PDA

View Full Version : My idea to make the game better.



MajorCorruption
19-07-2013, 17:18
Force org slots should vary with game size and flyers should be there own slot, just like fortifications.

In 6th we essentially got a new slot for fortifications and we got to double our force org chart at 2000. Good first step in theory, bad idea in practice. In my personal experience, having read all the new books since 6th, the game is best balanced between 1500-1850 points, you could probably 100 points in either direction but I've never tried... So use that as your base line games between 1500-1850 points use the standard old 2 HQ, 6 troops, 3 of everything else, now featuring a fortification and one or two flyer slots. From there put some though into how to keep larger and smaller games balanced. You shouldn't have flyers in low point cost games, at 2000 points don't just be lazy and double the chart, add an HQ, two troops and one of everything else fortifications and flyers included.

I think if GW put some real thought into designing force org charts to better suit game size, it would improve the game as a whole. Also if flyers had their own slot it would go a long way to balancing the current environment.

djhowitzer
19-07-2013, 17:29
not a bad idea. i especially like fliers being their own slot.

how about:

1-1000 as now, 1 flier, 1 fortification

for each extra 1000 increase each slot by 50%, rounding down.

so, at 2000 that is 3 hq, 4 elite, 9 troops, 4 fast, 4 heavy, 2 fliers, 2 forts.

scavenseer
19-07-2013, 17:34
Would this not prove unfair against armys with no fliers?

Theocracity
19-07-2013, 17:34
I'm not sure your idea has all that much to do with balance. It sounds a lot like "I don't like flyers" with a minor tweak to the rare games over 2000.

Also you might need to define flyers, as that would have a big effect on armies with FMCs (especially FMCs that are also HQs).

HereComesTomorrow
19-07-2013, 17:44
What about Nids, daemons and Chaos? Should Flyrants and Daemon princes not be allowed in less than 2000pts?

scavenseer
19-07-2013, 17:58
What about Nids, daemons and Chaos? Should Flyrants and Daemon princes not be allowed in less than 2000pts?

Can anyone afford a Deamon prince in a 2000pt army?

Theocracity
19-07-2013, 18:42
Can anyone afford a Deamon prince in a 2000pt army?

...since they cost less than 2000 points, I'm gonna say yes ;).

malisteen
19-07-2013, 18:46
I would prefer a force org that scales smoothly with game size, but would rather fliers and FMCs stay in their current slots.

Fear Ghoul
19-07-2013, 18:53
Better idea - return to a percentage system with caps on selecting the same unit multiple times such as in Fantasy 8th edition. If you could only spend 25% of your points in a 1500pt game on flyers then you certainly wouldn't be able to get 3 Heldrakes or 3 Storm Ravens.

Ssilmath
19-07-2013, 19:02
Better idea - return to a percentage system with caps on selecting the same unit multiple times such as in Fantasy 8th edition. If you could only spend 25% of your points in a 1500pt game on flyers then you certainly wouldn't be able to get 3 Heldrakes or 3 Storm Ravens.

:yes: +1 to this idea. I like the idea of the FOC, but I think that Fantasy has the better system here. The only concern I would have would be that some armies rely on having multiples of a unit in a slot (Ork Boyz, Gaunts, Crisis Suits, Fire Warriors, Tacticals, Cult Units, etc) so I'm not sold on the idea of capping the number of units that can be taken.

Fear Ghoul
19-07-2013, 19:16
:yes: +1 to this idea. I like the idea of the FOC, but I think that Fantasy has the better system here. The only concern I would have would be that some armies rely on having multiples of a unit in a slot (Ork Boyz, Gaunts, Crisis Suits, Fire Warriors, Tacticals, Cult Units, etc) so I'm not sold on the idea of capping the number of units that can be taken.

