PDA

View Full Version : What would you have done?



Gaargod
04-07-2012, 23:53
Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

adreal
05-07-2012, 02:40
Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

I just want to say if someone was to model a tyrant (or daemon prince) on top of a valk/raven and in the middle of destroying it, that would make for the most bad **** HQ model ever

ehlijen
05-07-2012, 03:12
> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

It's not the blinky light that does the hit, it's the ground that the low flying zoomer runs into because it gets annoyed/distracted by the blinky light. I'm perfectly fine with it being hits, not wounds, considering that it's only one check per unit firing and most things only hit on 6s. If you make it the wound roll, also take away the 3+ roll to actually get knocked to the ground. I reckon three distitinct units with at least 6 guns each is not a small amount of firepower to be statistically needed for smacking a zoomer around a bit.


> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

Had a similar idea, but I'm going to give it a few games before I make up my mind on that. The big problem seems to be grenades hitting on WS, especially vs walkers. But AV13 walkers are ridiculously common now, too...



> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

That's a codex thing, not a rulebook thing. They did add the Flakk missile into the background, and I'm sure the new codices will feature them.



> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

Boys in the 4 context means something else :P

And they sort of tried: blast weapons (including bombs) can't be used against flyers. So Valk rocket pods, hellfury missiles, mindstrike missiles, plasma cannon, bombs...if your flyer is packing these, it's more of a bomber than a fighter. But yes, the vendetta shouldn't be the best interceptor around...



> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

They are not free, you still have to buy a power weapon. But costing the same as swords, they're ok. The new design paradigm seems to be that if you're not a big thing, you strike at I1 or at ap3 or worse (some exceptions falling through the cracks). And I can get behind that.



> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.

Then just imagine vector strike to be that. You can't lock flyers in assault anyway (no flying walkers exist yet), so do you really want to trade autohitting for possibly slightly more attacks?




Your ideas?

Mysterious objectives to be optional, not prescribed. (Minor quibble)

Premeasuring thrown back out. (I enjoy guessing ranges more, feels more immersive).

Don't make units of all characters.

Look out Sir limited to one (or two) wound(s) per volley.

Dreadknight1994
05-07-2012, 07:05
chaos marine daemon weapons made ap2give all tzeench psykers access to all disciplinesmake anything that gives you a invunrable stack with DTW

Rick Blaine
05-07-2012, 07:17
I'd kinda like it if Jump Infantry, Jetbikes and FMC could try to whack flyers vs. WS10.

Xenos fortifications should be in the book, even if they don't have models.

Allow reserved units to assault (if it needs to be penalized, give their target Overwatch at full BS)

Athlan na Dyr
05-07-2012, 07:28
Now first off, let me say that I really like the new edition. I think/hope it represents a great new trend where GW actually tries properly to balance things and to fix loopholes. Overall, I easily I think it's great and well written (although I haven't read the fluff section yet, so who knows).

However, nothing is ever perfect, and trying to pretend so is foolish (go see some of the Fantasy 8th ed threads where people use the Reductio Ad Absurdio argument that if you dislike one part of the book you therefore automatically dislike the whole thing, etc etc).
So what would you do if you were given the change to edit the rulebook? Might be minor edits or going completely overboard and rewriting entire sections. Me, I might do this (in no particular order):

> Flying Monstrous Creatures only have to take their Grounded Tests if they take a Wound before saves
This is because I really dislike the idea that hits from blinky lights have not unreasonable odds of inflicting a S9 Ap2 hit.

> Fleshbane (X)
Just seems a bit of a missed opportunity to me to specify that the Fleshbane rule has a set value (2+ if unspecified).

> Hull Points to be increased by 1 across the board.
It just seems to me they've gone ever so slightly overboard on nerfing vehicles. I love that vehicles are no longer super tough, but it seems a little harsh.

> Land-to-Air / Air-to-Air missiles
I'd really have liked to see an option for missiles to be used against flying targets. Missiles are surely one of the best ways to kill them? Hunter-Killer missiles (or some new Skyfire variant thereof) would have been really cool.

> Actual definition between Fighters and Boys
Related to the above. I would have loved to see a bigger difference between Fighters (who should have some nice bonuses versus other flyers / skimmers etc) and Bombers (who should work better against ground targets). Not that they shouldn't work against the other sort, but just some bonuses would have been nice. Could be done in codexes of course.

> Power Axes at half I?
This one I'm not sure about. Making Power Axes the same penalty as Power Fists seems a little extreme. On the other hand, they're free.

