player interaction with abilities like "when activated this unit gives one enemy unit within X inches -1 to hit this phase" so that you had to make the tough decision on if you want to activate that unit first to make sure to nerf something dangerous, or risk using one of your shooting units first and doing that unit on your next activation.
Or you have units that say "when this unit activates, activate 1 other unit of X type"
and a plethora of other different little abilities that interplay with each other within phases.
you could counter move each other, and have to change the order you activate things based on what your opponent did. There would be so much more interaction and tactic/counter-tactic between players.
Imagine playing a game of MtG if interrupt spells didn't exist, that's what 40k feels like sometimes. Completely one sided with very little interplay between the opponents.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/31 21:24:04
Return of unit types, USRs, terrain mechanics, real cover saves, and some form of blast weapons returning. The core of 8th is far too bare bones which makes the game come down to shooting first with as much dakka as possible to deal the most wounds as possible. The only "depth" is in the comboing of auras and the MtG inspired stratagems to make very predictable wombo combos to do tons of damage. Model placement is far less important and the battlefield layout plays far less of a factor than it did in past editions which effectively makes more games play out like it's on planet bowling ball.
Basically bring back the depth of mechanics from 7th, remove the stupidity from 8th, but actually attempt to balance 7th while trimming (not chainsawing) the bloat.
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
Actual (though still simplified) fire arcs for vehicle mounted weapons
(and don't try & give me any of this gak that it's "too complex". If you can figure out all the tricks to maximize your current CP system strats, etc? Then you can handle the simple concept that the left hand sponson cannot fire out the right side of your tank. Or that say a vindicators forward facing gun can only fire at things in front of the tank. Or that turrets turn for a reason..... )
a complete abandonment of the whole CP/strat system....
Continued rules support for models GW no longer produces. I don't care if this is index form, a FW book, or legacy list style ala the old WHFB lists for AoS. Because I for one am still not done using my Las/Plas razorbacks etc I bought all those years ago.
An end to the constant tinkering/errata/faqs
(40k) Stats for Leman Russ himself.
Codex: Squats
Nerf melee combat overall. Oh, it should still be a viable option for some models/units. For everyone else though it really shouldn't be that great an option....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 06:36:03
Actual (though still simplified) fire arcs for vehicle mounted weapons
(and don't try & give me any of this gak that it's "too complex". If you can figure out all the tricks to maximize your current CP system strats, etc? Then you can handle the simple concept that the left hand sponson cannot fire out the right side of your tank. Or that say a vindicators forward facing gun can only fire at things in front of the tank. Or that turrets turn for a reason..... )
a complete abandonment of the whole CP/strat system....
Continued rules support for models GW no longer produces. I don't care if this is index form, a FW book, or legacy list style ala the old WHFB lists for AoS. Because I for one am still not done using my Las/Plas razorbacks etc I bought all those years ago.
An end to the constant tinkering/errata/faqs
(40k) Stats for Leman Russ himself.
Codex: Squats
Spoiler:
Nerf melee combat overall. Oh, it should still be a viable option for some models/units. For everyone else though it really shouldn't be that great an option....
Make cities of death terrain rules std.
SQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More than Sororitas just cuz Kharadron exist and Sisters are getting plastic forthwith. But I still am starting Sisters when they're released.
Alternating activations. That's the only important one. Everything else is minor as 8th Edition overall is a fine ruleset.
Some Tank rules would be nice, but I don't mean the crap we had in 6the/7th which made a Tank squishier than a Space Marine. Just something like falling back and shooting, or shooting in CC, or secondary weapons having better overwatch, little stuff like that.
Doesn't alternate activiation just buff armies with hordes of units, or spamable good units. Armies that are build around 1-2 strong units would get punished a lot.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Not if done right
(I bet that if GW is adding unit activation everyone wants them to get turn based rules back. No chance that this will be a practical improvement but just letting everyone stay away from any activation based system in the future)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
There are different ways to do it. Whether it's really unit by unit activation or alterning phases like in Lotr which is still GWs best ruleset one has to find out. Maybe the upcoming Apokalypse shows already new ways.
Actual (though still simplified) fire arcs for vehicle mounted weapons
(and don't try & give me any of this gak that it's "too complex". If you can figure out all the tricks to maximize your current CP system strats, etc? Then you can handle the simple concept that the left hand sponson cannot fire out the right side of your tank. Or that say a vindicators forward facing gun can only fire at things in front of the tank. Or that turrets turn for a reason..... )
*Looks at autocannons and hot-shot volley guns on Taurox Primes* No, please! Anything but that!
