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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

nou wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Something else that doesn't get enough talk...

The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.

They are in general much more about the experience for both players.

So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)

IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.

It was LVO, and i know exactly which event it was.
They got completely murderized by the flying nid circus, it was directly after that LVO, flyrants got nerfed and rule of 3 went into effect.

IIRC it was actually directly quoted that "Americans play like animals"

Yep, that's the one.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

nou wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Something else that doesn't get enough talk...

The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.

They are in general much more about the experience for both players.

So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)

IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.

Cruddace didn't know about the 0" charge exploit until it was shown to him which lead to a lot of patching to try and prevent jank is one example I can think of.

And its things like this that tell me, GW is staffed by people who write these rules but dont actively work to test them to the degree the average player is going to use them.

Another example being the loyal 32 going for as long as it did. In the EU mixing in guard was super common because it was super fluffy, but the loyal 32 was a concept that came from the states and was exploited to the extreme

ccs wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...There is a ton of narrative content. There's six Crusade mission packs kicking out there right now...

Crusade isn't "narrative content". Crusade is a tournament league format.

Dingdingding and we have a winner....

No we don't - because even though you can use Crusade in that way if you want, he's got no idea what he's talking about.

Let me clarify. Crusade is "narrative content" if you, like PenitentJake, are lucky enough to be playing with a casual, narratively-minded group that both has the system mastery to avoid the many mission/matchup combinations that lead to one person getting casually curbstomped in a couple of turns, and doesn't take winning too seriously. These playgroups would probably be playing "narrative" missions on their own without GW's intervention. If you're not lucky enough to have that kind of group Crusade devolves almost immediately into a progression system stapled to a competitive league that just gives people one more thing to optimize. In my experience of trying to play Crusade it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the game; if you were having fun without it you'll probably have fun with it, if you weren't it doesn't help.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.

That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.

And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?

How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?

How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?

Sorry, but that's nuts and completely wrong.

You're making a mistake thinking about this as a boost to particular units in the game. This is so fundamental change of the game space, that it simply creates a completely different system all around. Does some rebalance is in order after such change? Of course. Is it "nuts and completely wrong"? No, not at all. It is simply a design paradigm, good as any other when you are writing an in-depth rewrite of the game and not a simple patch. And it does result in way better feel of the game.

I mean, fair I guess but I never like the excuse.of using power creep to justify adding more power creep.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I mean, fair I guess but I never like the excuse.of using power creep to justify adding more power creep.

If anything it would be the opposite of that, its a change that would directly nerf power creep.

Where as they hand out AP3 and AP2, all over the place, that now gets pulled WAY back by a change like that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I mean, fair I guess but I never like the excuse.of using power creep to justify adding more power creep.

Define "power creep". Because changes to durability are exact opposite to "power creep" if you then abstain from increasing the lethality back again...

It is worth mentioning here, that turn damage output exceeding 25% in ideal conditions is breaking the IGOUGO game intended to last 5 turns. If you want the loosing side to be able to score anything in turn 5, so that the game is not automatically resolved one turn earlier, you should keep the turn damage output below 20%. Otherwise an average game will end in tabling. Historically speaking, 40K has always been too lethal to be a good game, and this is also one of the reasons why early stages of the original Necromunda are considered well balanced - there the damage output of a typical turn on the planet bowling ball is about 20% and drops below 5% with a proper amount of terrain.

Such changes to durability, that is an universal Inv save also reduce the feel bad moments of having to remove your newly painted centerpiece mini in the first turn, which improves the game experience further. I have mentioned before, I played 100+ games with a similar rule and it is IMHO the best AP vs Sv system.

Game scoring is built around holding points. Durability buffs improve the ability to score points.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Game scoring is built around holding points. Durability buffs improve the ability to score points.

In a game with a lethality through the roof, that ends in tabling more often than not, increasing the ability to actually play to the mission and score objectives is a good thing, is it not?

nou wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Game scoring is built around holding points. Durability buffs improve the ability to score points.