> Zooming Flying Monsters to be able to assault flyers
This is kinda what Vector Strike does, however it would have been amazingly cool to see a hive tyrant landing on a storm raven and ripping its wings off.


Your ideas?

On fighters, bombers and gunships:
> Make Fighters and Fighters alone have Skyfire but NOT interceptor.
Simple change, makes Fighters very niche in application (solely against other flyers) but very effective at it. Also means that a tricked out gunship (Vendetta) isn't better than a dedicated Jetfighter in aerial combat :). Basically adds a rock, paper and scissors to flyers rather than the current 'do it all and then some'. Saying this, if haven't had to much experience with or against flyers, so I'm not sure how damaging the current movement is to their effectiveness vs. ground targets.

On Missiles and AA:
>Definitely agree. Some manner of readily available AA would be nice, even if it wasn't the best in the world. I must admit I was rather dissapointed by the FAQ not giving the flakk option out. Of course, I'm also thinking that the AV of some of the flyers is perhaps a bit much with AV11 being a reasonable max, but that is merely personal opinion and assumption. Yet again I haven't had too much experience with the new flyer rules.

On Hull Points:
>No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. For the cheap as chips, 'bog standard' Rhino, Chimera or Trukk 3 HP's is perfectly adequate and represents the survivability of what is effectively a hollow metal box with wheels and a distintly explodable fuel source.
Considering the reduction of the chance to one shot a vehicle for AP3 and below from a 1/3 to 1/6 chance, and the reduced effect of shaken/ stunned on the tank I think that the Hull Point nerf is not as bad as first appears. It has reduced the effectiveness of pure mech, but whether this will be enough to make it unplayable remains to be seen.
That said, Necrons will murder any vehicle placed infront of them.


I just want to say if someone was to model a tyrant (or daemon prince) on top of a valk/raven and in the middle of destroying it, that would make for the most bad **** HQ model ever

+1 to that!

Charistoph
05-07-2012, 07:42
Personally, I think Hull Points and the Vehicle Damage Chart need to swap places in their relation to Glancing and Penetrating shots. A glancing blow really isn't as damaging as the rules would have you believe, especially when you have an entire army that can Glance a vehicle as easily as Genestealers Rend. A glancing blow is one that bounces off the vehicle doing minimal, if any, damage. Sure, it can get LUCKY and bounce into the fuel tank, weapon, or rattle the pilots, but it shouldn't just be about decimating the structural integrity of the vehicle.

RandomThoughts
05-07-2012, 08:22
1. Power axes at half ini, not ini 1.

2. Assault into cover gives -2 ini, not ini 1. Assault grenades negate that.

3. Cover saves replaced by to hit modifiers. Soft cover (5+ or worse) adds +1, hard cover (4+ or better) +2.

If a model goes beyond 6+ to hit, you use the same rules as in second edition:
7+ is a 6 followed by 4+
8+ is a 6 fllowed by a 5+
9+ is a 6 followed by a 6
10+ is a 6 followed by another 6 followed by a 4+
and so on

Not that difficult, really, even the 10 year old kids should be able to get it.

Same with stealth / shrouded / jinx, etc.

3.a) blast weapons roll to hit as normal, scatter away if they miss (hard to make out a pathfinder hidden in a ruin), but if any of those pathfinders end up beneath the blast marker, they are screwed.

4. replace the AP system with a save modifiers system.
AP 4 = -1 save
AP 3 = -2 save
AP 2 = -3 save
AP 1 = -4 save

the AP in melee, while a good idea since it unifies the rules more, has really highlighted how badly thought out the AP system is, imo.

5. Redesign the vehicle armor system. I find it horribly annoying when some weapons cut through vehicle armor like butter and bounce off heavy infantry armor like rubber and other weapons do the exact opposite. Can anyone please explain to me which is better at penetrating thick plates of armor, a Krak Missile or a Plasma shot???
Sorry, but the current system is extremely illogical and arbitrary.

6. Retreat from melee for everyone (allowing for free strikes, if that is needed for game balance). And allow for shooting into melee. Extreme divergence between fluff and game mechanics here.

7. Might be me, but I think the Overwatch system they implemented might be a mistake.

sprugly
05-07-2012, 08:52
The only thing that really bugged me is power axes. I -1 would have been enough to be useful to everyone. Now they're only really any good on people who would strike last anyway, guard sergeants for instance.

The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?

Fenrisian Ale
05-07-2012, 10:01
The only thing that really bugged me is power axes. I -1 would have been enough to be useful to everyone. Now they're only really any good on people who would strike last anyway, guard sergeants for instance.

The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?

I second that.