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
kodos wrote: Not if done right
(I bet that if GW is adding unit activation everyone wants them to get turn based rules back. No chance that this will be a practical improvement but just letting everyone stay away from any activation based system in the future)
Ok then, got me kind of a worried for next edition.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Fewer dice, and almost no rerolls. At this point, 40k can just switch to old Avalon hill style look-up tables (X marines shooting Y orks = Z wounds) and save a lot of time and pointless dice rolls.
USRs return. Everything special snowflake is pointless and simply adds confusion.
Removal of flyers and the stupid big stuff. Wrong scale, terrible for game balance.
Rybrook wrote: Blast templates, sustained fire and scatter dice
Definitely not. Fiddly and imprecise mechanics don't make the game better, they just waste time and cause arguments.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/06/01 15:07:35
Actual (though still simplified) fire arcs for vehicle mounted weapons
(and don't try & give me any of this gak that it's "too complex". If you can figure out all the tricks to maximize your current CP system strats, etc? Then you can handle the simple concept that the left hand sponson cannot fire out the right side of your tank. Or that say a vindicators forward facing gun can only fire at things in front of the tank. Or that turrets turn for a reason..... )
*Looks at autocannons and hot-shot volley guns on Taurox Primes* No, please! Anything but that!
Yeah, too many vehicle models just don't quite work with strict arc rules, and it's odd to only have arc rules for vehicles but not other unit types just because they're not quite as rectangle shaped. I get that it's a bit counterintuitive visually sometimes, but if we can live with the abstraction of a Riptide, Guard heavy weapons team, Eldar support weapon battery, etc not needing arcs, we can live with it for tanks.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Please don't ask for Universal Special Rules back. If you think they were good, you're looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
The ONLY way a Universal Special Rule is good is if it's something that just about every single army gets, and the rule changes a lot about how the unit interacts with the game. FLY is a good example. There is no universal special rule, just a lot of rules that reference how they work differently if a unit has FLY. I would agree that another rule like "RESERVES" would probably be a good special rule to bake right into the core rules, because every army gets these types of units, and they really change a lot about how the game works.
When you put in too many USRs, it really easily makes things confusing. Here's everything I think probably could benefit from being actually referenced by the core rules, which isn't already:
#1 - Setup locations other than the battlefield. Let's just call them RESERVES. Rules-wise, how they arrive isn't important unless it impacts the game in some way that sets them apart from other similar abilities.
#2 - AIRCRAFT. They've seemingly caught this now, but units that are aircraft are so vastly different from the regular rules, and appear so frequently in codexes, that knowing about their ins and outs is probably better dealt with in the rulebook, not in unit entries.
#3 - FORTIFICATION. Again, these units cause lots of rules problems, because they can be both a unit and a terrain piece. Let's address them in the main rules rather than in the datasheet.
#4 - OBJECTIVE SECURED. We don't need every single codex to spell this out. Put it right into the main book.
Other than that, anything else would be a real stretch.
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: pet peeve of mine- change the over watch rules so that you can shoot incoming units regardless of how far away they started from the target unit. I mean it makes no sense. This is especially true with RL area effect weapons like flamers.
New Lt to his troops "Fire as they come into range men."
Veteran Sgt, "We can't Sir! They started their charge outside the max range of our guns so we can't get a proper bead on them."
Lt, "???"
Only if you can point out how in RL a modern military (WWII and beyond) would actually repel an assault with a flamethrower. As someone that has a better than average knowledge of WWII infantry warfare, a pet peeve of mine is thinking a flamethrower is an effective defense to assault. It would be just about the last thing I would want be armed with if the enemy wanting to attach bayonets and get stuck in. It simply wasn't the purpose of the weapon and has a lot reasons why.
You can't think of shooting only occurring during the shooting phase/over watch. I think it is important to consider the assault roll the combination of a bunch different things instead of the ability to cover the distance to the target or giving up and heading back to maybe cover you had. A successful charge could be performing an effective fire and maneuver tactic not giving them a good bead on the assaulters. It could also be baiting the flamer into using a good chunk of fuel before committing. It is also entirely possible that a successful charge doesn't even have the two units actually engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. It might just be point blank gun/grenade range between a squad of tacticals and guardsmen neither of which are actually armed with melee weapons. Point is, I think it is important to treat the Charge roll as an abstraction to a bunch of various elements, situations, conditions, etc. that either prevent a unit from engaging with the enemy as such a range that it takes of the entirety of their attention.
