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:
I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.

The most common complaint I see is "The game is too lethal". A big ol' mass reduction in the ability to hit/wound addresses that.

Then yes, certain combos could be a problem. So address those somehow. Points or counter-abilities are options there. But saying "everything" needs rebuffing should be obviously untrue. Just address problematic cases.

A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I feel like doing that is just adding more complication to the matter, and worrying about everyones BS being -1 to hit an infentry inherently, but then needing to buff everything so they can hit. Seems kinda counter productive.

The most common complaint I see is "The game is too lethal". A big ol' mass reduction in the ability to hit/wound addresses that.

Then yes, certain combos could be a problem. So address those somehow. Points or counter-abilities are options there. But saying "everything" needs rebuffing should be obviously untrue. Just address problematic cases.

Personally IMO the lethality is due to the rending system invalidating hte importance of a 3+ and A 2+
I think the rending system is a failed experiment that has ultimatly resulted in the lethality issues of the game. it was not an issue in 8th because the sheer value of spamable ap -2+ mutlie damage weapon was not as prevalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

This man gets it, GW handed out AP to everyone, now they made it so that every weapon in the game that hasa any amount of AP now effects every armor save, For example before the rending AP system you would take and pay for a weapon that would do AP 3, it only effected AP 3 and below saves, thats all it was designed for. In the new system, that weapon is now -1, which not only is effecting sv 3 and Sv 2 now, where before it never did, now those models pointed at having a 2+ mean nothing because ap -1 and 2 is all over the board.

You got to watch this unfold in real time with every update.
First it was, Oh these things arnt dying fast enough, give them more AP
Oh no now things are dying to quick give them multi wounds
on no now they dont die fast enogh give them multi damage
oh no now they die to fast, give them more invulns and only wounds on 4+
oh no, now they dont die fast enough and big guns dont feel good anymore, lets introduce weapons that bypass the invuln save
You are here
Oh no things die to fast, lets have them ingnore a given amount of rend on weapons
Oh no they dont die fast enough, lets make it so if the strenght of the weapons is stronger then their toughness they get an AP bonus.


ect ect

Its of my opinion the AP sysem is the primary lethality issue in the game. But thats my take on it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

GW handed out save modifiers like they were going out of style, but rather than overhaul the weapons they just slapped Armour of Contempt onto the game (and in an inconsistent manner - your contempt goes away if you have a shield, but not if you're a tank!) and hoped for the best.

Agree completely that AP was handed out like candy, and that AoC is a garbage rule.

To fix problems you need to fix problems, not apply band-aids/more rules over the top of the already broken rules.

I don't really see why you write this. Imo if we're looking to fix problems than a whole host of options can be on the table. Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

Because its a baidaid solution with out fixng the issues core problem.
You are jsut adding another layer onto it by making infantry -1 to hit.

Imagine it this way, lets say you are in a house, and the pipe bursts, and water is flooding in, the house the the state of the game, the water is the lethality. as more floods in you eventually get closer and closer to the ceailing as the water rises, you have two choice, stop the leak and get the water level lower, or build your ceiling higher.

Adding a -1 to hit on infentry is just that, you are raising the ceiling for more water to just come in, because evenatually you will get "Ignores the -1 to hit infentry" eventually. So why not just stop the water coming in, and stop the flooding.

There is no fixing the core problem as long as GW relies on a rotating release schedule (which is never going to change because economic reasons).

Any and all fixes we could come with are inherently going to be band-aids

They need to remove the limit on negative modifiers to hit. I said what I said.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

Reducing lethality with modifiers results in wasting time because when you're fishing for 6s you're rolling a bunch of dice for minimal effect. If you instead, say, reduce lethality by cutting the number of shots in half you get to the same end result but with a lot less time wasted on dice. And it greatly reduces the frustration factor of having most of your attempts be failures.

Yeah the game is too far gone in general.

I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

I'd consider effectively keeping it in a rewrite though. Although from the opposite ind as a +1 to hit large targets, assuming everything else was rebalanced.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

But you're again talking about LOS not arcs. Why do infantry weapons, even on relatively slow infantry like HWTs or Broadsides, have a 360* arc but weapons on a vehicle don't? Why can infantry weapons always draw line of sight through other models in their own unit, making the approximation that the members of the unit will always position themselves appropriately to get a shot, but a tank can't do the same?