Well in Fantasy there isn't a unit cap on Core choices, which is the category roughly synonymous with Troops in 40k, so there really wouldn't be an issue for many of these units. The unit caps come into play for Special and Rare choices (3 and 2 respectively at less than 3000pts), which have no direct analogue in 40k. This is why the exact nature of army list sections in this hypothetical new system for 40k would need to be considered. The unit caps can be doubled above 2000pts to give players some extra room in these larger games for their themed armies without still allowing a complete spam-fest.

Ssilmath
19-07-2013, 19:26
Well in Fantasy there isn't a unit cap on Core choices, which is the category roughly synonymous with Troops in 40k, so there really wouldn't be an issue for many of these units. The unit caps come into play for Special and Rare choices (3 and 2 respectively at less than 3000pts), which have no direct analogue in 40k. This is why the exact nature of army list sections in this hypothetical new system for 40k would need to be considered. The unit caps can be doubled above 2000pts to give players some extra room in these larger games for their themed armies without still allowing a complete spam-fest.

That's pretty legit, then. Maybe we'll get something similar in 7th edition.

Sir Didymus
19-07-2013, 19:28
I don't think Force Org Charts are the problem of 40K. It would be cool though, if the Charts were dependant on scenarios instead, or if you had variant lists like FA for Troops etc.

But get some proper non-random movement rules, BS-modifiers instead of Cover saves, turn radius for vehicles dependent on speed instead of the current ****.

Oh.. and fliers really don't belong on a battleground the size of football field :p

djhowitzer
19-07-2013, 19:49
Oh.. and fliers really don't belong on a battleground the size of football field :p

true dat . . .

Rated_lexxx
19-07-2013, 19:51
I'm not sure your idea has all that much to do with balance. It sounds a lot like "I don't like flyers" with a minor tweak to the rare games over 2000.

Also you might need to define flyers, as that would have a big effect on armies with FMCs (especially FMCs that are also HQs).

I agree with you on this. It doesn't seem to offer and great gain besides limiting flyers

Ssilmath
19-07-2013, 20:11
Oh.. and fliers really don't belong on a battleground the size of football field :p

Neither does artillery, squadrons of main battle tanks, half a dozen APC's, 50 foot tall bastions, multiple heavy weapons crews or regimental generals.

scavenseer
19-07-2013, 20:14
...since they cost less than 2000 points, I'm gonna say yes ;).

but would you want to spend most of your points on it?;)

wyvirn
19-07-2013, 20:40
I agree with the modular Force Organization, one FO to representing a battle should be ver different than a FO representing a lightning raid or a huge Waterloo-esque confrontation.

Spiney Norman
19-07-2013, 21:38
I don't think Force Org Charts are the problem of 40K. It would be cool though, if the Charts were dependant on scenarios instead, or if you had variant lists like FA for Troops etc.

But get some proper non-random movement rules, BS-modifiers instead of Cover saves, turn radius for vehicles dependent on speed instead of the current ****.

Oh.. and fliers really don't belong on a battleground the size of football field :p

No, quite the opposite in fact, I find the worst thing about 40k at the moment is the number of special characters that allow certain units to virtually ignore the FoC altogether.

I'm all for a more versatile FOC or equivalent as long as you do away with any rule that allows elite/fast/heavy unit x to be fieldable as troops. The we a few cases where it is nicely themed (dark angels wings) and a few where it makes no appreciable difference because the units being converted are limited or not that great anyway (baron Sathonyx & hellions), but I would gladly forfeit those for the sake of getting rid of the abominable purifier/paladin spam.

Grocklock
19-07-2013, 22:08
I don't think Force Org Charts are the problem of 40K. It would be cool though, if the Charts were dependant on scenarios instead, or if you had variant lists like FA for Troops etc.

But get some proper non-random movement rules, BS-modifiers instead of Cover saves, turn radius for vehicles dependent on speed instead of the current ****.

Oh.. and fliers really don't belong on a battleground the size of football field :p

Where are u playing football

On the op. the system at the moment is great now u can have two force orge charts.
Most of the issues I see with flyers is terrain. Some people just don't have enough of it.