Trying to base rues off of RL modern military is stupid while HtH combat is something that does happen still it is much rarer than it is in 40k. By your logic we should remove all dedicated melee units from the game and more elite units should be the only ones to get any kind of melee weapon, with the only option being a knife.
Mechanics that make the game play better are way more important than realism, there are plenty of more realistic miniatures games if you want realism and historical accuracy.
Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!
Actual (though still simplified) fire arcs for vehicle mounted weapons
(and don't try & give me any of this gak that it's "too complex". If you can figure out all the tricks to maximize your current CP system strats, etc? Then you can handle the simple concept that the left hand sponson cannot fire out the right side of your tank. Or that say a vindicators forward facing gun can only fire at things in front of the tank. Or that turrets turn for a reason..... )
*Looks at autocannons and hot-shot volley guns on Taurox Primes* No, please! Anything but that!
So you're telling me that you can't figure out that those side mounted guns can only fire at things in front of them? And that they most certainly don't have any arc to the opposite side of the vehicle? Even though I'm sure you're playing the strat/CP system....
And like I said, I'll accept simplified (vs currently non-existant) arc rules.
See that side mounted autocannons muzzle tip? The arc starts there. It's a simple right angle - straight down the hull going forward & straight out L/R depending on wich side.
But just so we're clear; this is too complex for you?
Strip down the the rules to be even simpler for toddlers to play. Sell the wh40k product line to Hasbro. Put a label on the box, "for children 5 and up."
So now wh40k can be played by cry babies and drunk men a like.
In the Grimdark future of DerpHammer40k, there are only dank memes!
Why not just give models a front and back arc. Would be much easier to check, but still all models would have to be positioned properly.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
That would slow game play way down. Imagine waiting for the movement phase of a horde playing worried about his models facing. I dont want to wait while 200 orks get their facing just right.
And if its just facing for vehicles, you're asking for 45° vs 46°, etc arguments. Get the feeling of nostalgia, blast templates, fire arcs were fun, but the game is better off for not having then
The game needs to be sped up, not slowed down. Thats the direction gw is going with killteam and apoc, looking at speeding up the game.
And its been brought up before, titanic units are probably not going anywhere. I am all for them being nerfed into a tough choice for 9th, but banning them from 2k games is going to be a stretch
Only thing ill add that i dont think has been mentioned: Push for 1750 pt standard games over 2k
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 19:30:52
UMGuy wrote: That would slow game play way down. Imagine waiting for the movement phase of a horde playing worried about his models facing. I dont want to wait while 200 orks get their facing just right.
And if its just facing for vehicles, you're asking for 45° vs 46°, etc arguments. Get the feeling of nostalgia, blast templates, fire arcs were fun, but the game is better off for not having then
The game needs to be sped up, not slowed down. Thats the direction gw is going with killteam and apoc, looking at speeding up the game.
And its been brought up before, titanic units are probably not going anywhere. I am all for them being nerfed into a tough choice for 9th, but banning them from 2k games is going to be a stretch
Only thing ill add that i dont think has been mentioned: Push for 1750 pt standard games over 2k
I'd go further an push for 1.5k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianGateTroll wrote: Strip down the the rules to be even simpler for toddlers to play. Sell the wh40k product line to Hasbro. Put a label on the box, "for children 5 and up."
So now wh40k can be played by cry babies and drunk men a like.
While your hyperbole is a little extreme, the game does need to be accessible to kids, probably around middle and high school, if we want the hobby to survive, much less grow.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 19:33:33
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Yarium wrote:Please don't ask for Universal Special Rules back. If you think they were good, you're looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
The ONLY way a Universal Special Rule is good is if it's something that just about every single army gets, and the rule changes a lot about how the unit interacts with the game. FLY is a good example. There is no universal special rule, just a lot of rules that reference how they work differently if a unit has FLY. I would agree that another rule like "RESERVES" would probably be a good special rule to bake right into the core rules, because every army gets these types of units, and they really change a lot about how the game works.