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.

Aesthetics is subjective so I can't really argue that one, but where are you getting a lack of interacting with terrain? I can't think of a single terrain type that can't work with movement trays.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

Reducing lethality with modifiers results in wasting time because when you're fishing for 6s you're rolling a bunch of dice for minimal effect. If you instead, say, reduce lethality by cutting the number of shots in half you get to the same end result but with a lot less time wasted on dice. And it greatly reduces the frustration factor of having most of your attempts be failures.

Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good.

A game where you can have 2-300 infantry or a dozen tanks in a normal game is not a skirmish scale game. And that's the problem here, 40k keeps trying to be both a skirmish game and an army-scale game with mechanics chosen from each concept apparently at random. GW needs to accept that Kill Team is the skirmish game and optimize 40k's mechanics for play at the larger scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

Sure, but a re-write of everything is a necessary assumption here. You aren't going to fix the game by piling on more AoC-style rules bloat to cover up all the problems of the previous rules bloat.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both squads and vehicles draw LOS from the positions of the "weapons", the weapons of a squad being the individual placement of the troopers holding them. In this regard I view the vehicle as a collection of weapons, but with fixed locations, unlike a squad where the shape of the unit is malleable. So it's "consistent" to me that each weapon in each unit draw its own LoS.

But you're again talking about LOS not arcs.

They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

Because it looks awful, for one. It's also non interactive with lots of terrain. I understand where the sentiment comes from, but it's just a no-go for 40k. If were talking apocalypse or something else, fine.

Aesthetics is subjective so I can't really argue that one, but where are you getting a lack of interacting with terrain? I can't think of a single terrain type that can't work with movement trays.

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well as above, you'd have to do A LOT more than a simple rule to achieve what you're saying. Like rewriting all the codexes, etc.

Sure, but a re-write of everything is a necessary assumption here. You aren't going to fix the game by piling on more AoC-style rules bloat to cover up all the problems of the previous rules bloat.

Well a total rewrite wasn't in my original post of the idea, in which I said it was a quick change. So neener neener!

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

But why doesn't an infantry squad block line of sight to its own weapons? Why is the infantry model's position on the table assumed to be only an approximation if it stands in front of the HWT?

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

 Tyran wrote:
There is no fixing the core problem as long as GW relies on a rotating release schedule (which is never going to change because economic reasons).

Any and all fixes we could come with are inherently going to be band-aids

QFT, and ultimately you are not wrong

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They're about the same thing if a vehicle blocks LoS to it's own weapons.

But why doesn't an infantry squad block line of sight to its own weapons? Why is the infantry model's position on the table assumed to be only an approximation if it stands in front of the HWT?

Because expediency makes it convenient to assume the squad can coordinate it's weapon fire. Infantry can call out to each other to signal weapon fire, or can go prone, etc. These things make sense in-universe, and paint a reasonable picture of action.

What does not make sense is a tank spinning circles in place, to alternate fire between sponsons and alternately show its back-then-side-then-front over and over again.

You gonna place whole movement trays on top of scatter terrain? It's not what people want to see.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

No that's just another rule on top of a rule. You're still just adding an exception to a core rule, only doing it within the core rules themselves.

If the shooting rules are "Look at unit, roll equal to or higher than the listed number", but the next step is always "Do they have the Infantry Keyword" then you're adding unnecessary steps especially when the goal is to reduce lethality.

Like I just said, if you want to reduce lethality you reduce lethality. Reducing the amount of hits isn't really reducing lethality, as the hits still cause the same damage, you're just causing less of them to happen and wasting more time with people making ineffectual rolls. That's a real Fees Bad Man™ situation there, if 40k becomes a game where most things miss and when they do hit BLAM, insta-death.

The problem is save modifiers. Fix save modifiers. Not with additional rules, but with a re-write of all weapons. Collectively. At once. Make even getting AP-1 a big deal, and it will suddenly have an impact.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

Most the game is infantry. You're arguing in favour of a rule that would mean the printed Ballistic Skill on every sheet in the game would almost never use that stat. That's the problem with Armour Saves right now - what's there almost never matters, as most things have at least a -1.

This is why I liked the all-or-nothing AP system from 3rd-7th. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but a 3+ save meant a 3+ save. Marines were Marines, damn it!