Theocracity
19-07-2013, 22:17
but would you want to spend most of your points on it?;)

DPs are expensive sure but I think its a stretch to say that they're 'most of' a 2000 point list. I see plenty of lists with people using them.

IcedCrow
19-07-2013, 23:00
Lack of trrrain is a widespread cancer in this game and foundation for many of the complaints given.

MajorWesJanson
19-07-2013, 23:23
I'm not sure your idea has all that much to do with balance. It sounds a lot like "I don't like flyers" with a minor tweak to the rare games over 2000.

Also you might need to define flyers, as that would have a big effect on armies with FMCs (especially FMCs that are also HQs).

And most fliers are pretty well balanced. Just the unholy trinity is the problem. Removing all fliers from the normal FOC into it's own little section would actually cause some problems. Storm Ravens are powerful, but mainly take up HS slots, which is a balance mechanism in itself. Same with the Razorwing/Void Raven. Tau fliers are in FA, which puts them up against Pathfinders for choice.

With new fliers being much more even than the bad three, this just seems like a case of "I don't like fliers, make them go away." Especially as AA options are showing up more and more.

djhowitzer
19-07-2013, 23:28
Lack of trrrain is a widespread cancer in this game and foundation for many of the complaints given.

True dat too

As for where we are playing football: at Goodison of course!

In 40k 1 inch = 1 meter. Roughly. So a normal 6' by 4' board is 72 meters by 48 meters. Even a gridiron pitch is bigger than that. Anfield or Trafford would dwarf it.

Vomikron Noxis
20-07-2013, 00:07
DPs are expensive sure but I think its a stretch to say that they're 'most of' a 2000 point list. I see plenty of lists with people using them.

There are 2 DPs and 2 GDs in my 1500 list...

Menthak
20-07-2013, 02:02
Remove fliers from the game altogether and you can spam all you like.

At least with other spam units I can hit them without having to take a completely new unit/fortification dedicated to dealing with them.

MajorCorruption
20-07-2013, 03:01
Well for arguments sake, if I simply don't like flyers and feel they make the game unbalanced, my suggesting a stricter limit on them would improve balance would be completely litigate, at least in my head. But that's not really what I think or what I'm saying. I'm the 40K recruiter at my local gaming store, over the last ten years, mostly due to price increase, its been harder and harder to get new players. I'm trying to start players off with smaller point cost games but that can be hard to get a new group together with balanced 500-1000 point lists, especially when the necron player can take 3 night scythes in a 1000 point list.

I want a force org chart that changes in 500 point increments, to help balance smaller games. I'm offering an alternative idea to simply jacking up the point cost of night scythes, just and idea. Even if 1500-1999 has three flyer slots, which wouldn't effect any of the 6th ed books, I would say its a step in the right direction. Personally I would like to see:

500-999: 1 HQ / 4 Troops / 1 Elite / 1 FA / 1 HS
1000-1499: 1 HQ / 5 Troops / 2 Elite / 2 FA / 2 HS / 1 Fort / 1 Flyer
1500-1999: 2 HQ / 6 Troops / 3 Elite / 3 FA / 3 HS / 1 Fort / 2 Flyer
2000-2499: 3 HQ / 8 Troops / 4 Elite / 4 FA / 4 HS / 2 Fort / 3 Flyer

I would also love to see some support for combat patrol again for really small games.

Spellduckwrong
20-07-2013, 03:39
I would also love to see some support for combat patrol again for really small games.
There are rules for it. We play it at the club occasionally using the Adepticon format.

MajorWesJanson
20-07-2013, 04:14
Remove fliers from the game altogether and you can spam all you like.

At least with other spam units I can hit them without having to take a completely new unit/fortification dedicated to dealing with them.

You don't need Skyfire to hit fliers, it just helps a lot. Armies with lower base BS care less than elite armies. Orks barely care about needing 6s to hit fliers for example. Twin linked also helps a lot.