When you put in too many USRs, it really easily makes things confusing. Here's everything I think probably could benefit from being actually referenced by the core rules, which isn't already:
#1 - Setup locations other than the battlefield. Let's just call them RESERVES. Rules-wise, how they arrive isn't important unless it impacts the game in some way that sets them apart from other similar abilities.
#2 - AIRCRAFT. They've seemingly caught this now, but units that are aircraft are so vastly different from the regular rules, and appear so frequently in codexes, that knowing about their ins and outs is probably better dealt with in the rulebook, not in unit entries.
#3 - FORTIFICATION. Again, these units cause lots of rules problems, because they can be both a unit and a terrain piece. Let's address them in the main rules rather than in the datasheet.
#4 - OBJECTIVE SECURED. We don't need every single codex to spell this out. Put it right into the main book.
Other than that, anything else would be a real stretch.
How are universal special rules more confusing than multitudes of "bespoke" rules that are actually slightly different versions of the same thing under different names?
UMGuy wrote:That would slow game play way down. Imagine waiting for the movement phase of a horde playing worried about his models facing. I dont want to wait while 200 orks get their facing just right.
AA and taking the units' facing off of the squad leader mitigate that.
And if its just facing for vehicles, you're asking for 45° vs 46°, etc arguments. Get the feeling of nostalgia, blast templates, fire arcs were fun, but the game is better off for not having then
Srrongly disagree. The game is much poorer for its lack of tactical depth, relevance of positioning, and immersive elements.
The game needs to be sped up, not slowed down. Thats the direction gw is going with killteam and apoc, looking at speeding up the game.
That is a personal preference. I don't especially like the current state of things where models die in droves- I'd rather the game slow down and become more strategic and mental. I'm not in a hurry to get a game, which I enjoy, over with so that I can be not enjoying it anymore.
And its been brought up before, titanic units are probably not going anywhere. I am all for them being nerfed into a tough choice for 9th, but banning them from 2k games is going to be a stretch
They probably aren't, but the game would be much healthier if it had a focus. Right now it's obvious GW isn't sure what kind of game 40k is supposed to be, seeing as it doesn't do anything particularly well.
Return of vehicle specific rules and facings. Vehicles are very bleh now that they have been normalized with regular units. Bringing facings back will actually make maneuvers important and encourage flank attacks
Actual morale rules. The oversimplified "kill more" current rule is just boring, tactically uninteresting, and just nonsensical. Give us fall backs, pinning, and suppression effects. Make certain weapons types do more morale damage, expanding tactical choices rather than simply having every weapon solely defined by its kill potential.
Real terrain rules. This is another area where rules streamlining is a mistake and makes the game much less tactically interesting.
USR. These were a mess, but I think it was a mistake to throw them out entirely rather than fixing them up.
Normalize CP between armies. This was a good idea in theory to encourage players to take troops, but it's so easily exploitable and has become necessary to do so.
Bring down the lethality in general. It's really starting to be a bore when most games are decided by turn 2 based on whoever got their wombo combo to connect first. Having large chunks of your army deleted before they can even move is not fun. The ideal game should last till the last round and be decide by tactics and out playing your opponent. Tabling should be the exception not the expectation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/01 21:34:10
Blastaar wrote: How are universal special rules more confusing than multitudes of "bespoke" rules that are actually slightly different versions of the same thing under different names?
USRs work until the rules writers want to have a variation of the USR and so we get bespoke rules anyway but now everyone who thought USRs were meant to be a thing are confused.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 21:33:13
Leo_the_Rat wrote: pet peeve of mine- change the over watch rules so that you can shoot incoming units regardless of how far away they started from the target unit. I mean it makes no sense. This is especially true with RL area effect weapons like flamers.
New Lt to his troops "Fire as they come into range men."
Veteran Sgt, "We can't Sir! They started their charge outside the max range of our guns so we can't get a proper bead on them."
Lt, "???"
Only if you can point out how in RL a modern military (WWII and beyond) would actually repel an assault with a flamethrower. As someone that has a better than average knowledge of WWII infantry warfare, a pet peeve of mine is thinking a flamethrower is an effective defense to assault. It would be just about the last thing I would want be armed with if the enemy wanting to attach bayonets and get stuck in. It simply wasn't the purpose of the weapon and has a lot reasons why.