 Insectum7 wrote:
What does not make sense is a tank spinning circles in place, to alternate fire between sponsons and alternately show its back-then-side-then-front over and over again.

But it's not spinning in circles. As I pointed out before, most/all 40k tanks can fire all of their guns directly ahead with only a slight pivot. And in many cases if you're shooting at the same target you don't even need that much movement, the left sponson shoots at the left side of the target and the right sponson shoots at the right side of the target. It's no less realistic than having the turret gun shoot at a unit directly ahead of the tank and then immediately pivot to fire overwatch at a unit behind the tank. Or having a Broadside spinning in circles to shoot at multiple targets and then ducking out of the way so the other Broadside in the unit can take a shot.

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

A wall works just fine with movement trays. The unit on its tray sits behind the wall and gains cover from it. Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Implementing a -1 to Infantry is a core rules thing, just as changing the to-wound method. I'm all for pulling a whole host of rules out at the same time.

No that's just another rule on top of a rule. You're still just adding an exception to a core rule, only doing it within the core rules themselves.

If the shooting rules are "Look at unit, roll equal to or higher than the listed number", but the next step is always "Do they have the Infantry Keyword" then you're adding unnecessary steps especially when the goal is to reduce lethality.

Like I just said, if you want to reduce lethality you reduce lethality. Reducing the amount of hits isn't really reducing lethality, as the hits still cause the same damage, you're just causing less of them to happen and wasting more time with people making ineffectual rolls. That's a real Fees Bad Man™ situation there, if 40k becomes a game where most things miss and when they do hit BLAM, insta-death.

The problem is save modifiers. Fix save modifiers. Not with additional rules, but with a re-write of all weapons. Collectively. At once. Make even getting AP-1 a big deal, and it will suddenly have an impact.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I advocate a -1 to hit infantry is something that would be effective at reducing lethality and differentiating units in the current paradigm. I'm not saying it's going to fix 40k, 40k is beyond that.

Most the game is infantry. You're arguing in favour of a rule that would mean the printed Ballistic Skill on every sheet in the game would almost never use that stat. That's the problem with Armour Saves right now - what's there almost never matters, as most things have at least a -1.

I suppose a very simple example I could use is 2nd edition, which had tons of modifiers to hit, but also more lethal weapons, and the system is remembered fondly by many. So I kinda reject the 'not fun' premise you're coming from here. The end result is fewer casualties from fire, and is even achieved in fewer die rolls.

This is why I liked the all-or-nothing AP system from 3rd-7th. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but a 3+ save meant a 3+ save. Marines were Marines, damn it!

It was also a good system. Both systems work until the designers break them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

What scatter terrain is there that is both too small to accommodate a movement tray and large enough to be more than a purely decorative element (which can be put off to the side if it gets in the way)?

A wall.

A wall works just fine with movement trays. The unit on its tray sits behind the wall and gains cover from it. Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The IG HWT might be probably the only infantry unit arcs would be appropriate for. The SM with a Lascannon can just about-face and fire. That would be an interesting distiction. But otherwise the rules just lump them into the same level of abtraction, and for simplicity sake that's ok by me.

For simplicity's sake, if we eschew facings on infantry, it's also okay by me with removing them for vehicles. That's the level of abstraction I'm personally fine with.

It's something that works fine for larger scale games. But many folks like the smaller skirmish scale engagements and imo vehicle arcs and facings offer much higher fidelity play at smaller scales, which is good. They're also really not so complicated that they become overbearing at larger either, it's a net win for me.

I don't think 40k really counts as a skirmish game any more - at least at the sizes that people tend to play.

A 1000 point game? Yeah, I'd call that a skirmish. A 2000 point game? Not a chance. Unless we can pin down what kind of game 40k is supposed to be, I don't think this will be resolved. As far as I see it, 40k is much closer to mass battle, and as a result, I don't feel that facings are needed, due to the abstraction required.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Infantry can make use of cover far easier than vehicles can, change their shilouette, blend into terrain and conform to their surroundings much easier, and do it all much quicker than a vehicle can.

Terminators? Centurions? Broadside Battlesuits? Carnifexes? I'd trust all of them to be less agile than, say, a Sentinel or Warbuggy.

Vehicles require large features to get behind, and otherwise will be much easier to spot.

There are non-vehicles that are larger than some vehicles though.