Fliers are just one more element to the game. Taking them away won't reduce the amount of spam lists that are hard to kill. Nid Tervigon Gant spam, Nid psyker spam, Deathwing/Draigowing/Loganwing all spam terminators that are hard to kill. Land Raider spam is immune to anything less than Strength 8.

SOME fliers are a problem- Helldrake, Vendetta, Night Scythe. But then again, some vehicles are a problem, like the old Holofalcons or new Wave Serpents. Some characters are a problem, like Mepheston or Swarmlord. Some troops choices are a problem, like guard vets or grey hunters. Some fortifications are a problem, like the Landing Pad.

MasterDecoy
20-07-2013, 05:10
True dat too

As for where we are playing football: at Goodison of course!

In 40k 1 inch = 1 meter. Roughly. So a normal 6' by 4' board is 72 meters by 48 meters. Even a gridiron pitch is bigger than that. Anfield or Trafford would dwarf it.

Which would be true if the games distances weren't a huge abstraction.

While it's true that roughly 1 inch would be roughly 1 meter below 6 inches it jumps to about 1 inch per 10 meters below 12 inches and 1 inch per 50 meters below 18 ect ect.

So by the time your range gets to 24 inches your already spotting Like over 500 meters.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Surgency
20-07-2013, 05:22
Which would be true if the games distances weren't a huge abstraction.

While it's true that roughly 1 inch would be roughly 1 meter below 6 inches it jumps to about 1 inch per 10 meters below 12 inches and 1 inch per 50 meters below 18 ect ect.

So by the time your range gets to 24 inches your already spotting Like over 500 meters.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Very much this. Otherwise you have to make the assumption that the average tank shot is accurate to less than 60 meters, which is asinine, at best

Dismembered
20-07-2013, 07:22
If you want different force org charts for different scenarios go back and look at the 3rd ed Battles, Raids and Breakthrough missions. I still reckon 3rd had the best missions since 2nd. Probably still usable under 6th too.

Poseidal
20-07-2013, 07:33
I liked the old Fantasy scaling system from 6th.

Maybe you start off like this:

1HQ is always required

Basic: 1 HQ, 5 Troops, 1+, 2 of each other slot
>1000 points: add 1 to each of these (making troops 2+)
>2000 points: adds another one to each, needs 2+ HQs

And so on.

Basically each 1000 points adds one required troops but gives an extra slot to each area. Each 2000 points requires an extra HQ.

ihavetoomuchminis
20-07-2013, 07:44
Lack of trrrain is a widespread cancer in this game and foundation for many of the complaints given.

qft. wh40k is a much better game when its played with buildings...craters....ruins....toxic swamps and burned woods...covering 25-50% of the field. it looks waaaay much better and is way more tactical.

that...and reduce the massive amount of marine armies and their atsknf. make fliers just like they were in 5th with bigger movement allowance with the +1 and +2 cover save rules and no assaultable by.ground units...and thats enough

edit: oh...and DELETE the ridiculous challenge rules. improve moral rules (delete being wiped out and make the unit take additional wounds based on the combat outcome instead. make winning and assault in your own turn to be worth)

Poseidal
20-07-2013, 07:52
Because of the state of assault and overwatch, it may be time to bring back the Sweeping Advance into combat (allowed from a wipeout or catching the unit on the run). It has to be carefully handled, but winning the combat on your own turn shouldn't be basically a penalty.

T10
20-07-2013, 17:12
In 40k 1 inch = 1 meter. Roughly. So a normal 6' by 4' board is 72 meters by 48 meters. Even a gridiron pitch is bigger than that. Anfield or Trafford would dwarf it.
1" = 5 m seems a better conversion. 120m effective range for a bolter seems about right.

djhowitzer
20-07-2013, 18:35
So marines are 10m tall?

T10
20-07-2013, 18:56
So marines are 10m tall?

