|
HiveCommander posted:As a Tyranid player, I was horrified when I saw that 6th edition reduced the threat range of Hormagaunts from 19-24" down to 8-18". I've had several charges fail because dice, and being able to not charge something that's 4" away from you is a pretty crap feeling, especially when you get shot at a whole bunch as a penalty for rolling bad. This is one of the points that came up in the other thread - how do you 'fix' assault for units like Ork Boyz and Hormaguants, while ensuring that Terminator-style deathstars don't become too strong? Personally I think the answer is threat range. Currently a Hormagaunt brood as essentially the same potential threat range as a Terminator squad (6" move then 2D6" charge). Sure the Hormaguants are slightly more reliable, but the potential is the same. Instead let's give the standard unit a fixed 6" charge range, and say everything is allowed to run + assault. That means the standard threat range for a typical unit is 6+6 = 12" normally, or 6+6+D6 = 13-18" at the expense of shooting. The vast majority of dedicated assault units come with Fleet. So now let's say a unit with Fleet can re-roll the D6 to run, and add +D3" to their charge range. That's a range of up to 21" for these units: 6+6+D6+D3, with a re-roll in there to push up the average. Specialist light assault units like Hormaguants and Banshees with their Run bonuses would be able to push for 24" in a single turn. The net result is that the heavy melee units like 2+ armoured Terminators need to give up their firepower to cover the same area as before. This makes it easier to out-maneuver them with light fast assault units, who become much more reliable at reaching their chosen target.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
xtothez posted:This is one of the points that came up in the other thread - how do you 'fix' assault for units like Ork Boyz and Hormaguants, while ensuring that Terminator-style deathstars don't become too strong? Personally I think the answer is threat range. Currently a Hormagaunt brood as essentially the same potential threat range as a Terminator squad (6" move then 2D6" charge). Sure the Hormaguants are slightly more reliable, but the potential is the same. I need to mull this over, but on first blush it looks like the concept has merit.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
I know that we're trying to fix the core rules before we jump into anything, but I feel that Tyranids really needed some changes. This is basically an errata to the 6th edition nids book. Stuff that I think needs changing regardless of how the rest of this goes. Feel free to tell me my changes are horrible. Mostly I left the good units unchanged, but I made some changes to those terrible units that nobody takes. As well as to some biomorphes, warlord traits, psychic powers, instinctive behavior, etc. I'm trying to make them competitive, without making them TOO good. I did a test run with them last night against a willing opponent (using 6th edition rules.) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw_Y6iZYFrbNdmN3a3NtZFViVGs/edit?usp=sharing This is just a first draft, but hopefully it's a good start.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:I know that we're trying to fix the core rules before we jump into anything, but I feel that Tyranids really needed some changes. This is basically an errata to the 6th edition nids book. Stuff that I think needs changing regardless of how the rest of this goes. Feel free to tell me my changes are horrible. Mostly I left the good units unchanged, but I made some changes to those terrible units that nobody takes. As well as to some biomorphes, warlord traits, psychic powers, instinctive behavior, etc. I'm trying to make them competitive, without making them TOO good. I did a test run with them last night against a willing opponent (using 6th edition rules.) A good deal of issues with Tyranid units can be fixed through tweaking the core rules alone. For example, some simple amendments to assault could easily make Hormagaunts and Genestealers viable choices as they are now. It's probably worth waiting to see what low-level changes we end up making before doing stuff like this - anything can change!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
xtothez posted:A good deal of issues with Tyranid units can be fixed through tweaking the core rules alone. For example, some simple amendments to assault could easily make Hormagaunts and Genestealers viable choices as they are now. Yeah. I probably jumped the gun a bit. Still, I feel warlord traits, psychic powers and instinctive behavior need to be changed no matter what we do to the rest of the game. The changes I made to a few of the units I suppose can be put on the backburner for a while, but a lot of what I did was simply go back to what was in the 5th edition Tyranid book. (like Scything Talons and Mycetic Spores)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Give all Nids assault grenades as standard.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
