|
Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? -A unit should receive some sort of benefit or protection if it wipes its Assault target on the turn it charges.
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? I kinda do. I mean, if we're trying to keep things as simple as possible with the fewest rules changes possible, I think this is pretty far down on my list of priorities in terms of rules changes. I'd much rather see changes to consolidation into combat and random charge distances first, if I had to choose between them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? I don't disagree, but the bonus or protection should only be very slight. The concept of trying to not kill a whole unit so that you won't be shot to pieces by nearby units is lame and contrary to how you should be playing a game where "There is only war!"  WhiteWolf123 posted:I kinda do. I mean, if we're trying to keep things as simple as possible with the fewest rules changes possible, I think this is pretty far down on my list of priorities in terms of rules changes. I'd much rather see changes to consolidation into combat and random charge distances first, if I had to choose between them. I would argue that consolidation into combat offers protection (if not in every instance) and might fit the bill. The idea of consolidation into combat as a tweak and avoiding adding explicit new rules that offer a benefit or protection, seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:I kinda do. I mean, if we're trying to keep things as simple as possible with the fewest rules changes possible, I think this is pretty far down on my list of priorities in terms of rules changes. I'd much rather see changes to consolidation into combat and random charge distances first, if I had to choose between them. I've suggested (and still suggest) consolidation into combat as being that benefit, and maybe not existing elsewhere at all. Consolidation into combat might be a relatively simple change in terms of words on the page, but it has incredibly far-reaching consequences. I think random charge distances as they currently exist are sufficiently unpopular that there probably needs to be some sort of change.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
As for babystep fixes I think that Consolidate into combat will help mend Assault, and Charge can be mended with 5 inches plus 1D6 for total charge range. I don't see either as game breaking or OP.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? I do. I am fine with the risk of assaulting a unit in the open leaving you out in the open. Remove random move distances and it ceases to be a problem because it becomes something entirely under your control.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I disagree, especially if said bonus is in addition to taking away the random charge distance. I still remember the days of the 3E Blood Angles and the Endless Assaults. The reason that Assault was nerfed since those days was because a Blood Angle player, and other Assaulty armies but the BA were the worst, could charge you in Turn One with everything they had and then Sweep into combat after combat after they broke/murdered your units. Outside of shooting empty Rhinos, there wasn't much a Shooty army could do all game long but watch one Assault after another. And yes, a 3" consolidate move isn't as harsh as the old 2d6" Sweeping Advance from 3E was, but it's still too much when combined with reliable charge distances to my mind. Thus, my vote is: Either de-randomize charge distances OR give back Consolidating into a new Assault, NOT BOTH! e: I have no idea how I managed to type "Blood Angle" not once, but twice. Must be reading too much Civil War lately. Well, gently caress it, it's amusing and I'm leaving it that way. 
jng2058 fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Would it be so bad to keep it simple by just going back to the 5th edition assault rules, while maintaining overwatch as it is?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? -Endless assaults, with units chaining consolidation into new assaults, should absolutely not be a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Would it be so bad to keep it simple by just going back to the 5th edition assault rules, while maintaining overwatch as it is? 5th had issues as well, like 6" pile in moves for the defender and impossible to kill powerfist squad leaders. I think 6th did some things right, they just went too far with Overwatch AND random charges AND disordered charges AND no charging from outflank/reserves. Edit: honestly, bring back charging from non-deepstrike reserves, remove the whole disordered charge thing entirely, and do something to prevent cover from totally loving over assault units like Banshees and all Tyranids and assault is basically fixed for 7th.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Referendum: Who here disagrees with the following statement? I agree with that statement. Endlessly chained assaults are busted. If Charge is 5+1d6 and Consolidate into combat is limited to one instance per unit, per turn. I think that would be workable. E: And adding disordered charge to the consolidate into combat may help keep it from getting OP. I wanted to say thanks to everyone pitching in. Keeping the discussion civil and trying to come together to work on this. It is thoroughly enjoyable for me and I genuinely appreciate your contributions. Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
