|
Infinite Karma posted:If you make assault easier to get into, you need to make it less deadly/one-sided. For all everyone's bitching, they don't seem to mind when their 200 point lovely assault unit wipes out a 250 point shooting unit in one turn with no casualties. Not to be dismissive or anything, but I have literally never seen this happen once in 6th edition.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Moola posted:Not to be dismissive or anything, but I have literally never seen this happen once in 6th edition. I'm sure it's happened sometimes somewhere. Like I said in my post before, though, the issue is still that systemically assault armies are at a disadvantage, and individual anecdotes don't disprove that. e: Like, it's happened in one of my games. I rolled up a Land Raider filled with assault-inclined Chaos terminators and charged them into a Necron gunblob. That gunblob sure was dead! And the Necron army as a whole sure still won the game on the back of its better shooting! JerryLee fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Overwatch coupled with no assault from outflank was too much. Overwatch on its own would be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Overwatch coupled with no assault from outflank was too much. Overwatch on its own would be fine. Overwatch would be a lot more interesting if it were a bit more limited but could be affected in normal game terms(not by psyker powers). They borrow half of the defensive fire mechanic from Flames of War but then forget everything that makes the mechanic interesting. Also the fact that assaults don't completely resolve the turn they happen makes being in combat an important shield. Thusly, stronger close combat units that can instagib a shooting unit end up being worse than a unit that sticks with it for the opponents' turn to avoid getting shot up.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Toying with the idea of overwatch requiring the shooter to have an equal to or greater Initiative value than the assaulting unit. So like Fire Warriors could totally overwatch Ork Boys, but Banshees would gently caress them up. Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Moola posted:Toying with the idea of overwatch requiring the shooter to have an equal to or greater Initiative value than the assaulting unit. Overwatch from one fire warrior unit isn't going to keep a decent assault unit from getting in unless it's buffed. An I test to do overwatch doesn't really help the mechanic.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
This is just a completely asspulled idea, but what if the number of shots you could fire for Overwatch was capped somehow? Because sometimes it feels like the problem with overwatch is that it's balanced for something like a marine combat squad, and thusly falls apart when you have Necron, Tau or IG armies taking a fling-poo poo-at-the-wall approach.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Only the front rank being able to overwatch could help, and is ~~*thematically appropriate*~~. Or maybe D3 shots per so many models or something. Gonna test this poo poo out next saturday!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
You guys should make a thread for this project so as to not confuse people learning 7th.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Moola posted:Only the front rank being able to overwatch could help, and is ~~*thematically appropriate*~~. The problem with overwatch is that it has basically two modes: either it kinda sucks and is mostly irrelevant(like a normal tac squad/random shooter overwatch), or it's way over the top(like tau circlejerks, super guardblobs with characters and psykers, etc.). This is because it has no real interaction between the players in how it works. If you could suppress units, pop smoke, approach from concealed positions to mitigate it, and then had it be more powerful, it would be an interesting mechanic.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Being able to suppress units to keep them from firing overwatch would be good. I'd say "Pinned units cannot fire Overwatch" (which sounds like it might be a thing in 7E anyway?) but pinning still isn't nearly reliable enough to build a strategy around, in my experience. I'd rather have it be something flat, like "If a unit has taken fire from two or more Heavy or Ordnance weapons in the previous Shooting phase, it cannot fire Overwatch." This would allow you to actually build an army around reliably helping assault squads into, well, assault.Fix posted:You guys should make a thread for this project so as to not confuse people learning 7th. Also, I agree with this.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Fix posted:You guys should make a thread for this project so as to not confuse people learning 7th. No one should waste there time learning 7th.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Fix posted:You guys should make a thread for this project so as to not confuse people learning 7th. Are you even allowed to make non-mega threads in trad games?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
The big problem is that Overwatch is not what is prevent units from hitting CC. It can make it more difficult, sure, but Overwatch is not what is keeping Orks/Genestealers/Berserkers from getting into CC. Rather, the problem is that many armies can just sit there and obliterate them before they even reach their positions, and the methods most armies use to compensate suffer mechanically. Cover can be ignored and slows down units heading into assault doubly - both on the move and on the charge. Vehicles need to be assault transports, or else you aren't seeing CC before turn 3 at the very best, and many assault transports are either fragile or expensive. Outflanking and Deep Strike both net you a full turn of standing around with your dick in your hand as every Lasgun in a 24" radius zeroes in on you. Even mobbing up and walking up, saying hell to all that bunk about transports or cover, this is Warboss Pickett's WAAAAAGH across an open field, has models experience a conveyer belt effect where the first rank is cut down and the unit ends up with less movement overall. Overwatch from a block of Necrons does not stop me from murdering them in CC - it's being shot to death by Annihilation Barges. Fixing assault (so that all reasonably effective forms of assault are functional) would require overhauling a lot of the mechanics doing with movement and shooting.