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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There's also the issue of fallback with little to no consequence. I want to petition for a new rule where you get basically Overwatch hits sorta except with melee of course.

Yes! This should absolutely be a thing.

 Irbis wrote:
Oh wait

In fact, through my superior gak posting skills, I figured out there might be a conspiracy going against Craftworld women hairdressing.

I figured only space marines can have it, in particular when they cross Rubicon Primaris.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

There's also the issue of fallback with little to no consequence. I want to petition for a new rule where you get basically Overwatch hits sorta except with melee of course.

Yes! This should absolutely be a thing.

Agreed, I was going to raise this when we were discussing the volume of melee attacks required to be useful and that Ork Boys must first cross the board, survive overwatch and make the charge roll before those attacks do anything. Firing a ranged weapon is obviously a much easier exercise and actually a lot more likely to be successful. I also think there should be a reverse overwatch mechanic for melee.

How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

 Irbis wrote:

 Kennizard wrote:

 Elbows wrote:


I'd also dream of a generic three-figure box with which one could make Farseers, Spiritseers and Warlocks with all of the weapon options (similar to the Thousand Sons sorcerers box). You could include a heap of head options (gasp, even lady heads!),

This is a fantasy world I'm living in.

Tbh bare heads wouldnt make sense. I doubt a woman farseer would pop her ghosthelm off just to show people her feminine hair style.

Yeah, it's not like best, most recent farseer design has bare he--

Spoiler:

Oh wait

Who's that?

Ohhh dat pretty...

Isn't that the elf from the Dawn of War games (I want to say 2 but could also be 3). If not her then heavily based off her armour and appearance.

pm713 wrote:
Who's that?

Macha, recurring character from DoW series:




And this is my one gripe with this Eldar refresh, maybe DoW3 was a bad game but its Eldar reinterpretation was stunning. Both new farseer design and bony, scary looking banshees that actually looked like encased in warp grown armour were vastly better refresh base than a decade old concept art, pity GW didn't use it...

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

I never liked how overwatch was free shooting; everyone's guns suddenly gain extra ammunition and fire faster if someone looks like they might run towards them (though they might stay still, if the charge fails). I wish overwatch was more accurate (like, -1 to hit instead of auto 6s) but then that unit couldn't shoot the next turn at all.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

I think it's more likely their playtests are based entirely on very relaxed casual games and things more about a narrative than playing the game. Rather than proper playtesting with people actively trying to take every advantage they can.

pm713 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

I think it's more likely their playtests are based entirely on very relaxed casual games and things more about a narrative than playing the game. Rather than proper playtesting with people actively trying to take every advantage they can.

the way GW plays/designed the game is antithetical to competitive/tourney/REMOVED - Stop circumventing the language filter please style of play.

I'll reiterate that they need a specific tourney ruleset as it would cut down on the bleed over from comp into the rest of the game.

Racerguy180 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

I think it's more likely their playtests are based entirely on very relaxed casual games and things more about a narrative than playing the game. Rather than proper playtesting with people actively trying to take every advantage they can.

the way GW plays/designed the game is antithetical to competitive/tourney/REMOVED - STOP IT PLEASE style of play.

I'll reiterate that they need a specific tourney ruleset as it would cut down on the bleed over from comp into the rest of the game.

I thought there was supposed to be a whole bunch of tournament players as playtesters?

Having done a bit of playtesting you do have to get into a different mindset when testing than playing the game - its more How do i break the game

The problem is in casual games the problems should stick out even more. In a competitive setting you will always see top tier units on the table, because competitive players know what to pick. But I have had plenty of casual games with casual Daemon lists in which I got blown to bits in 2 rounds of battle against casual shooting armies.

I honestly do think GWs balance is absolutely crap for casual players. Unless casual means wanting to have boring games.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I thought there was supposed to be a whole bunch of tournament players as playtesters?

Having done a bit of playtesting you do have to get into a different mindset when testing than playing the game - its more How do i break the game

There is but their effect in the system isn't(by their own words) as big as people generally seem to think. Indeed I think I remember them saying it's basically they get army lists(and rules) to try out and tell comments. So rather than getting full rules and points and try to break it seems they get predetermined army lists and rules relevant. Not way most companies would approach playtesting I suppose.

(mind you last part I'm not 100% sure. I do however clearly remember them noting about their effect in the process)

Having a balanced casual game is harder than having a competitive one; you say 'hey let's do a competitive game' and the forces that show up are likely to be in the same ballpark. You say 'hey let's do a non-competitive game' and who knows what you'll get. Unless you know the opponent well enough that you're both on the same page, it adds a whole extra step of hashing out how strong the lists will be (hopefully there isn't a disagreement) before one gets to actually play. Not fun.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought there was supposed to be a whole bunch of tournament players as playtesters?

You're assuming that A) said tournament players would go for your typical a-hole wombo combos and strats instead of going extra polite to not offend their GW contact in an attempt to give them what they wanted (or the tester thought they wanted), and B) even if they did, you'd still need GW writers to listen to issues of 'mere' outside playtesters, especially when writer 'knows' the rules don't have said issue, but wrote them poorly or forgot to change things. That could prove to be even bigger problem, especially with these with long time aboard and big ego, or that certain pair trying to prove time and time again they both don't understand basic math.

Funny thing is, during 5th edition, 'beta' GK codex leaked. It was ripped to shreds because it had 5 or 6 kinda (debatably) OP things - and then, 3 weeks ago, full codex dropped, and every single thing people whined about was fixed or toned down, along with half a dozen complainers missed. Just shows how much of a difference competent writer can do even without external help...