 I think I'd rather see Charge be closer to D6+3 than D6+5, but we can quibble over particulars later. I definitely think the minimum should be 4-6" rather than the 2" (or less if charging into cover) that it is now. As far as consolidation into the safety of an enemy unit goes, I think I like the idea of it only being on a unit's first charge of the game, and then only on the first round of assault. There are some details there that need to be thought about (characters, for example) but I would want to see some sort of serious limitation like that. I'm sure there are other ways to balance it than having it be only once per game though.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I don't disagree, but the bonus or protection should only be very slight. I agree with this, I think. The point (and the problem people are trying to address when they propose a bonus) is that it's asinine for wiping out a unit on the turn you charge (or on your own turn vs. your opponent's turn in any case) to be a negative thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Give 'em Stealth or maybe Shrouding once they emerge from the close combat, then. Say that in the confusion of the concluded assault it's hard to find a target.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:
I'll volunteer for a rules committee, especially for any parts relating to assault and tyranids, if I'm wanted. I think getting volunteers then voting rather than open nominations will get us moving quicker. Move Through Cover removing some or all penalties when charging through terrain sounds promising. That's one that will need some testing when mixed with other changes for sure to balance it though. Overwatch causing I1 for the first round of combat is a nice idea I would like to try out and I think orkz especially could use being I2 and all. I think some sort of bonus for one turn wiping out of squads is a good thing although maybe nothing too strong. Maybe something like regular shooting except for templates because they can see the enemy clearly but a rocket or flamethrower could kill those remnants of the friendly squad. It wouldn't help every time but letting those boyz avoid a few flamers or that squad of terminators skipping a plasma cannon is nice.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 22:13
|
|
Now accepting volunteers for the rules committee
|
jng2058 posted:Give 'em Stealth or maybe Shrouding once they emerge from the close combat, then. Say that in the confusion of the concluded assault it's hard to find a target. I really like this idea, assuming we're addressing Ignores Cover elsewhere in the FAQ.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I really like this idea, assuming we're addressing Ignores Cover elsewhere in the FAQ. Re-rolls successful hits and/or wounds? I think an overrun is simpler. If you can make a sweeping advance you can overrun d6 into assault. You can balance from there.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I think being able to consolidate into a new combat would be best, but you don't get a new fight sub-phase. Any new attacks have to wait until your opponents assault phase. You could even give the defending unit an Overwatch at if they want it if you're making penalties to assault performance once they have made an Overwatch.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
I absolutely don't think there should ever be a subsequent fight sub-phase immediately following consolidation. Being immune to shooting during your opponent's turn is a huge enough benefit by itself.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
quote:Read the ere we go rule. They are already trying to fix the busted assault rules. But is it reasonable to give every army ere we go? I'd say not. So where do we go from here?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Read the ere we go rule. They are already trying to fix the busted assault rules. But is it reasonable to give every army ere we go? I'd say not. So where do we go from here? If our fix is D6 plus a static modifier, then 'Ere We Go will still be pretty great!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
roll 3d6 take best 2? for fast attack units or as a new USR
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
starkebn posted:roll 3d6 take best 2? for fast attack units or as a new USR I thought about this too. Perhaps if a unit doesn't shoot in the shooting phase, they can roll 3 and use the best 2 when making assault range determination.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
I would be wary about tying any assault fixes to a particular special rule or FOC slot, like I've seen people proposing for Fleet or Fast Attack units, because there will inevitably be "assault" units in need of fixing that will slip through the cracks. Khorne Berzerkers, just to name one very oft-mentioned unit whose stock is shamefully low. For this reason I think the changes to charge distance and consolidation into new combat are more promising leads. That's not to say, of course, that we can't separately buff Fleet (or whatever) if we determine that it needs a buff, but buffs to specific USRs, units, codices, etc. should be in a later pass, if and as necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Somebody asked me to post my old 40k rewrite rules in this thread. Do with them what you will. I never finished them because I reached a point where I questioned why I was trying to fix something that was broken instead of scrapping the whole system and writing new everything: (assume 6E 40k as a base) Additional components required: Either poker chips or those glass wedding beads that people use for mana in Magic. Initiative: Deployment initiative is random, but the player who deploys first has a bonus to SP on turn 1 Strategy Phase. SP may be spent to take initiative of the turn order, as a double-blind auction. Ties maintain current turn order for that phase. Reserves: A unit may be held in Reserves during Deployment. That unit is set aside and gains tokens which serve as a Reserve Countdown. The number of tokens gained is equal to the number of models in the unit. If the unit is Monstrous, it gains a number of tokens equals to its T. If the unit is or contains a vehicle, it gains a number of tokens equal to half its highest AV, rounding up. Phase Order: Strategy Phase (bidding) lower leftover SP player strategy phase higher leftover SP player strategy phase Movement Phase player 1 Movement Phase player 2 (1 and 2 determined via strategy bids) Shooting Phase player 1 Shooting Phase player 2 (1 and 2 determined via strategy bids) Assault Phase (1 round of combat for all assaults. note that the WS bonus grants more attacks to compensate.) Strategy Phase: (BLNote: At the beginning of the game, each army gains Strategy Points equal to highest Ld values of each of their HQ units, so a player with 2 Hive Tyrants would gain 20 SP to start, etc) Players A and B bid SP for Movement initiative, then Shooting initiative. Once the amounts have been set (a pile of tokens/chips per hand, left hand for Movement and right hand for Shooting), reveal and the winner of each bid determines initiative for the round (you may opt to go second). The player with the lower remaining SP plays the rest of their Strategy Phase first. Leftover SP may be spent as follows:
