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.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Does Warmachine feature most of its combat as 90% shooting with the same external balance as 40k currently exhibits? ...

So it's possible screaming "remove IGOUGO or nothing will ever be fixed!" isn't the only possible solution here?

In a primarily shooting game, IGOUGO can never be balanced. Apocalypse isn't perfect, but based on reviews it's a lot better balanced, and part of that reason IS the loss of IGOUGO. It's just an outdated system.

I wonder how much the game would be slowed down if alternating actions were during each phase. Either in the shooting phase etc, you shoot one unit, i shoot one unit etc until all resolved and onto the next phase - or if it would be better served as you have your entire phase, then i have mine before we move to the next phase.

I'm not familiar with other game systems that might have something similar so interested to see how they work it out.

It's really not slowed by a lot, but any slowed gameplay is because, surprise surprise, you don't blow up 60% of the opponent's army T1

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Does Warmachine feature most of its combat as 90% shooting with the same external balance as 40k currently exhibits? ...

So it's possible screaming "remove IGOUGO or nothing will ever be fixed!" isn't the only possible solution here?

In a primarily shooting game, IGOUGO can never be balanced. Apocalypse isn't perfect, but based on reviews it's a lot better balanced, and part of that reason IS the loss of IGOUGO. It's just an outdated system.

I wonder how much the game would be slowed down if alternating actions were during each phase. Either in the shooting phase etc, you shoot one unit, i shoot one unit etc until all resolved and onto the next phase - or if it would be better served as you have your entire phase, then i have mine before we move to the next phase.

I'm not familiar with other game systems that might have something similar so interested to see how they work it out.

The major difference between games with alternating activations and 40k is that in games with alternating activations units do (usually) two things per turn (move and attack), rather than having the turn planned around units doing as many as seven (move/cast/shoot/charge/fight/deny/fight). The only game I'm familiar with that uses strictly alternating phases the way you're suggesting is GW's Lord of the Rings rules, and shooting in LotR is a supplemental/secondary element of the game (most armies are capped at 1/3 of their number having ranged weapons at all and they tend to have very little punch).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

broxus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Do we have to respond to OP releases by saying "It's not fair, my army should be OP too!"? The whole "buff everything to beat the power list of the week" approach to design is why GW ends up with ludicrous power creep.

Nope but the issue has always been that mono faction lists in 8th edition have been very gimped. I’m glad that the new codex SM lists are getting love, but they likely went to far. My recommendations are no where near as powerful as the current changes. DG have massive disadvantages since they lack options and are overall a very slow army. They likely will need some significant love to play mono faction in the new meta.

The solution to that problem is more along the lines of "all army-specific stratagems, relics, etc. may only be used in a mono-faction army/if your Warlord is that faction", not "let's write half a dozen more special rules to add to the mono-faction army". You're not GW, you can take things away, not just add bloat.

We are already past the point of no return for this. I think the new SMs rules are amazing and allow for interesting lists and gameplay. My only concern is the new rules make almost all other list (other than some soup lists) unplayable. When I play SMs with my DG it’s like showing up with a knife to a fun fight.

I have been rethinking some of my previous mono DG rules suggestions. I think the DG focus should remain on survivablility and outlasting your opponent. I would like to see a trait similar that they always count in cover and gain an additional bonus save if already in cover due to being surrounded by flies. Similarly, they could ignore -1 and -2 AP weapons instead.

If killteam is an indication probably not to much slowdown expected.

Most issues seem to come from modifiers, rerolls and explodding hits.

All I updated my original post. I included much of the feedback received and tweaked most of the proposed rules. Please look them over and let me know.

broxus wrote:
All I updated my original post. I included much of the feedback received and tweaked most of the proposed rules. Please look them over and let me know.