Closer to 5m, surely.

Menthak
20-07-2013, 18:57
You don't need Skyfire to hit fliers, it just helps a lot. Armies with lower base BS care less than elite armies. Orks barely care about needing 6s to hit fliers for example. Twin linked also helps a lot.

Fliers are just one more element to the game. Taking them away won't reduce the amount of spam lists that are hard to kill. Nid Tervigon Gant spam, Nid psyker spam, Deathwing/Draigowing/Loganwing all spam terminators that are hard to kill. Land Raider spam is immune to anything less than Strength 8.

SOME fliers are a problem- Helldrake, Vendetta, Night Scythe. But then again, some vehicles are a problem, like the old Holofalcons or new Wave Serpents. Some characters are a problem, like Mepheston or Swarmlord. Some troops choices are a problem, like guard vets or grey hunters. Some fortifications are a problem, like the Landing Pad.

Oh, I know that taking fliers away will not stop all spam lists, just that at least I can reasonably hit tervigons/Draigo.
I don't remember the points upgrade for certain Tyranids to get wings, but if someone gave me the option for a 30 point upgrade that my Captain avoid 5/6ths of all shots fired at him, it'd be an autotake.

As I've said before, fliers should be skimmers, I never moaned about Vendetta's in 5th, because I knew my hammerhead could pretty reliably pop one a turn.

dangerboyjim
20-07-2013, 21:27
I quite like the original idea.

The FOC at the moment is very clumsy anything that prevents flier spam has to be good. I think it would improve the game. (Even without fliers)

As others have pointed at a lot more flier problems stem from the flier rules being very badly implemented and quite illogical in the first place. I like the models, but the rules are stupid.

MajorCorruption
21-07-2013, 02:11
Considering the thread seems pretty productive thus far let me throw out a few more ideas. My local gaming club has 3 major gripes with 6th:

1. Flyers
2. Random Charge distance
3. Hull Points

I for the most part like flyers, especially the current generation, and I even like heldrakes though the fire arc should really be 180. I don't like the field getting flooded with the things, and I don't like the imbalance air power, and anti-air across the books right now. Yes baledrakes are amazing but on the whole chaos anti-air is pretty weak. The poor dark angels got two new flyers and both are awful at their designated roll and grossly over priced to boot. Why did templar get the storm talon and not space wolves? I would like to see the number of flyers limited, even if that limit is 3 in an average game, and I'd like to see a boost in anti-air through out the books.

My gaming group hates random charge lengths with a passion, I'm pretty indifferent to them and my main army is an assault based chaos list. Our proposed solution was to only require a roll for charge distance if the enemy was more the 4" away, essentially making two kinds of charges; standard and long charges. The idea is simply to cut back on the really bad luck for assault based armies, like when that flyrant moved 12" but then rolled snake eyes for his charge when he was three inches away...

Finally hull points, every one in my groups agrees that a hull point system is a good idea, but no one likes the way GW did it. The original thought was that there needs to be a greater spread, 2-4 just doesn't cut it, and the fact that 90% of vehicles in the game have three hull points kind of illustrates my point. For small skimmers and light vehicles 2 hull points are fine, light tanks, some walkers and transports 3 is ok, medium tanks and some heavy walkers I think could use 4, and 5 or even 6 for the really heavy stuff like land raiders and monoliths.

The idea that I personally proposed, and there for like better, is requiring a roll on a glance to see if a hull point is stripped. The simplest way I could think of to do it was roll >= the weapons AP. So glance with an autocannon, 4+ to remove a hull point, 2+ for an lascannon, melta does it automatically, and AP- simply can't. Add a stipulation for weapons with armor bane and other such rules to make them more effective at removing hull points.

Dismembered
21-07-2013, 02:56
That hull point idea is brilliant. There just isn't enough spread like you said.