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

And have they ever been treated like vehicles? Do Carnifexes have facings? Centurions? Riptides? What about the other units I mentioned?

I'm not sure if you missed the point deliberately or by accident, but I offer you another shot at it.

I didn't miss anything. I said infantry, you said MCs. To which I say infantry again, because I specifically not talking about MCs.

Terminators, Centurions and Broadsides are MCs? That's news to me.

Like I said - you addressed *one* of the units I mentioned. What about the others you just so happened to miss?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

But Sentinels aren't necessarily just speedy - they look much more articulated and nimble than a Centurion or Broadside Battlesuit. Hell, I'd call them more manoeuvrable in repositioning than things like bikes!

There's the talk of an ideal system, but clearly, we need to work out what system people actually want, and how granular it is - and that agreement on what we all want from things, what we consider "reasonable", is something that just isn't being met.

Well I'd certainly consider some sort of agility stat or modifier. Some models should be much harder to track than others. I wouldn't think consider sentinels very agile though.

Again, I'm not so much talking about being "harder to track", I'm talking that I believe Sentinels can reposition their facing and angles easier than a Terminator, Broadside Battlesuit, Bike or Centurion.

I don't think any consensus will be met, so I state my ideals.

As will I.

H.B.M.C. wrote:A mass reduction in ability to hit just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. To reduce lethality you should reduce lethality.

Agreed. If hitting starts becoming too difficult, it's going to feel like there's no point in trying to shoot.

Things getting hit are fine - it's the strength of what hits them that needs fixing.

Insectum7 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Why does the unit need to sit on top of a wall?

Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Same thing that happens when a model with a large base or vehicle moves maximum distance and ends up halfway through a wall.

Doesn't apocalypse already use movement trays? That would already be a precedent, wouldn't it?

Not saying that there should be movement trays mind you; movement trays would undermine the feel of fielding small, flexible squads of infantry, after all. Just that there's already a precedent.

Then again, Fantasy had regimented units in movement trays and it also had skirmisher units in loose formation, so you could probably do that in 40k as well.
Hoards could use the movement trays and smaller, more "elite" units like Immortals and marines could move in loose formations.

40k certainly has lost its sense of scale.

2k points is a skirmish game for Knight and Baneblade-company players. It is a mass battle game for SM players, and a massive mess for IG conscript spam players.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't apocalypse already use movement trays? That would already be a precedent, wouldn't it?

Not saying that there should be movement trays mind you; movement trays would undermine the feel of fielding small, flexible squads of infantry, after all. Just that there's already a precedent.

Then again, Fantasy had regimented units in movement trays and it also had skirmisher units in loose formation, so you could probably do that in 40k as well.
Hoards could use the movement trays and smaller, more "elite" units like Immortals and marines could move in loose formations.

Yes they do, but apoc rules were completely designed around movement trays. where the importance of individual models did not matter as much vs 40k proper.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reducing lethality with any adjustments will net the same return of fewer casualties per shooting round. There's little difference . . . In fact there's an argument to be made that additional modifiers to hit waste LESS time because it's the first roll that's made in the Hit-Wound-Save routine.

And failing to hit all the time because of stacked modifiers will make people stop playing, because it's not fun. That's my point.

Personally I would much rather just roll, miss 2/3 of my shots, and have the ones that hit be more likely to do something than the current system of rolling a bucket of 30+ dice, re-rolling 1s, counting out the hits, rolling again, passing them off for saves, blah blah oh look I did one wound yeah that was definitely worth all the time and effort.

I find rolling a ton of dice over and over again to whittle my results down to nothing to be far more frustrating, tedious, and un-fun than just rolling once and fishing for high values. In OnePageRules my Termagants might only hit on 6s against targets in cover, but when every hit immediately goes to my opponent to make a save or die, that to-hit roll means something and has more tension than essentially working through a spreadsheet in realtime.

@Smudge:
1: There's a thread in General right now about 500 point games. Many people like 40k at smaller sizes.

2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

3: Perhaps you can reason out why rolling more dice for the same result is better/more fun than rolling fewer dice.

There coulda been a conversation here, but really you're just reminding me why I have you on ignore. Good day!

Insectum7 wrote:@Smudge:
1: There's a thread in General right now about 500 point games. Many people like 40k at smaller sizes.