It gets worse with SW frost axes they cost as much as a PF but only add +2S, which makes them totally broken. If you had a choice of two weapons both with the same stats except one doubles your strength and one adds +2 to it which would you take. I think this is a shame as Axes are such a cool feature of SW models. I would like to see them either have them as the same stat line as power-fists after all they are the same points cost and this would allow it to be a purely aesthetic choice on your model, or to only do -1i which would still make them used second for lots of things but others (necrons for example) would be hit first, this would make them more of a tactical decision.

Cthell
05-07-2012, 10:14
Where are people getting "flying creatures have vector strike" from? I've looked through the rules and can't find any mention of it; Vector strike is a rule for the rider of a chariot.

Have I missed something?

BooTMGSG
05-07-2012, 10:29
One thing I would have added is something that counters overwatch.
Say a unit that has gone to ground can't use overwatch.
That way Pinning and heavy fire (assuming the guy dives for cover) give you some room to sneak in the assault boys

sprugly
05-07-2012, 10:44
Cthell, flying monsterous creatures have it while swooping. I'm sure its on the page for them somewhere! Lol

Sprugly

Cthell
05-07-2012, 10:49
Cthell, flying monsterous creatures have it while swooping. I'm sure its on the page for them somewhere! Lol

Sprugly

Ah, yes, found it.

Hidden at the end of the last sentence on the page. ^^;

Gaargod
05-07-2012, 12:12
The ability for a flying monsterous creature to do a double strength smash attack if he rolls 2 or more attacks on a vector strike maybe?


Actually that would have been fine. Vector Strike being at unmodified strength makes sense in terms of abusive combos, but it's something of a pain to kill vehicles. If they could use their Smash rule, they'd be fine (Well, possibly it'd be slightly broken, actually. Probably just double strength, not Ap2 and reroll).


You know, in retrospect, I've changed my mind on the missiles. Yes, codexes will hopefully add more options in that way, but: I'd have loved to see an option to fire blast weapons at BS without the actual, you know, blast marker. Missiles (like the DE missiles on the razorwing) would then work against flyers.
Be possible to abuse, of course. But would be fun.

Iskandar
05-07-2012, 12:30
Tyranid fortifications to mitigate one hole in their army. Spore Chimneys for Bastions, Feeding tendrils for skypads, barbed roots and tendrils for Aegis Defence system with a suitable weapon on top would've all added atmosphere at least.

IJW
05-07-2012, 12:35
What stops you doing that?

Iskandar
05-07-2012, 12:46
"Are Tyranid units inside buildings (ie the Bastion) subject to instinctive behaviour tests? Further, are they able to manual fire emplaced weapons?

No to both questions"

GW Tyranids 6th Ed FAQ

tr1pod
05-07-2012, 13:46
I second that.

It gets worse with SW frost axes they cost as much as a PF but only add +2S, which makes them totally broken. If you had a choice of two weapons both with the same stats except one doubles your strength and one adds +2 to it which would you take. I think this is a shame as Axes are such a cool feature of SW models. I would like to see them either have them as the same stat line as power-fists after all they are the same points cost and this would allow it to be a purely aesthetic choice on your model, or to only do -1i which would still make them used second for lots of things but others (necrons for example) would be hit first, this would make them more of a tactical decision.

This +10

The logic behind this defies me completely. In fact I removed the Axe arm from my Wolf Lord yesterday and replaced it with Power Fist. Why would you equip an axe? The only advantage is +1 attack on the charge if equipped with another close combat weapon, but then that means no Storm Shield. I don't get why an axe is unwieldy and yet the Necron Warscyth is +2 strength AP1 and isn't. Surely that is 2 handed, which by definition would mean it is "unwieldy".

mughi3
05-07-2012, 14:44
Xenos fortifications should be in the book, even if they don't have models.



You have not been up to speed with GWs lawsuits have you?
they lost a court case that ruled that if there is no model out they cannot sue another company for copyright infringement until they have their own model. so don't expect to see anything or any rules until they have a model ready to go.

sprugly
05-07-2012, 15:02
@ tr1pod, Maybe that would be the answer, keep the current stats for the axe, but allow it to swing at I if used with 2 hands?

Sprugly

the1stpip
05-07-2012, 16:04
The part that annoys me is the pre-game sequence. Being half way through building a Blood Angels airforce, only half of it can now start in reserve. I feel there was so much more potential to this. I had envisioned Strategy Points (probably five per army) that could be spent to get +1 to go first, +1 to reserve rolls, or spent to gain Infiltrate or Scout for a unit, or kept for a single re-roll during the game.