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:The big problem is that Overwatch is not what is prevent units from hitting CC. It can make it more difficult, sure, but Overwatch is not what is keeping Orks/Genestealers/Berserkers from getting into CC. Rather, the problem is that many armies can just sit there and obliterate them before they even reach their positions, and the methods most armies use to compensate suffer mechanically. Cover can be ignored and slows down units heading into assault doubly - both on the move and on the charge. Vehicles need to be assault transports, or else you aren't seeing CC before turn 3 at the very best, and many assault transports are either fragile or expensive. Outflanking and Deep Strike both net you a full turn of standing around with your dick in your hand as every Lasgun in a 24" radius zeroes in on you. Even mobbing up and walking up, saying hell to all that bunk about transports or cover, this is Warboss Pickett's WAAAAAGH across an open field, has models experience a conveyer belt effect where the first rank is cut down and the unit ends up with less movement overall. Yeah, these are all good points. I don't think that considering ways to cap/interact with overwatch can't be part of the puzzle, but it's probably not gonna do it by itself. Can we get approval for a thread and have some one make it?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Moola posted:Are you even allowed to make non-mega threads in trad games? The current mod actually encourages splitting discussion if it starts getting cluttered sometimes, so  .Also, is there any resolution to the question of Hemlock Wraithfighters getting the Telepathy primaris power? All the language in the book suggests that you get Psychic Focus by "generating" your powers from one discipline, and it's unclear whether not rolling and getting one specific power counts. I mean, having the perfectly silent Hemlock psychically scream until people bleed from their ears is more interesting than it is now.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Yeah, these are all good points. I don't think that considering ways to cap/interact with overwatch can't be part of the puzzle, but it's probably not gonna do it by itself. Yeah exactly, incremental changes are definitely what I prefer. If you're going to start totally overhauling poo poo, then you might as well start from the ground up. (Nobody wants to do this.) Rulebook Heavily posted:The current mod actually encourages splitting discussion if it starts getting cluttered sometimes, so I dunno, it's not like we're not talking about 40k; sixth edition is still 40k, and house rules for 6th is still talking about 40k. It's not like this thread moves at a break neck speed or something...
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I'm turning in for the night, but if there isn't a thread by morning, I will make one. Indolent Bastard is helping me get things organized so that we can work on things in a timely manner, but start saving all your House Rule chat for the House Rules thread... Y'know, once we get mod approval.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Still working on it but started writing up all the weird stuff and good stuff you can do with a Summoning army on Dakka, I was reading on some stuff and a Herald of Slaanesh on a Chariot is loving crazy town awesome summoner, being able to move summon move.
Hollismason fucked around with this message at 00:37 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I'm turning in for the night, but if there isn't a thread by morning, I will make one. Indolent Bastard is helping me get things organized so that we can work on things in a timely manner, but start saving all your House Rule chat for the House Rules thread... Ok but you need a funny thread title. Something like Warhammer 40k 6.5 Edition - The House Always Wins But you know, actually funny.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Moola posted:Ok but you need a funny thread title. The Game Workshop That Isn't Games Workshop
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
If you nerds are worried about whether 40k house rules can sustain a thread why not make a House Rules Megathread?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Von Humboldt posted:The big problem is that Overwatch is not what is prevent units from hitting CC. It can make it more difficult, sure, but Overwatch is not what is keeping Orks/Genestealers/Berserkers from getting into CC. Rather, the problem is that many armies can just sit there and obliterate them before they even reach their positions, and the methods most armies use to compensate suffer mechanically. Cover can be ignored and slows down units heading into assault doubly - both on the move and on the charge. Vehicles need to be assault transports, or else you aren't seeing CC before turn 3 at the very best, and many assault transports are either fragile or expensive. Outflanking and Deep Strike both net you a full turn of standing around with your dick in your hand as every Lasgun in a 24" radius zeroes in on you. Even mobbing up and walking up, saying hell to all that bunk about transports or cover, this is Warboss Pickett's WAAAAAGH across an open field, has models experience a conveyer belt effect where the first rank is cut down and the unit ends up with less movement overall. Nobody's complaining that their Assault Terminators or Canoptek Wraiths or Khorne Hounds or Nurgle Biker Lords are being shot off the board too easily. If you want to assault, you need a fast unit, and/or an assault transport. Or else, use a more versatile unit that can shoot on turns 1-3 and consider getting into assault on turn 3-4 as a bonus.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Moola posted:Not to be dismissive or anything, but I have literally never seen this happen once in 6th edition. Over the weekend I had a unit of Deathwing knights completely demolish a unit of devastator centurions in one round.  I still don't know why I was even able to get close to them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:If you nerds are worried about whether 40k house rules can sustain a thread why not make a House Rules Megathread? This might be a good idea. Mainly because then we can talk about our Sham-battle How to Play With Toy Soldiers house rules!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