In a game with a lethality through the roof, that ends in tabling more often than not, increasing the ability to actually play to the mission and score objectives is a good thing, is it not?

We're talking about only buffing the durability of 3+ and 2+ saves, so not really. It's not a "rising waters lifts all boats" situation when the buff only focuses on making elite more durable means only making them better at scoring points and winning games. That's power creep and not the kind that sorts the game properly.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

nou wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Game scoring is built around holding points. Durability buffs improve the ability to score points.

In a game with a lethality through the roof, that ends in tabling more often than not, increasing the ability to actually play to the mission and score objectives is a good thing, is it not?

We're talking about only buffing the durability of 3+ and 2+ saves, so not really. It's not a "rising waters lifts all boats" situation when the buff only focuses on making elite more durable means only making them better at scoring points and winning games. That's power creep and not the kind that sorts the game properly.

Wait, what? We are talking about increasing durability of everything. I have played this rule with -2 modifier (except for 5+ save, which was reduced to 6+), because this is the closest equivalent of halving the save when AP=SV. Everybody and their dog gets the increase except for 6+ save units. AP5 does leave you with a save, AP4 does leave you with a save. Large units of light infantry now get a save against basic weaponry, characters get a boost to their durability and can even survive on their own for a while, everything stays in the game longer.

I agree however, that a -1 modifier is worse change than -2 I've been using, but the general concept of AP=Sv only degrading the save, not cancelling it entirely is sound.

Or are we discussing something else now and I didn't notice the change of the subject?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

And its things like this that tell me, GW is staffed by people who write these rules but dont actively work to test them to the degree the average player is going to use them.

Another example being the loyal 32 going for as long as it did. In the EU mixing in guard was super common because it was super fluffy, but the loyal 32 was a concept that came from the states and was exploited to the extreme

Define "average". Keep in mind that comp players are a minority in players who themselves are a minority in hobbyists.

 Gert wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

And its things like this that tell me, GW is staffed by people who write these rules but dont actively work to test them to the degree the average player is going to use them.

Another example being the loyal 32 going for as long as it did. In the EU mixing in guard was super common because it was super fluffy, but the loyal 32 was a concept that came from the states and was exploited to the extreme

Define "average". Keep in mind that comp players are a minority in players who themselves are a minority in hobbyists.

It's apparently assumed that the "average" American player is an "animal", who exploits every possible loophole and opportunity to min-max for maximum WAAC shenanigans, fluff and their opponents fun completely unimportant to the equation. Apparently.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There is a ton of narrative content. There's six Crusade mission packs kicking out there right now.

And has been stated dozens of times in multiple threads over the past couple of months, none of those matter in the world of pick-up games. The method of interaction for so many people in this hobby is pick-up games with people at stores. To these people that's just the norm when it comes to playing 40k. Pick-up games, by their very definition, are put together quickly using a set of generally agreed upon rules. You're not meant to spend a lot of time organising things, and narrative gaming requires organisation.

So while it's great there there is Crusade content out there (although every Crusade book is mostly just a reprint of the 40k rules, and the missions should have just been included in their accompanying campaign books... but that's another different discussion), it doesn't really mean much to a large section of the gaming community because the gaming community just plays matched play games, which means using the latest tournament packs, because they're the generally agreed upon rules.

GW tried to float the "You can play your Crusade army in matched play games, and your opponent just gets bonus CP!" idea, but c'mon, let's be real here: Who really does that on any appreciable scale?

I know, but I feel like you could extract the missions and play them. Then your problem is just awareness among players. With missions hidden in random books it gets really difficult, but with Waha...

Just so many of the features desired by people here are right in these missions:

Battlefield conditions:


Digging for clues:


Controlling bunkers:


Interesting maps:


Random events:



Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


Let me clarify. Crusade is "narrative content" if you, like PenitentJake, are lucky enough to be playing with a casual, narratively-minded group that both has the system mastery to avoid the many mission/matchup combinations that lead to one person getting casually curbstomped in a couple of turns, and doesn't take winning too seriously. These playgroups would probably be playing "narrative" missions on their own without GW's intervention. If you're not lucky enough to have that kind of group Crusade devolves almost immediately into a progression system stapled to a competitive league that just gives people one more thing to optimize. In my experience of trying to play Crusade it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the game; if you were having fun without it you'll probably have fun with it, if you weren't it doesn't help.