Can you make a list of changes? As far as I can see you haven't made the rules less unfair, but the different stages of infestation are probably more balanced between themselves. Ignoring -2 AP and Plague Weapon ranged weapons is too much in my theoretical opinion based on DG current win-rates and my experiences playing against them. Have you tried playing it yet? Try to ask your community how much they'll let you get away with testing, at worst you give a couple of people a bad experience as you see your initial suggestion is too strong if they allow what's in it and designing rules that are too good for your community to even try (let alone permanently allow) is pointless outside of the sport of game design.

 vict0988 wrote:

broxus wrote:
All I updated my original post. I included much of the feedback received and tweaked most of the proposed rules. Please look them over and let me know.

Can you make a list of changes? As far as I can see you haven't made the rules less unfair, but the different stages of infestation are probably more balanced between themselves. Ignoring -2 AP and Plague Weapon ranged weapons is too much in my theoretical opinion based on DG current win-rates and my experiences playing against them. Have you tried playing it yet? Try to ask your community how much they'll let you get away with testing, at worst you give a couple of people a bad experience as you see your initial suggestion is too strong if they allow what's in it and designing rules that are too good for your community to even try (let alone permanently allow) is pointless outside of the sport of game design.

I made numerous changes and tweaks. Overall, playing with these rules make the DG feel pretty resilient and have a chance against SMs. Pure Dg really lack anti-tank fire power and speed. They have to get close to enemies and just slowly grind them down. Right now they don’t survive long enough to even do much in return. The lack of rules, universal chapter traits, stratagems, and unit selection really hurts them.

One small thing would be for the stand-alone models that come with Nurglings, the Nurglings themselves could act as a short-range ranged plague weapon.

the units without Disgustingly resiliant are all cases of old chaos units that because they have the same name GW wants to keep the same points and stats. This is a "problem" with an easy solution.
remove the dataslates and replace them with death guard specific ones. a Chaos Lord has DR added and is renamed "Lord of Poxes" a sorcrer in termy armor? "malagnant plaguecaster in terminator armor" Hellbrutes become "Plague Brutes"

another option... replace the DG chapter tactic with all units gain disgustingly resiliant, if it already has DR you may instead add 1 to the roll, re-roll 1s whatever

BrianDavion wrote:
the units without Disgustingly resiliant are all cases of old chaos units that because they have the same name GW wants to keep the same points and stats. This is a "problem" with an easy solution.
remove the dataslates and replace them with death guard specific ones. a Chaos Lord has DR added and is renamed "Lord of Poxes" a sorcrer in termy armor? "malagnant plaguecaster in terminator armor" Hellbrutes become "Plague Brutes"

another option... replace the DG chapter tactic with all units gain disgustingly resiliant, if it already has DR you may instead add 1 to the roll, re-roll 1s whatever

I agree about changing the name of the old data sheet guys. It makes no sense they didn’t do this already.

broxus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

broxus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Do we have to respond to OP releases by saying "It's not fair, my army should be OP too!"? The whole "buff everything to beat the power list of the week" approach to design is why GW ends up with ludicrous power creep.

Nope but the issue has always been that mono faction lists in 8th edition have been very gimped. I’m glad that the new codex SM lists are getting love, but they likely went to far. My recommendations are no where near as powerful as the current changes. DG have massive disadvantages since they lack options and are overall a very slow army. They likely will need some significant love to play mono faction in the new meta.

The solution to that problem is more along the lines of "all army-specific stratagems, relics, etc. may only be used in a mono-faction army/if your Warlord is that faction", not "let's write half a dozen more special rules to add to the mono-faction army". You're not GW, you can take things away, not just add bloat.

We are already past the point of no return for this. I think the new SMs rules are amazing and allow for interesting lists and gameplay. My only concern is the new rules make almost all other list (other than some soup lists) unplayable. When I play SMs with my DG it’s like showing up with a knife to a fun fight.

I have been rethinking some of my previous mono DG rules suggestions. I think the DG focus should remain on survivablility and outlasting your opponent. I would like to see a trait similar that they always count in cover and gain an additional bonus save if already in cover due to being surrounded by flies. Similarly, they could ignore -1 and -2 AP weapons instead.

Do we have to be? Just because GW can't admit they screwed up and roll back anything does that mean we in Proposed Rules can't admit that GW screwed up and roll back some unnecessary bloat?