So I had an idea about how to use the Objective Cards while reducing the randomness. Battle Plans At the start of the game, after the map has been constructed, sides chosen, and objectives placed but before units are deployed, both players select seven Objective Cards to represent their plan of action for the upcoming battle. Each card must be assigned a turn number, so your cards will be assigned #1 through 7. At the end of each turn, the player reveals the card he assigned for that turn. If he achieved his objective, he scores the points for that card. If he failed, he loses the points for that card1. Note that because there are three separate "Secure Objective #X" cards for each Objective, it is possible to choose holding the same Objective as many as three times. To prevent defensive armies from dominating the game in this way, point values for Objectives are as follows: Objectives placed in your own Deployment Zone (or Friendly Zone on the map) are worth 1 point a piece. Objectives in No Man's Land are worth 2 points a piece. Objectives in your opponent's Deployment Zone (Enemy Zone) are worth 3 points a piece.  Note that random game length is still in effect. Keep in mind that Objective Cards assigned to Turns Six and Seven may never be played if the game ends at the end of Turn Five. Example: A Guard Player looks at the above map and who is deploying in the Green Friendly Zone against a Tyrannid player decides he will play defensively and chooses the following Battle Plan: Turn 1 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 2 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 3 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 4 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 5 - Hold Objective 5 (1 point) Turn 6 - Hold Objective 6 (1 point) Turn 7 - Kingslayer (1-3 points) The Guard player is planning for a defensive game. He hopes to use his firepower to keep the Tyrannids from capturing the Objectives in No Man's Land but is ceding any points the 'Nids choose to horde in their own zone. With his defensive plan, he is unlikely to accomplish Linebreaker (1 point), but depending on who goes first may achieve First Blood (1 point). Finally, if he manages to kill the enemy Warlord (likely a Hive Tyrant of some variety), he will score Slay the Warlord (1 point) and Kingslayer (1-3 points) if the game lasts until Turn Seven. That means the Guard player has a maximum point total point value of 12, but since the game likely won't get to Turn Seven and he's pretty much giving up Linebreaker, his likely score will be in the 5-7 range. His opponent, the Tyrannid player, is deploying in the red Enemy Zone. He plans on a rapid advance along one flank, while holding his home objectives with a couple of Biovore units. His plan is: Turn 1 - Secure Objective 1 (1 point) Turn 2 - Secure Objective 2 (1 point) Turn 3 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 4 - Secure Objective 3 (2 points) Turn 5 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 6 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) Turn 7 - Secure Objective 5 (3 points) The Tyrannid plan is much more aggressive. If totally successful, including secondaries, he will score as many as 18 points! However, this plan requires his push at the Guard left to succeed. If it fails, the point penalty will cripple him in short order. The game will be won or lost in the battle for Objectives 3 and 5. One problem with this setup is that many of the current cards in the deck will be under-used, particularly the "Kill a X by the end of your turn" cards. Even granting that knowing you need to kill some Psykers in Turn 3 will make one maneuver a certain way, the penalty for failure will likely discourage many people from trying it. Some amendment of the cards may be required. Also, something will need to be done to adjust the or eliminate the Tactical Warlord, which is currently incompatible with this scheme. There may be some way to allow Tactical Warlords to adjust their plans somewhat on the fly as the battle progresses, but I haven't really given much thought to a mechanism for such. Anyway, that's my idea off the top of my head. Thoughts? 1 = This may be too aggressive for some players. If you don't like the penalty, amend the rule to: "If he failed, the card is discarded and the points it represents are lost." I can see it working either way.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Moola posted:Are you even allowed to make non-mega threads in trad games? Yes, you can make threads. Sheesh. 40k can support whole forums, if you guys want more than one thread (or more than two) I don't care. In fact, I encourage it since stuff gets lost in giant threads. If we don't need it? eh, it will sink. NBD.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
I totally called it:Soulfucker posted:I'm imagining a terrible goon project aiming to re-imagine the rules of Warhammer 40k. That being said, while I'm certainly not going to try and redesign the game by myself, I'll happily look at a genuine attempt to rewrite some fun rules. Maybe. I did play with the 2nd Edition Battle Bible rules once with one of my long time friends and some of those battles we had were the most fun I've ever had with the hobby, despite being absolutely chaotic!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Games > Traditional Games > Warhammer 40k Houserules - Forging our own (terrible) narratives I like using the cards for something more strategic, but the sticking point to me is the victory points. I feel like they'd be more interesting if they weren't all just "you randomly get this much more towards winning" and you instead got some other benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