I think this is fair enough- it is true that if you're playing Crusade with people who game for advantage and exploit systems, Rake is dead on the mark- it can get ruthless- someone can steal a few early upgrades, min/max them just like a netlister and hammer everyone else until everyone just walks away.

Missions will still be more interesting, and are more likely to be more asymmetrical. Mixing subfactions is back on the table, there is no Ro3, and the biggest difference is still the absence of secondaries as victory conditions. But again, you still need a group who is willing to play the weird stuff.

The point does still remain though: if the problem is that there aren't people who are willing to play the parts of the current edition that are cool, what's the point of building a new edition? The min/maxers will still be there and they'll still do their too cool for school routine, and they'll still insist that everyone just play their way by default and everyone will because they think they have no choice.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

And its things like this that tell me, GW is staffed by people who write these rules but dont actively work to test them to the degree the average player is going to use them.

Another example being the loyal 32 going for as long as it did. In the EU mixing in guard was super common because it was super fluffy, but the loyal 32 was a concept that came from the states and was exploited to the extreme

Define "average". Keep in mind that comp players are a minority in players who themselves are a minority in hobbyists.

It's apparently assumed that the "average" American player is an "animal", who exploits every possible loophole and opportunity to min-max for maximum WAAC shenanigans, fluff and their opponents fun completely unimportant to the equation. Apparently.

Sad part is it's true

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

Those are all wonderful extras, and will never show up in pick-up games because they add to organisation.

The only way you get those sorts of rules for pick-up games would be if they were imposed by the venue, "During week of XX Date to YY Date, the following rules apply to games", and even then that's more a league thing (narrative or otherwise), and people playing pick-up games would probably ignore them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

Those are all wonderful extras, and will never show up in pick-up games because they add to organisation.

The only way you get those sorts of rules for pick-up games would be if they were imposed by the venue, "During week of XX Date to YY Date, the following rules apply to games", and even then that's more a league thing (narrative or otherwise), and people playing pick-up games would probably ignore them.

I think that's why they tried to make it work for pick up games by giving rules for playing versus matched play armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

Those are all wonderful extras, and will never show up in pick-up games because they add to organisation.

The only way you get those sorts of rules for pick-up games would be if they were imposed by the venue, "During week of XX Date to YY Date, the following rules apply to games", and even then that's more a league thing (narrative or otherwise), and people playing pick-up games would probably ignore them.

Or more likely find a new store to play at if there are multiple options in the city in question. I think if a store tried to enforce some kind of store-rule that applied to pick up games, that store would quickly be abandoned.

ERJAK wrote:

Part of the reason I don't care about crusade is because the system is built around the idea that you'll play multiple games over several weeks. That never works out, at least for me. I've joined leagues and always end up dropping within the first couple weeks because it's such a chore. You have to carve out time to devote to the games, you have to set up times with your opponent that match THEIR schedule, people absolutely suck at making plans (You wanna get our game in this week? Sure! ...Okay when? Oh, whenever's fine! Is Saturday good. Oh, no I have underwater basket weaving that day. ...I hate you so much.), life gets in the way, etc, etc.

Yeah, this is how life goes when it's not all about you.

nou wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Something else that doesn't get enough talk...

The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.

They are in general much more about the experience for both players.

So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)

IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.

And sometimes I'm disgusted with the lack of effort they put into the rules. So fair's far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Sad part is it's true

Brits are just more passive-aggressive about it.

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Sad part is it's true

Brits are just more passive-aggressive about it.