 Irbis wrote:

Funny thing is, during 5th edition, 'beta' GK codex leaked. It was ripped to shreds because it had 5 or 6 kinda (debatably) OP things - and then, 3 weeks ago, full codex dropped, and every single thing people whined about was fixed or toned down, along with half a dozen complainers missed. Just shows how much of a difference competent writer can do even without external help...

Or that the "beta" codex was flat out made up junk like the "leaked" new rulebook for 6th or 7th ed. People make all sort of fake stuff. Supposed beta codex? Hardly big thing to do.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

Initiative wouldn't solve that problem one bit - most shooting armies have high initiative while close combat armies have low initiative. This was already a major problem during previous editions.

But I agree, some sort of punishment or risk needs to be attached to falling back. For 95% of all fights, there is zero incentive to not fall back from a unit that charged you whenever possible.

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

Overwatch really doesn't matter in practice, but it makes a lot of sense as a mechanic.

pm713 wrote:
Who's that?

Nothing GW ever made.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Having a balanced casual game is harder than having a competitive one; you say 'hey let's do a competitive game' and the forces that show up are likely to be in the same ballpark. You say 'hey let's do a non-competitive game' and who knows what you'll get. Unless you know the opponent well enough that you're both on the same page, it adds a whole extra step of hashing out how strong the lists will be (hopefully there isn't a disagreement) before one gets to actually play. Not fun.

True, but a game that's balanced for competitive play "only" requires some kind gentleman's agreement to make it work for a group of people - and we all know this is already a challenge.
A game that's imbalanced at its core requires you to add house-rules, additional restrictions and lots of arguments to even make that possible, and the vast majority of people is worse at writing rules than GW is, plus you will get bad blood over turning down someone else's army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

Overwatch really doesn't matter in practice, but it makes a lot of sense as a mechanic.

I disagree, overwatch makes a huge difference in many of my games. The best example would be a high rate of fire units like redemptor dreadnoughts, agressors or repulsors, which is almost suicidal to charge with a unit of boyz, or units that have multiple high damage, high strength shots, where you can't take the risk of having them shoot down a character like a DP or warboss.
Maybe it depends on what army you are running?

tneva82 wrote:
Or that the "beta" codex was flat out made up junk like the "leaked" new rulebook for 6th or 7th ed. People make all sort of fake stuff. Supposed beta codex? Hardly big thing to do.

Which? The 5th edition GK one? It actually shown people Dreadknight and new psycannons for the first time, so it physically couldn't be made up. That was actually one of the biggest leaks in GW history barring 8th edition and outside playtesters leaking stuff, genuine internal Codex draft with rough layout and revision directions, which is why I remember it so well.

beta does mean just that, sometimes things get caught othertimes they don't, I've never tested for GW but the few times I've beta tested for other games I can often point to one or two things and say "I contributed to this change"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Who's that?

Nothing GW ever made.

True. GW only approved it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

Overwatch really doesn't matter in practice, but it makes a lot of sense as a mechanic.

Tell that to my Knight, who subsequently exploded, taking out another Knight, a bunch of Marines, and ending Girylman's first life.

 Jidmah wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

Initiative wouldn't solve that problem one bit - most shooting armies have high initiative while close combat armies have low initiative. This was already a major problem during previous editions.

But I agree, some sort of punishment or risk needs to be attached to falling back. For 95% of all fights, there is zero incentive to not fall back from a unit that charged you whenever possible.

Necrons had low I. Tau had low I. IG had lowish I.

The fact that your Orks had low I doesn't mean other melee armies did too.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

Overwatch really doesn't matter in practice, but it makes a lot of sense as a mechanic.

Tell that to my Knight, who subsequently exploded, taking out another Knight, a bunch of Marines, and ending Girylman's first life.

I honestly couldn't care less about a little bad luck you had for one game.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
How much it would in practice matter though? Especially if it's overwatch style so hit on 6's. Either unit retreating is crippled survivors just to let you be shot or tough enough that hitting on 6's doesn't make it worry much.

At least for me it's never been "oh if only I could attack once more" when they fall back. It's more like "oh crap now I get blown to bits"

What's funny is that had they kept initiative it would have worked beautifully with the fall back mechanic. You take compared initiative rolls and if you fail, you can't fall back.
That's a much better system than free fall backs. The whole "no shooting when falling back" thing is only really relevant in small games, which leads me to think that GW only playtests with 500 pts or something.

Initiative wouldn't solve that problem one bit - most shooting armies have high initiative while close combat armies have low initiative. This was already a major problem during previous editions.

But I agree, some sort of punishment or risk needs to be attached to falling back. For 95% of all fights, there is zero incentive to not fall back from a unit that charged you whenever possible.

Necrons had low I. Tau had low I. IG had lowish I.

The fact that your Orks had low I doesn't mean other melee armies did too.

the only shooting army I can think of with a high I was Eldar. and thats assuming you call eldar a shooting army

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The fact that your Orks had low I doesn't mean other melee armies did too.

Many big nidz had low initiative, as did many non-slanesh daemons. If you are trying to fix combat for Marines and Eldar only, might as well not do it.

BrianDavion wrote:
the only shooting army I can think of with a high I was Eldar. and thats assuming you call eldar a shooting army

Uh, how about all of the space marines, which is almost half the armies in existence? Tau drones were also I4, which would be good enough to escape combat reliably.

And of course, I'd call craftworld eldar a shooting army, I haven't seen anything from them going into melee voluntarily that was not shining spears or a wraith construct in a long time.