I looked at the 2nd Edition Battle Bible and was pretty  at how complicated it made a lot of the stuff seem. Maybe that's just because I had to scroll through it as a PDF rather than having it as a bound book, but that's one reason I hope this experiment can produce something that's as lightweight as possible and fits on top of the 6E/7E rules, rather than trying reinvent them.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:When I say "lovely assault units," I mean stuff like Berserkers and Genestealers. If Berserkers and Genestealers, iconic assault units, are lovely assault units, it's a sign that the assault rules are fundamentally broken.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:When I say "lovely assault units," I mean stuff like Berserkers and Genestealers. They can't get into assault reliably because they are slow, they are overkill against the pansies you want to assault (like AM Command Squads), and aren't good enough to beat actual good assault units head-to-head. It sucks that there are a bunch of "trap" choices in a lot of codexes, but the solution isn't to make assault better as a whole, it's to make the lovely units better, possibly by reducing their points costs, or by bringing in more effective delivery methods. Honestly, though, I'm puzzled why GW hasn't latched onto the concept of making models to specifically shore up issues with its core rules. Some sort of Assault Rhino (that looks different enough from a normal Rhino that it would be a pain to convert) that came out with a Dataslate and both Chaos and Loyalist versions would make lots of cash. $5 for the slate, $35 for the Rhino at least, and GW is rolling in cash from guys who want Death Company or whatever to get alive into position. EDIT : Super Venomthrope! Like a Venomthrope, but T5 and you can't Ignore Cover on its bubble! Only $29.99!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:If Berserkers and Genestealers, iconic assault units, are lovely assault units, it's a sign that the assault rules are fundamentally broken. He does have sort of a point in that a few assault-centric units (bikes, for a prominent example) are regarded as being less putrid. An assault revamp might have to pay attention to particular units, lest it simply make e.g. Chapter Master Fuckhammer even more retardedly powerful. But that's the sort of stuff that will shake out in any dedicated playtesting attempt, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:He does have sort of a point in that a few assault-centric units (bikes, for a prominent example) are regarded as being less putrid. An assault revamp might have to pay attention to particular units, lest it simply make e.g. Chapter Master Fuckhammer even more retardedly powerful. But that's the sort of stuff that will shake out in any dedicated playtesting attempt, hopefully. That's true. There are a handful of units that are p solid assaulters. But assault is fundamentally broken if stuff like zerks and GS are bad at their job, the problems are nearly universal and rooted in the core rules, and it would be easier to write and test an assault overhaul and then address the handful of units who would then be too powerful than write and test rules for each of the many poorly performing assault troops, and the latter would require a lot of repeated effort.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That's true. There are a handful of units that are p solid assaulters. But assault is fundamentally broken if stuff like zerks and GS are bad at their job, the problems are nearly universal and rooted in the core rules, and it would be easier to write and test an assault overhaul and then address the handful of units who would then be too powerful than write and test rules for each of the many poorly performing assault troops, and the latter would require a lot of repeated effort. Oh, yeah, I take your point that it might be easier to do a broad power buff and errata the specific units that then get too powerful, rather than vice versa (that is your point, right?). That makes good sense.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
So, uh, do barrages no longer hit the top level of a ruin now? An explanation as to how a barrage interacts with terrain with multiple levels seems to be entirely absent.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Oh, yeah, I take your point that it might be easier to do a broad power buff and errata the specific units that then get too powerful, rather than vice versa (that is your point, right?). That makes good sense. Yeah, and depending on how you tweak things, you might not even have to worry about those units. They might not be so improved that they need a nerf.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
The terrain rules in general feel like a great step back, IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I looked at the 2nd Edition Battle Bible and was pretty When we played I made some "codexes" if you will by gathering the relevant rules for each faction we played with in separate printer-friendly packages. It made playing the actual game relatively manageable. I agree with the sentiment that 6th is the most polished edition GW has made yet (haven't had the chance to play 7th yet), but on a personal level I loved the poo poo out of the batshit crazy situations you ended up with thanks to the 2nd edition ruleset - especially the vehicle rules! (Hello chain-reaction crashes!)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Salamanders Took better pictures (with cleaned up bases and drilled barrels):   Fuegan, I totally stole your eye lens painting method of dotting the corners with white. It makes them look so much better, my god, why did I never do it before? Also, regarding the  goon project, if you need someone to rewrite the entire Tyranid codex let me know. I'm still going to play the hell out of 7th Edition, but I always enjoy contributing to these types of things.
PierreTheMime fucked around with this message at 02:35 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 02:25
|
|