True.

the only thing I'm competitive about is racing.

ccs wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Part of the reason I don't care about crusade is because the system is built around the idea that you'll play multiple games over several weeks. That never works out, at least for me. I've joined leagues and always end up dropping within the first couple weeks because it's such a chore. You have to carve out time to devote to the games, you have to set up times with your opponent that match THEIR schedule, people absolutely suck at making plans (You wanna get our game in this week? Sure! ...Okay when? Oh, whenever's fine! Is Saturday good. Oh, no I have underwater basket weaving that day. ...I hate you so much.), life gets in the way, etc, etc.

Yeah, this is how life goes when it's not all about you.

"Scheduling sucks. It makes systems like Crusade hard to enjoy."
"Ah, I found a narcissist."

 Backspacehacker wrote:

nou wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Something else that doesn't get enough talk...

The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.

They are in general much more about the experience for both players.

So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)

IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.

It was LVO, and i know exactly which event it was.
They got completely murderized by the flying nid circus, it was directly after that LVO, flyrants got nerfed and rule of 3 went into effect.

IIRC it was actually directly quoted that "Americans play like animals"

Nice excuses from them not to improve their rules writing. Maybe if they did, Flying Nid Circus wouldn't be a problem! Instead they got a half assed codex with tons of trap options.

But sure, just blame the Americans.

 auticus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

Those are all wonderful extras, and will never show up in pick-up games because they add to organisation.

The only way you get those sorts of rules for pick-up games would be if they were imposed by the venue, "During week of XX Date to YY Date, the following rules apply to games", and even then that's more a league thing (narrative or otherwise), and people playing pick-up games would probably ignore them.

Or more likely find a new store to play at if there are multiple options in the city in question. I think if a store tried to enforce some kind of store-rule that applied to pick up games, that store would quickly be abandoned.

Indeed. our FLGS is well established, and we have regulars and semi-regulars who play whatever they like. rather it is MTG, DnD, or other various miniature war games.

Some people still come in and play 9th ed 40K, but they are rare as there is a GW store a few miles away that draw that crowd. while a majority of our core group specifically will not play it and we are clear about it and the reasons why. We still do some 40K games like 5th ed, BFG, or epic because we love the setting (and have large collections of minis). that doesn't mean that we have anything against or prevent players of 9th from playing at the store. we also play a host of other games like the ones in my sig, as well as some i do not play that are still popular in the area like song of ice and fire, star wars legion and specter ops.

The idea of PUG games and building communities as per the previously mentioned survey are way off base in real world experiences. as casual non-tournament gamers the idea of building an active gaming community is a huge and important priority. especially for those of us who are there every week getting multiple games in on "game day". we want more active players who feel welcome and enjoy the experience. It is good for our hobby, our FLGS and the social experience.

I'm sorry but are you saying the survey is wrong? How many people took the survey?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There is a ton of narrative content. There's six Crusade mission packs kicking out there right now.

And has been stated dozens of times in multiple threads over the past couple of months, none of those matter in the world of pick-up games. The method of interaction for so many people in this hobby is pick-up games with people at stores. To these people that's just the norm when it comes to playing 40k. Pick-up games, by their very definition, are put together quickly using a set of generally agreed upon rules. You're not meant to spend a lot of time organising things, and narrative gaming requires organisation.

So while it's great there there is Crusade content out there (although every Crusade book is mostly just a reprint of the 40k rules, and the missions should have just been included in their accompanying campaign books... but that's another different discussion), it doesn't really mean much to a large section of the gaming community because the gaming community just plays matched play games, which means using the latest tournament packs, because they're the generally agreed upon rules.

GW tried to float the "You can play your Crusade army in matched play games, and your opponent just gets bonus CP!" idea, but c'mon, let's be real here: Who really does that on any appreciable scale?

I know, but I feel like you could extract the missions and play them. Then your problem is just awareness among players. With missions hidden in random books it gets really difficult, but with Waha...

Just so many of the features desired by people here are right in these missions:

Battlefield conditions:

Spoiler:

Digging for clues:

Spoiler:

Controlling bunkers:

Spoiler:

Interesting maps:

Spoiler:

Random events:

Spoiler:

Like there's some really cool gak in here and I would play the hell out of it if I had time. Probably with the kids when they're older. It's just easier for me to do monthly tournaments than weekly Crusades in my current life circumstances and travel to the store.