I jumped in and set up a system to second rules for further discussion and signed my work. I also cleaned up the presentation a bit to make it easier to read and follow the conversation. Sorry if that was too much, but this is exciting and I've been thinking the same thing and having preliminary discussions of such with my local buddies.  A++ will be involved.edit: I seconded the rules that I thought were the most interesting. I like to play very dense and complicated terrain with lots of more extreme LOS blocking buildings and similar terrain because field battles are boring and stupid. Then I read the rest of the post. WIKIfication would be better for this goal. the 40k community edition shouldn't be arbitrated by a small group. Goons can be trusted to WIKI-style-edit policy for a game without being dicks about it, otherwise we should give up on Something Awful forever. Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 18:16 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:Give all Nids assault grenades as standard. Just make move through cover ignore the I penalty for assaulting through cover. That also fixes the problem for MCs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:I jumped in and set up a system to second rules for further discussion and signed my work. I also cleaned up the presentation a bit to make it easier to read and follow the conversation. Sorry if that was too much, but this is exciting and I've been thinking the same thing and having preliminary discussions of such with my local buddies. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
This is why we desperstely need to put someone in charge.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:This is why we desperstely need to put someone in charge. Maybe have a few volunteers, then have a vote?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
We can just filter the rules down and discuss and edit them until we get something vaguely equivalent to Waffle 40k, but built here. That's the goal, right?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
osirisisdead posted:We can just filter the rules down and discuss and edit them until we get something vaguely equivalent to Waffle 40k, but built here. That's the goal, right? I strongly agree about the wiki. I would agree that it is a good goal. Master Twig posted:Maybe have a few volunteers, then have a vote? Absolutely. Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 18:21 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Just make move through cover ignore the I penalty for assaulting through cover. That also fixes the problem for MCs. Nice, easy fix.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
 Now accepting volunteers for the rules committee Since voting went nowhere. Volunteers will be appointed by Indolent Bastard and myself, unless there's a strong resistance to one poster taking a position. The first topic up for discussion is Assault. So there. Now we have a direction.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:
I'll volunteer. I have the time and I'm willing to put in the effort.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The first topic up for discussion is Assault. So there. Now we have a direction. 1. Allow consolidation into combat. 2. Establish an option for a minimum charge range. I think those are the two biggest problems with assault right now. Sometimes winning a round of close combat is the worst thing that can happen to your assault unit because you can't consolidate into combat after the opponent runs away and regroups. The unit simply gets shot to poo poo by their entire loving army after only removing a few of their models as CC casualties. That should never be the case. And being able to fail a charge that's <6" away is just terrible. Especially since overwatch can clip off your closest model(s). If I jump out 4-5" away from my opponent, I need to get into combat every time. Close combat is random enough as it is (especially with Overwatch now) ...those problems don't need to be compounded with a random charge range. After that, anything else would just be gravy. 3. Move through cover should ignore the charge penalty for charging into cover. 4. Firing overwatch should force you to I1 for the first round of combat. If you can move through cover without any penalties, you shouldn't be penalized for ...moving through cover. Done. And it makes sense to me that a squad electing to fire ranged weapons at an assaulting unit wouldn't be prepared for fighting close combat in an ideal manner once the surviving attackers reach you. It won't always be relevant to have the overwatching defenders at initiative 1 for the first round of combat, but when it matters, it will matter a lot to the charging unit (Orks + 'Nids vs Marines, primarily). Just my $0.02.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:
Go on then. I spend half my time at work posting about this poo poo, may as well do something vaguely constructive* with it. Tuxedo Jack posted:The first topic up for discussion is Assault. So there. Now we have a direction. We should probably agree on the issues here, before throwing out solutions. In my mind they are: 1) Assault threat ranges (described at the top of this page) 2) Initiative penalties and assaulting through cover (including the ridiculous effect on MCs and GCs) 3) The WS To Hit table - when to need 5+, lack of 2+, and generally making higher WS more worthwhile 4) It's currently better to win a melee slowly, as you're more vulnerable if it's won in a single turn 5) Assaulting from reserve 6) Overwatch is just a thing that happens - and not much of a tactical choice or trade-off *hah xtothez fucked around with this message at 18:54 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
To add in a few more points to your good start White Wolf. If a unit has defensive grenades, they can fire overwatch and act at initiative. Units may assault out of a standard transport if that transport did not move before they disembarked. Units may assault out of standard reserve and outflank. xtothez posted:Go on then. I spend half my time at work posting about this poo poo, may as well do something vaguely constructive* with it. How bout if your WS is double your opponents average, you hit on a 2+?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I'll volunteer, but I have very little experience with 5E and 6E, so most of my contributions will need serious critique by serious players familiar with the current meta. I can't really contribute effectively to tweaks of most Codexes, for example. If that's a problem, I don't mind staying out. What I have done is written and modded a number of games, some better than others, and worked on official playtests for other peoples'/companies' games, so I feel like I have stuff to offer. I'm also a lawyer. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