At this point, unspent SP is converted to VP. todo: cost those appropriately, barf todo 2: clean up SP gain todo 3: faction-specific Strategies? Movement: During Movement, each unit may move as described in the rulebook, gently caress c/ping that. Run - If a unit chooses to Run, add the unit's majority WS or I to the distance it can normally move, whichever is higher. This unit sacrifices the ability to Shoot. Charge - Charge gives the same distance bonus as Run. Handle charging the same ways otherwise as normal 40k (+1 A, causes Assault). Fleet - Units with Fleet of Foot add their WS and I to their movement distance when they Run or Charge. Cover - Causes half movement within the area terrain. Charging through Cover grants the opponent Counter-charge for free (*no Initiative penalty for either party); Move Through Cover negates this entire line of penalties. Shooting: Cover - Causes a penalty to BS. 6+ cover = -1 penalty, 5+ cover = -2 penalty, and so on. You may choose to target models in lesser cover to negate a portion or all of this penalty as per the 6th edition shooting rules. Overwatch - Overwatch fire happens during this phase. Your target choices are limited, but Assaulted units may fire upon their attackers. There is no BS penalty for Overwatch. Combined Fire - Count the number of models in the smaller of the 2 combining units (minimum 10). For each X models in the larger unit (where X is that number, rounding to the nearest whole), both units gain a +1 to Hit during shooting. They must fire in the same shooting action (dice rolls, etc) and they must target the same unit. Grenades - lol i'll do it later Assault: Each model attacks in reverse Initiative order, normal 40k poo poo, BUT Divide 10 by the model's WS (10/WS) and round up. After the model's initial attack step, that model attacks AGAIN equal to that number of Initiative steps (so a model with 9 WS and Initiative 6 would attack on 6 and then every second Initiative step afterward, so 4 and 2). If this seems weirdly blocked to you, namely that the bonus attacks only occur at WS 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 due to rounding, then you might also notice that WS 7 and 9 are the ones most likely to gain the rare 5+ to hit bonus on the regular WS chart against regular opponents. It's intentional. Charge bonus attacks only apply to the first Initiative step a model attacks. IF THAT ALL SOUNDS TOO COMPLICATED USE THIS TABLE:
BLNote: Assaults are announced during Movement when you move a unit; it was part of a cleanup attempt. Once the charge is made the unit is considered locked in combat and only Overwatch fire can be made against that unit (reminder: overwatch also works against enemies that move within 6" of you, and nothing is stopping overwatch from nearby squads from shooting at assaulting units), although this is partially why I added the Combine Fire order. All Movement is done during the Movement phase except Jump Jets which I never got to fixing (and will likely have it activate after the unit Shoots). Scoring: If a player has any surviving HQ units, he gains SP equal to the highest Ld value of each surviving HQ unit. If a player eliminates an enemy unit, he gains SP equal to the highest Ld value of that unit. If a player eliminates an enemy Psyker, he gains SP equal to the Psyker's Mastery Level. If a player eliminates an enemy vehicle, he gains SP equal to the highest AV value of the vehicle. If a player controls an objective, he gains SP equal to the highest Ld in the unit holding that objective. It might be more efficient to score some of these when they happen, during Shooting or Assault. todo: add missions where endgame is checked during scoring, first player to X (50?) VP with a minimum Y (10?) VP lead over the opponent instantly wins. gotta get this game down to like 4 turns at most or something, gently caress the length of 40k todo 2: add more/clean up scoring Psykers Uuuggghh I don't want to have to loving do this Army Specific: Orks WAAAGH: During a WAAAGH, all friendly Ork models gain +1 WS, +2 I, and Fleet of Foot. Tyranids (5E book as a base) Synapse: Units within Synapse range of a creature may use that creature's WS or BS instead of their own. Shadow in the Warp: Affects all enemy units within Synapse range. Puppetmasters: A unit of Tyranid Warriors may be split up at deployment, with each Warrior being assigned to another non-Monstrous Troop unit as a Character. A unit of Shrikes may be split up at deployment, with each Shrike being assigned to another non-Monstrous Fast Attack unit as a Character. I may have more bullshit stored in my old design notes but I'll be damned if I'm not too lazy to get to them. Enjoy your game, I guess. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 03:53 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Thanks. No problem. And yes, you're reading it right-- under these rules, Hormagaunts within the Swarmlord's Synapse radius have a 20" charge range, WS10, and attack every single Initiative step. Almost makes up for Instinctive Behavior!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Somebody asked me to post my old 40k rewrite rules in this thread. Yeah I really like the strategy phase addition and I think that consolidated turns really fixes the biggest problem with assaults, which is being punished for winning decisively, i.e. on your turn. Still think the WS table is too complicated, though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