BrianDavion wrote:
the units without Disgustingly resiliant are all cases of old chaos units that because they have the same name GW wants to keep the same points and stats. This is a "problem" with an easy solution.
remove the dataslates and replace them with death guard specific ones. a Chaos Lord has DR added and is renamed "Lord of Poxes" a sorcrer in termy armor? "malagnant plaguecaster in terminator armor" Hellbrutes become "Plague Brutes"

another option... replace the DG chapter tactic with all units gain disgustingly resiliant, if it already has DR you may instead add 1 to the roll, re-roll 1s whatever

I was thinking a combination of the old one they got and a 6+++ (as a blanket 5+++ might be a bit much).. If they already had some form of ignoring wounds, they reroll 1's.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the units without Disgustingly resiliant are all cases of old chaos units that because they have the same name GW wants to keep the same points and stats. This is a "problem" with an easy solution.
remove the dataslates and replace them with death guard specific ones. a Chaos Lord has DR added and is renamed "Lord of Poxes" a sorcrer in termy armor? "malagnant plaguecaster in terminator armor" Hellbrutes become "Plague Brutes"

another option... replace the DG chapter tactic with all units gain disgustingly resiliant, if it already has DR you may instead add 1 to the roll, re-roll 1s whatever

I was thinking a combination of the old one they got and a 6+++ (as a blanket 5+++ might be a bit much).. If they already had some form of ignoring wounds, they reroll 1's.

I think re-rolling 1s is too time consuming to be worth doing.

I still see the ability to get reroll all wounds on literally every weapon.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the units without Disgustingly resiliant are all cases of old chaos units that because they have the same name GW wants to keep the same points and stats. This is a "problem" with an easy solution.
remove the dataslates and replace them with death guard specific ones. a Chaos Lord has DR added and is renamed "Lord of Poxes" a sorcrer in termy armor? "malagnant plaguecaster in terminator armor" Hellbrutes become "Plague Brutes"

another option... replace the DG chapter tactic with all units gain disgustingly resiliant, if it already has DR you may instead add 1 to the roll, re-roll 1s whatever

I was thinking a combination of the old one they got and a 6+++ (as a blanket 5+++ might be a bit much).. If they already had some form of ignoring wounds, they reroll 1's.

I think re-rolling 1s is too time consuming to be worth doing.

It wouldn't appear enough that it would be time consuming and it still give a benefit to those units without being over the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I still see the ability to get reroll all wounds on literally every weapon.

Also THIS. They need Plague Weapon on everything.

Not with Arch Contaminator staying as-is! Do you remember what G-Man used to be?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not with Arch Contaminator staying as-is! Do you remember what G-Man used to be?

Who says that trait should stay in the first place? In against rerolling wounds outside super specific situations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not with Arch Contaminator staying as-is! Do you remember what G-Man used to be?

Who says that trait should stay in the first place? In against rerolling wounds outside super specific situations.

The OP, if you read the earlier posts when I bring up this interaction and his response is "Yeah, that's fine."

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not with Arch Contaminator staying as-is! Do you remember what G-Man used to be?

Who says that trait should stay in the first place? In against rerolling wounds outside super specific situations.

The OP, if you read the earlier posts when I bring up this interaction and his response is "Yeah, that's fine."

Well nah I'm good with losing that Warlord trait anyway.

Mono-DG came in 4th at Da Boyz. Well, almost -- Ahriman was also in there.

https://www.40kstats.com/daboyz

 JNAProductions wrote:
Not with Arch Contaminator staying as-is! Do you remember what G-Man used to be?

I changed arch contamination in my rules recommendations a long time ago.

I have come to realize after CA19 how useless our current chapter trait actually is. None of our good units even use it. No one sane takes Helbrute and Plague Marines which are the only ones that sorta make use of it.

broxus wrote:
I have come to realize after CA19 how useless our current chapter trait actually is. None of our good units even use it. No one sane takes Helbrute and Plague Marines which are the only ones that sorta make use of it.

Something something Vet Stats something something consolidation back into the main codex