You can't think of shooting only occurring during the shooting phase/over watch. I think it is important to consider the assault roll the combination of a bunch different things instead of the ability to cover the distance to the target or giving up and heading back to maybe cover you had. A successful charge could be performing an effective fire and maneuver tactic not giving them a good bead on the assaulters. It could also be baiting the flamer into using a good chunk of fuel before committing. It is also entirely possible that a successful charge doesn't even have the two units actually engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. It might just be point blank gun/grenade range between a squad of tacticals and guardsmen neither of which are actually armed with melee weapons. Point is, I think it is important to treat the Charge roll as an abstraction to a bunch of various elements, situations, conditions, etc. that either prevent a unit from engaging with the enemy as such a range that it takes of the entirety of their attention.
Trying to base rues off of RL modern military is stupid while HtH combat is something that does happen still it is much rarer than it is in 40k. By your logic we should remove all dedicated melee units from the game and more elite units should be the only ones to get any kind of melee weapon, with the only option being a knife.
Mechanics that make the game play better are way more important than realism, there are plenty of more realistic miniatures games if you want realism and historical accuracy.
I agree.
Edit: I think the issue here is I see players look at the flamer as an almost amazing anti-CQC weapon because of the mechanics rather than think flamethrowers make amazing CQC weapons. So they want to finish the job and make it an amazing anti-CQC weapon which only moves further away from any sort semblance of reality (IMO) even in the crazy setting of 40k. I just think that is the backwards way to go about things. Maybe I am in the minority here and most people think flamethrower would make crazy good counter-assault weapons, but I have seen that in movies, television and video games.
I would rather the rules make the flamer better at what they did/do in history and media than double down on what they didn't. I would much rather flamers, spit-balling here, forced a Leadership check on the unit hit with a failed result forcing a fall back though the unit can remain to stay in place and keeps the ability to Overwatch if they didn't move. I see flamers being decent forcing units out of their entrenched position with a side benefit of making a potential Charge more predictable. I see flamers more as weapons of fear than actual damage. That example is probably makes flamers too powerful, but I think it moves the weapon in the right direction and makes Morale/Leadership a thing to be concerned about which I think should either be included more or dropped almost entirely.
I have a heavy flamer in my assault Chaos Marines squad (useless I already know). It is waste most of the time since I teleport them in. What I mostly consider it for is its anti-CQC from chaff units looking to tarpit me. Most chaff aren't going to want to take the hit but also have difficulties making those long charges too. Which is why I think the flamer is fine where it is as a anti-CQC weapon. It is obvious how to circumvent it, but makes doing so much riskier to even get the charge. Which is why I an okay with where the rules are where they are. I am fine with flamers being a good, not great, anti-CQC weapon, but clever squads (I see the charge roll more about the assualters ability to use tactics to make the attack more than just covering the distance) can still get stuck in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 23:50:35
Fire arcs, for every model. Its dead simple to do - stick them on the data sheet for the unit.
Infantry side arms get 360, easily shown, for the sake of sanity and to make infantry able to respond rapidly. heavy weapons maybe 180 degrees for infantry. (i.e. for the bulk of infantry the fire arcs don't matter to speed movement)
vehicles can be given whatever weird and wonderful arcs are desired, and given them individually with the silhouette showing how to work them out.
"models turn to face what they are firing at" - either more individual model or the appropriate turret etc, everything gains a "front" (also on the data card), its now possible to draw a vehicle into facing a different direction if it wants to shoot you.
alternative toughness/saves by arcs, again case by case, on the data card, dead easy to say have -1T or a slightly different save to the rear. Or stuff like the Gorgon used to have, a re-roll to its save from the front.
allow saves to automatically pass as well as automatically fail, give armoured vehicles, well heavy ones, a 1+ save so only stuff with SP can harm them - and largely remove invulnerable saves and re-rolls except for forcefield effects and have the re-roll as a CP burning stratagem to represent "luck" (maybe able to use multiple times per phase if you want to burn the CP)
stick keywords on weapons, has already been mentioned, its painfully obvious and really should be in there.
copy AoS and give melee weapons a range, most will be 1" but some could be more (e.g. on knights, dreadnoughts etc), and allow some units to strike in melee into the upper floors of building/ruins - suggest units get a "strike height" rule if they can do this, e.g. "This unit is tall, it can strike at models up to 9" vertically above the table surface", likely better worded.
could also give a minimum, so say a Titan power fist can punch, buildings, titans, knights etc, but simply cannot hit infantry with a "swipe" but maybe a punch into the ground allows it (different profile?)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
Blast templates, sustained fire and scatter dice 