I know they do, I also prefer lower size games of 40k - but the point stands that *most* games of 40k are much larger than that, and that either the system needs to split and have different sets of rules for different engagement sizes, or continue using one for all.

If 40k were to more fully split into "skirmish mode" and "battle mode", I'd absolutely agree that in skirmish mode, vehicles (and infantry) should have facings. Unfortunately, that is a version of the game we do not have yet.

2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

And? It's not infantry in name only, and it certainly ain't a vehicle. Personally, I think you're being pedantic about that. Oh, and still waiting on Terminators and Centurions, or do I need to eke those out of you as well?

Come on, you're not doing yourself any favours here.

3: Perhaps you can reason out why rolling more dice for the same result is better/more fun than rolling fewer dice.

Just because I want hitting to be more reliably doesn't mean I also want the weight of attacks to be the same. Now, that's on me for not fully clarifying, but in summary, I would prefer fewer attacks, hitting on the BS+ marked on the sheet except in very specific and situational circumstances, and then being saved against by reliably applicable armour, with a major reduction to AP and Wounds, both in how many wounds units have, and how much weapons tend to do.

Basically, less dice, less modifiers, and decreased damage. I'm not saying I don't want less attacks, but I also don't want more modifiers.

There coulda been a conversation here

Why not? You're the one avoiding the questions I've raised, a la Terminators and Centurions. I've not been rude to you or hostile. It honestly just sounds like you aren't really prepared to discuss this yourself.

but really you're just reminding me why I have you on ignore. Good day!

Good day! I hope you can find the strength of your conviction to stop responding if you're going to keep me on ignore, otherwise, its really rather performative you mentioning it!

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Or stops behind it to take cover. Or uses WMS to sit next to the wall while counting as being on top of it.

It's not like this is a problem specific to movement trays, in 40k infantry models still have to make the choice of doing their full movement or balancing on a wall. And vehicles have the same footprint as movement trays and certainly have to deal with this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

KEYWORDS: INFANTRY, BATTLESUIT, BROADSIDE BATTLESUITS

Personally I hope they bring the changes to the charge rules over to 40k.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unit is running from point A to point B to get to an objective. The unit moves maximum distance which puts them partially through a wall or other obstacle. Individual infantry models can be placed on either side. A movement tray what, balances on top?

Or stops behind it to take cover. Or uses WMS to sit next to the wall while counting as being on top of it.

It's not like this is a problem specific to movement trays, in 40k infantry models still have to make the choice of doing their full movement or balancing on a wall. And vehicles have the same footprint as movement trays and certainly have to deal with this issue.

The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
2: Broadside Battlesuits aren't Infantry either.

KEYWORDS: INFANTRY, BATTLESUIT, BROADSIDE BATTLESUITS

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Besides, way back in the conversation I said:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Carnifexes aren't Infantry, they're Monsters.

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So I'm already saying those larger models are distinct from the infantry I originally discussed.


Bringing it all the way back around to the beginning again, treating units differently is good for the game because different units can have strengths and weaknesses that further define how they function beyond a collection of stats, and (can) give the game both a more intuitive feel to it, and provide for more tactical opportunities and design depth.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The difference is that those larger models have no alternative, whereas the infantry models do. If you're really keen on pushing it, run a poll about movement trays and see the results.

Infantry models do in the current rules. There is nothing inherent about the concept of infantry that requires it to be the case.

Well maybe they have the Infantry keyword in 9th, but my reference for 8th doesn't (and neither do the other battlesuits other than the stealth ones, which are much smaller. So guess what, 9th Ed is wrong!

Lolwut. The current edition of the codex is wrong because a previous edition did something different? Clearly by that standard any edition that had facings and blast templates is wrong because my 9th edition rulebook doesn't include them. And do you still let your crisis suits take the +1 BS upgrade from the 5th edition codex?

In my ideal system Terminators etc. would be in a different category than infantry like Guardsmen. But generally speaking they can flex their shilouette in a way a tank cannot. There are of course fast vehicles though, at which point I'd look to adding hit-modifiers based on speed a-la 2nd edition.

So now we have infantry, big infantry, small vehicle, vehicle as unit types? Plus cavalry, aircraft, etc? How many other unit types do we need in an army-scale game like 40k, where the nuances of exactly how fast an infantry model can pivot really aren't an appropriate thing to be worrying about?