The one thing 1 guy in my group has an issue with is monstrous creatures getting a cover save from things like craters. aside from that everything else in the rules is fine. We don't spam flyers, I could but I don't cause I'm not that much of a jerk, and anything that is tough to beat forces us to work out an army that can beat it or learn to use what we have better.

duffybear1988
22-07-2013, 08:05
My plan would be -

1) Return to 5th edition.
2) Put in all the 4th edition missions.
3) Weaken tanks slightly.
4) Rework flyer rules from 6th so they actually make sense, and edit points costs to make them fair. Make them 1 flyer per 1000 points.
5) Add new fortifications. Make them 1 per 1000 points.
6) Keep warlord traits, but instead of picking a chart and then rolling randomly, reverse it so that you roll for a random chart and can then pick from it.

Grand Master Raziel
22-07-2013, 11:30
I had the following thought on hull points: they make vehicles like monstrous creatures without a save. The mechanic for rolling to wound and rolling for armor pen is about the same, and against some weapons (lascannons, meltas) there would be no save regardless. However, the bane of most vehicles in the game isn't high-powered single shot weapons but mid-powered multi-shot weapons - S6 or 7 with 3 or more shots. Those weapons are generally around AP4, which would allow most MCs to take a save, but not vehicles. So, my thought is that vehicles should get saves, as appropriate to the vehicle type. Then, the AP mechanic would matter to vehicles and some of the imbalance between vehicles and MCs would be smoothed over.

I've also thought some dedicated anti-armor weapons should have the Instant Death rule. Vehicles are subject to getting popped by one lucky shot, so I thought the really heavy anti-vehicle stuff (again, lascannons, melta, etc) should also have a chance of insta-popping a MC. Straight Instant Death is probably a little harsh though, so I thought GW could borrow from the FNP mechanic and assign a numeric value on the To Wound roll that inflicts ID, such as ID 6, or ID 5 for something really hard core.

WLBjork
22-07-2013, 12:49
I've never really liked the FOC. sure, it works great for Marines (just the right size for a company), but is unsuitable for Guard - and other armies are more difficult to ascertain due to their own specialised natures.

I think that armies should have their own methods of selection based around their typical formations.

There is the potential for abuse there, but that should be dealt with by ensuring missions are as balanced as can be.

Tarax
23-07-2013, 07:40
I had the following thought on hull points: they make vehicles like monstrous creatures without a save. The mechanic for rolling to wound and rolling for armor pen is about the same, and against some weapons (lascannons, meltas) there would be no save regardless. However, the bane of most vehicles in the game isn't high-powered single shot weapons but mid-powered multi-shot weapons - S6 or 7 with 3 or more shots. Those weapons are generally around AP4, which would allow most MCs to take a save, but not vehicles. So, my thought is that vehicles should get saves, as appropriate to the vehicle type. Then, the AP mechanic would matter to vehicles and some of the imbalance between vehicles and MCs would be smoothed over.

I've also thought some dedicated anti-armor weapons should have the Instant Death rule. Vehicles are subject to getting popped by one lucky shot, so I thought the really heavy anti-vehicle stuff (again, lascannons, melta, etc) should also have a chance of insta-popping a MC. Straight Instant Death is probably a little harsh though, so I thought GW could borrow from the FNP mechanic and assign a numeric value on the To Wound roll that inflicts ID, such as ID 6, or ID 5 for something really hard core.

This seems to me more like a multi-wound weapon, like they have in Fantasy. I also find it hard that a Battle Cannon only causes 1 wound, while being an explosive (hence the Large Blast). It would be more than likely that it would cause significant damage to any model.
They could also make a distinction between anti-infantry weapons and anti-tank, where AI can not damage a vehicle. Though some weapons could work for both.
Wounds, saves and other mechanics for vehicles is very complex.

As for me, I would like to see some of the armour values reduced, but giving those vehicles more Hull Points. A Land Raider is already hard enough to Glance, with S8 already needing a 6, and little or no S9+ weapons in some armies.