Gaargod
05-07-2012, 16:33
Yeah, I'm not massively fond of max 50% reserves. I can imagine why they've done it, to stop all reserves lists wasting people's turns (especially as reserves are now 3+ first turn so are less unreliable), but it does screw over some lists.

I have no idea why units coming in from reserves can't assault. It's an absolute pain. Especially for outflanking stuff - the whole point is that they can run on as a surprise and gank stuff.

And finally, although I can't believe I forgot it, an overkill mechanic is badly needed. It would instantly fix the challenge problems that have been arising, and is perfectly fluffy. If you just saw your sergeant being obliterated by a bloodthirster, you should be less happy to stand around and have the same thing happen to you.

Amnar
05-07-2012, 17:17
Honestly, I would have liked to see a complete overhaul of the rules.

GW can make very elegant rulesets when they want to (I'm look at you Warmaster and Epic Armageddon!) unfortunately they're not trying to make a top notch game, they're trying to sell models. Kids like loads of special rule and lots of stuff blowing up. So there you have it.

Yes I am grumpy....

At the end of the day, when we're trying to fit 100-200 28mm models on a 4x6 table, there's only so much the rules can do. I think the entire scale of 40k is out of whack. I have almost as many guys on the table when I play my 15mm flames of war.

I know it's a pipe dream, but one day I'd love to see a 40k skirmish game like 2nd Ed, necromunda, or infinity.

Love the universe, love the imagery, love some of the models, like most, but just don't really like the game itself. It's a sad state of affairs :(

sprugly
05-07-2012, 17:52
I'd love to see necromunda back! Unfortunately if it was to return it would probably be in the one off box form like space hulk and dreadfleet.

Sprugly

Dwane Diblie
05-07-2012, 18:11
- Weapons only strip a hull point by rolling equal to or over its AP value after rolling to penetrate but befor rolling the damage. Yes, AP 1 does an Auto Hull Point. All AP - weapins in the unit can only strip one hull point combined. Subtract all AP - hits that Glanced or Penetrated by the unit firing from 7, this is the number you need to equal ot beat. EG: you get 3 AP - Glancing or Penetrating hit. On a (7-3) 4+ you would strip one Hull Point. You would not get 3 rolls, just 1. (Hope that is clear. Didn't want AP - to do no damage at all on a glance.)

- Moving flat out gives the vehice a WS equal to the distance moved while moving flat out. For most vehicles this would mean WS 6 and being hit on a 4+ while Fast + vehicles could get up to WS 10 and need 5+ to be hit by most troops.

- Jump troops can assault a Flyer by using its Jump Move. When rolling the Assult move the unit only moves a max of the highest die rolled. All other rules apply for using your Jump Pack in Assault. Only models that made base contact may actualy atempt to hit the Flyer. There will be no pile in moves. Every model that attacks must first make a Dangerous Terrain test with no armour saves allowed. If the model lives then it may make its attacks. Flyers are always WS 10. If a flyer moves Flat Out then it can not be assaulted in this fassion.

- When generating psychic powers and you roll a power you already have then you get to CHOOSE what power you get instead.

Generaly I like about 90%+ of the rules as they are. Been having lots of fun playing the last couple of days. But from all those games I have found my ability to suspend reality in some situations for game sake a little hard. The number one mechanic that gets me is Fast Skimmers moving 30" or in the case of Eldar 42" in a turn and still getting whacked in combat on a 3+ even by units like Killa Kans, Flamers of Tzeentch, Scarabs and all kinds of Tau. Go the almighty WS2 units. :p
So the things above I feel will keep most of the game as it is and will ad a little bit more survivability to units/vehicles while not giving them too much back in the other direction.

Gaargod
05-07-2012, 22:30
- When generating psychic powers and you roll a power you already have then you get to CHOOSE what power you get instead.


Now you see I quite like a what of what you see, but this is just a terrible idea. It's what they've implemented in Fantasy - and it results in absolutely stupid situations where lv4 Wizards basically choose their spells (roll 4 dice. Assign doubles, then reduce the spell you like least to basic).

Grimtuff
05-07-2012, 22:36
I would have actually put out a field test for the players, just like other companies. Far too much stuff that is not clarified and needs better explanation.

So...
Many...
Ambiguous...
Things...
:rolleyes:

Vaktathi
05-07-2012, 22:52
I would have actually put out a field test for the players, just like other companies. Far too much stuff that is not clarified and needs better explanation.

So...
Many...
Ambiguous...
Things...
:rolleyes:This. The entire playtest section is internal staff. There's no way they're getting decent review and playtesting out of that, and that's why we end up getting confused design paradigms and poorly executed and worded rules.