I kind of agree, but I have bad news... we had an entire chapter in our current campaign dedicated to planetfall and it was a disaster. It's so horribly balanced, almost every single game is an automatic win for the attacker. Fortifications simply aren't durable enough to weather 9th's edition lethality so most games start with the attacker killing good portion of the enemy army with firestorm, blowing up two or three bastions (or equivalent) and then wipe the enemy straight of the table. The problem is that the attacker will always go first, will always be in charge range of any enemy unit they wish in turn 1 and will always have a clear shot at anything they wish because of how deployment works.

The FFA missions have similar issues, while there were a lot of great ideas, the general issue with three/four players taking turns hasn't been mitigated. The underdog feature simply can't compensate for taking the shooting of two 9th edition armies, because you lose so much that you can't possibly bounce back. Multiple of those missions have ended with players reduced to spectators or left with a single unit trying to archive agendas before even moving once.

The best narrative missions are those which force you to move a lot and perform actions or have some theatre of war in place that severely reduces lethality. Whenever anyone can shoot and fight as much as they want, even the most clever mission gets reduced to "kill everyone".

40k is getting too lethal to even play narrative with tuned-down lists, which is fairly bad news.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.

That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.

And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?

How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?

How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?

Sorry, but that's nuts and completely wrong.

When you consider the creep of late editions its not that insane. A las canon is still brings a terminator to a 3+ which against a single wound model is stilla 33% to fail.

Think of the flip side to this, think of all the save that armies that have 4+ or worse now all of a sudden are not getting just vaporized by bolters.

Yes, and that is incredibly bad House Rules within a 3E-5E context where the AP system is supposed to accelerate gameplay by removing models. The "ProHammer" rules writer doesn't understand the design intent of the system, and has made it vastly worse with this change by going directly against the original design intent of faster play. Adding new saves slows the game with saves that shouldn't be there, and subsequent action turns from models that should have died earlier. It's handing out a massive bonus that was never paid for in the MEQ statline and points costs. As for GEQ getting 6++ save against Bolters, int only reduces their losses by a mere 17%, whereas MEQs are suddenly reducing losses by at least 50%.

Unless ProHammer reduces SM points by at significant amount to compensate for their hugely increased durability, they have failed as game designers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Justifying power creep with power creep is a bad take.

Ill be honest, im playing with it in HH, where AP2 and AP3 are tossed around like candy and it feels really good there so.

HH is specifically designed around broad access and usage of AP2 & AP3 weapons, and it's baked into the points cost and so forth.

3E-5E is not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I think that's why they tried to make it work for pick up games by giving rules for playing versus matched play armies.

You clearly have never seen a wannabe-competitive player lose their gak when a snazzwagon that rolled +1 to damage on their upgrade table started to shoot

A player freely picking their battle honors can easily ruin the game, and no amount of CP will compensate for that. Despite loving crusade, I have full sympathy for a matched player not wanting to play that.

nou wrote:
You're making a mistake thinking about this as a boost to particular units in the game. This is so fundamental change of the game space, that it simply creates a completely different system all around. Does some rebalance is in order after such change? Of course. Is it "nuts and completely wrong"? No, not at all. It is simply a design paradigm, good as any other when you are writing an in-depth rewrite of the game and not a simple patch. And it does result in way better feel of the game.

It is an exceedingly uneven boost that strongly benefits MEQs and esp. TEQs without any significant boost to GEQs. As above, it's a huge change that would absolutely require a massive rebalance (ie. major cost increase) of any unit with Sv4+ or better.

As above, within the context of a game that purports to be based on 5E, it's definitely nuts and wrong because the change goes against the very precepts that underlie the 3E-5E system of removing die rolls (and models) to rapidly accelerate the game. It is not as good as any other, when it's basically a sop to MEQs who play poorly against enemies who take AP3 weapons.

Feel is entirely subjective. If I'm not watching SM players remove entire units when I'm shooting, the game feels bad.