At a glance those rules seem to be the sort of more drastic modification that I think we're trying to avoid for now, but they'll certainly come in handy as food for thought when/if we finish the 'unofficial faq' project to everyone's satisfaction and move on to experimenting with a more substantial redesign. Thanks, BL!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:At a glance those rules seem to be the sort of more drastic modification that I think we're trying to avoid for now, but they'll certainly come in handy as food for thought when/if we finish the 'unofficial faq' project to everyone's satisfaction and move on to experimenting with a more substantial redesign. Thanks, BL! Pretty much this. A lot of great ideas, but they're more of a rewrite than an update. Lots of food for thought though, especially regarding the anemic scaling of WS compared to BS and initiative in concept. Some guy at Initative 7+ probably shouldn't just hit first if you're paying points for it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
BL's additions aside. How are we feeling about assault? Is one consolidate into combat per unit per turn and a 5+ 1d6 charge range a good basis to start testing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Based on the slow goings of this thread, I think it's too much of a project for us to try out as a whole. We need to have two or three people make an errata, release that to the group in here, have people playtest it, then make changes based on the results of those playtests. Otherwise we just get pages of people debating about what rules to use and which to not use. People also tend to suggest rules that benefit their own armies rather than aiming for something more balanced (whether or not they're even aware they are or not).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:BL's additions aside. How are we feeling about assault? Is one consolidate into combat per unit per turn and a 5+ 1d6 charge range a good basis to start testing? This seems like a fine basis, if only because anything (within reason  ) is a decent basis to start testing. Can someone put it in formal, precise language that addresses foreseeable questions (is consolidating into combat done exactly the same as normal consolidation, is base contact necessary to have successfully consolidated into the new combat or can we use a different metric, how do things like rerolling and difficult terrain interact with the new charge distance).You might think the answer to the above questions are obvious but we should strive to spell matters out clearly whenever any confusion might arise... we are, after all, trying to do a better job on this than GW 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Consolidating into combat is pretty ridiculously powerful. If an army doesn't have assault choices, it makes it literally impossible to kill the melee deathstar once it hits the front line, since it's immune to shooting while it's piled in. If you're dead set on consolidating into combat, have it force a morale check with a penalty equal to the combat resolution penalty. If the charged squad fails, they break and run away?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Consolidating into combat is pretty ridiculously powerful. If an army doesn't have assault choices, it makes it literally impossible to kill the melee deathstar once it hits the front line, since it's immune to shooting while it's piled in. Or the shooting army sets its units up more than consolidation distance away from each other? God forbid. In any case enough people seem to be floating it as a reasonable solution that it's probably worth testing at the very least. If it's irretrievably broken, it will become evident and the project can move on. The entire point of mocking up something, anything remotely reasonable and having folks start to test it is because otherwise we can (and will) sling unsubstantiated (or anecdotally substantiated at best) theorycraft back and forth in this thread until 17th Edition is out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Or the shooting army sets its units up more than consolidation distance away from each other? God forbid. Yeah if consolidation is only d6, being able to it into another combat shouldn't be an issue. Plus there'd be a second overwatch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Rounding out assault as a area to be tweaked, what about units that arrive from reserves? (I know you can shoot, but many units that have outflank or infiltrate are assault focused).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
I think it is a given that assaulting from reserves should be included in the mix, as it would actually give some use to units like Genestealers, Ork Kommandos, and other assault army focused units. It's generally one of the biggest complaints that I've heard from other players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Overwatch at normal BS seems like the fairest way to handle assaults from reserves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Not as a personal attack on any one person, but why is it that every time someone suggests a buff for [thing that needs buffed], a bunch of other people have to chime in saying that we need to do something else to balance the buff? The reason why we are buffing X is because X is unambiguously behind the power curve; why not simply propose a possible all-upside buff, test it (this is a biggie), and see where its power level falls then? Maybe--just maybe--we'll find that assaulting from reserves, no ifs ands or buts, is exactly what dedicated deepstrike/outflank assault armies have needed to bring them to a reasonable degree of equality with 50 shmucks hiding in the bushes with peashooters, even if the owner of the 50 shmucks might not see it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:40
|
|