xtothez posted:4) It's currently better to win a melee slowly, as you're more vulnerable if it's won in a single turn How about the following- Shock and Awe - If a unit declares an assault and wipes out the enemy in the following fight sub phase (either via killing everyone with attacks or catching a fleeing unit) then enemy units may only snap fire against them, due to being staggered by the effectiveness of the charge. Or is that too powerful? I am thinking either this or the overrun idea mentioned earlier (consolidate into combat on the turn you charge). I don't think penalising initiative for firing overwatch is really worth while, a lot of troops will effectively ignore that due to having lower initiative anyway (e.g. Tau vs charging Marines).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
My suggestion was to allow either consolidation into a second combat (no charging, resolved only from the next turn onwards) or to give the victorious unit a cover save to represent there still being wounded and fleeing soldiers that make firing at the victorious assault troops hard. Snapfire could do that too?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:How about the following- Snap fire only shuts down several kinds of weapons completely. Is that your intent?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:How about the following- I like that. I don't think it's too powerful and I like it a lot better than consolidating into assault. Especially since it helps benefit the assaulting unit when the closest enemy unit is too far away to consolidate into. I've been thinking about it and I don't think overwatch needs to change at all. The rules for it as set up in 6th edition are fine.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Snap fire only shuts down several kinds of weapons completely. Is that your intent? I hadn't considered template and blast weapons, maybe make them able to target the squad anyway? i.e. non-template, non-blast weapons snap shot against them? On another note, maybe there should be some allowance for firing blasts as snap shots? I always found it kinda weird that a dude with a missile launcher can run around firing Kraks no problem but Frags, no way! Possibly something like 'when firing a blast weapon with a snap shot, do not subtract the model's BS when determining distance. If a hit is rolled, you must re-roll it.'
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Here's a few random thoughts on initiative, terrain, overwatch and how they could all interact: Assaulting through difficult terrain is a -2 penalty to Initiative and to charge distance (to a minimum of 1). Move Through Cover - Halves (or ignores?) the penalties for assaulting through difficult terrain. Overwatch - a) A unit choosing to fire Overwatch normally must take an initiative test. If they fail, they are reduced to WS1 for the first round of the combat (but can still fire Overwatch) b) A unit that forgoes firing in it's own turn becomes Prepared. It automatically passes the initiative test and treats Overwatch fire as twin-linked. c) If a unit suffers any unsaved wounds to Overwatch fire it must half its Initiative value for the first round of combat Fearless - A unit with this USR ignores the initiative penalty for Overwatch casualties Assault Grenades - forces successful hits from Overwatch fire to be re-rolled (and can ask an opponent to re-roll the D3 for template weapons)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:I hadn't considered template and blast weapons, maybe make them able to target the squad anyway? i.e. non-template, non-blast weapons snap shot against them? I would actually like to take a long hard look at snap shots, but as far as your Assault fix goes, what if instead of forcing snap shots a successfully assaulting unit gained 5+ FNP until the beginning of their next turn? The math is similar (worse against BS4, better against BS2) and it isn't so frustrating for the opponent.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
In the custom mission rules we use in our playgroup, we've also limited challenges to being exchanged by independent characters. Nobody gives a poo poo about ransom sergeants duking it out. Challenges were included to be thematic and exciting, and that should be limited to single combat between independent characters, IMO. It helps out assault units because it prevents your Nobz and Broodlords and stuff from being "challenged out" of combat by a random sergeant.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
xtothez posted:Here's a few random thoughts on initiative, terrain, overwatch and how they could all interact: The Overwatch changes are a little complicated and it feels like you're introducing new systems just for the sake of simulation. Also, when you say "normally," do you mean at full BS or as Snap Shots? If the former, I think being Prepared is too much of a buff; if the latter, why not have Prepared Overwatch be at normal BS instead of essentially making it a 5+ (30% v. 33%) that takes twice as long to resolve and minimizes Gets Hot rolls?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:In the custom mission rules we use in our playgroup, we've also limited challenges to being exchanged by independent characters. Nobody gives a poo poo about ransom sergeants duking it out. Challenges were included to be thematic and exciting, and that should be limited to single combat between independent characters, IMO. It helps out assault units because it prevents your Nobz and Broodlords and stuff from being "challenged out" of combat by a random sergeant. I think it might need to be "Named Characters" or Warlords, as Nobs, Meks, Runtherds, Painboys, and Weirdboys are all "Characters" as per the latest FAQ.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
We need to remember that some of these rule fixes are going to help assault a lot, but that we can't go overboard or the pendulum will swing too much in favor of assaults. That's why I don't think we need to alter overwatch at all. If we did all of these fixes, Imperial Guard and Tau armies would get rolled over with ease.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:We need to remember that some of these rule fixes are going to help assault a lot, but that we can't go overboard or the pendulum will swing too much in favor of assaults. That's why I don't think we need to alter overwatch at all. If we did all of these fixes, Imperial Guard and Tau armies would get rolled over with ease. How much, exactly, we need to do (and which proposals to use to make up that "how much") is something that will hopefully shake out in playtesting. People who have more experience playtesting game rules than me can comment on this, but I assumed it would involve introducing different sets of changes one by one, singly at first, then maybe in combinations that seem logical (we probably don't want to just try every permutation, as that would quickly get unwieldy).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:How much, exactly, we need to do (and which proposals to use to make up that "how much") is something that will hopefully shake out in playtesting. Agreed. So what I think we need to do is have a group of people in a live chatroom (on IRC perhaps?) and make a 1.0 draft. Then we test that for a couple weeks, then make changes from there. The draft should basically be a Warhammer 40k 6th edition rulebook errata. We leave most of it alone, but change certain rules. That way we're not rewriting the whole drat book.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:The Overwatch changes are a little complicated and it feels like you're introducing new systems just for the sake of simulation. My goal is to make Overwatch into a tactical choice, rather than just a thing that happens someone hopes to roll sixes for. Right now it just feels too much like an extra 'barrier' or step you have to go through to assault something, when it should be a decision somebody makes and their opponent has to adapt to.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
What about allowing two move types for non-vehicle models during the move phase? Move type 1: standard movement, same as before. Up to 6", unit stays in coherency, tests for terrain, etc. Move type 2: if ending within 1" of enemy models during a normal move, enter a consolidated assault. Unit either works at initiative bonus, or confers an initiative penalty to opposing models, modified by assault/defensive grenades, etc. The point being that it's stupid to watch models near each other do 1" moves to guarantee charge success only to wait to perform shooting and then assault. If I'm close enough in my movement phase, let me move into you, at the cost of shooting, so I get a bonus of initiative, perhaps removing overwatch capability. Then, you can run your assault phase as consolidated assult combat resolution, if the attackers wipe out the defenders, attackers can now roll to make an additional charge into another unit, however they are subject to overwatch and distance modifiers for terrain. You do not get a second round of combat for the second charge, but the new defenders don't either. Combat would begin resolution during the next player's assault phase.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
You guys should keep any changes as simple as possible. Don't bolt on new systems and rules when you can accomplish similar ends with tweaks to existing systems and rules. The last thing 40K needs is more tables to reference and rules to remember. Some of the suggestions so far have been really neat, but also really clunky. In short, tweak existing stuff and see how that works before adding new stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You guys should keep any changes as simple as possible. Don't bolt on new systems and rules when you can accomplish similar ends with tweaks to existing systems and rules. The last thing 40K needs is more tables to reference and rules to remember. Some of the suggestions so far have been really neat, but also really clunky. Yes. This effort is NOT A GROUND UP RULESET. We're making as many small changes as necessary to clean up the rules we have in 7th. A ground up effort can be made once we have a good system in place, if that's the direction everyone wants to go. But lets clean this mess up first.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I think it might need to be "Named Characters" or Warlords, as Nobs, Meks, Runtherds, Painboys, and Weirdboys are all "Characters" as per the latest FAQ. They are, but they're not independent characters, which is what my rule limits challenges to.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:They are, but they're not independent characters, which is what my rule limits challenges to. derp. Missed that, sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You guys should keep any changes as simple as possible. Don't bolt on new systems and rules when you can accomplish similar ends with tweaks to existing systems and rules. The last thing 40K needs is more tables to reference and rules to remember. Some of the suggestions so far have been really neat, but also really clunky. Yeah, I concur.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:03
|
|