PDA

View Full Version : A (better) brilliant idea



Daedalus81
06-02-2010, 22:41
Since this got buried in two other posts without any recognition I figured i'd re-post it. Although that doesn't really matter since it will never happen anyway, but i'm bored so lets play devil's advocate!

A unit that is not ITP and not Unbreakable can receive +2 to CR for each infantry unit (of US 10/15+?) within 3" (up to some reasonable maximum).

_____CCCCC
_____CCCCC
X ->
X -> AAAAA BBBBB
X -> AAAAA BBBBB
X -> AAAAA
X ->

Say X is a unit of chaos knights who hit on 3s and wounds on 3s. 10 attacks, 5 hit, 3.3 wound, .5 save. 5 horse attacks, 2.5 hit, 1.65 wound, .3 saves. So roughly 4 die - not hits back. A outnumbers, banners cancel, ranks are negated, A receives +4 for nearby friendly units, X has a flank -- combat is tied.

The knights would need support or lucky rolls to crash into a confident mass of enemy swirling nearby!

Whether or not +1 is more appropriate than +2 I do not know. Perhaps you even would not get the bonus if a particular nearby friendly unit is also in combat itself -- or the same combat to prevent complicating CR (we can't have goblins overrun everything!).

In any case it encourages the use of infantry by making them more powerful and gives validity to a battle line.

It does not provide advantages to Daemons, VC, or units that don't need it. WoC players could actually take a mark other than MoS.

And it makes sense, to me, that your units would be emboldened by allies who aren't crazy (unbreakable), or uncaring (ITP).

As suggested in the other thread some form of layered break test system would seem appropriate as well -- as long as it doesn't slow the game down too much.

Thanks for listening to me babble.

kyussinchains
06-02-2010, 22:54
often in my job as an engineer, I find that the optimum solution to a problem is not to add something, but to take something away.....

your idea sounds good, but it adds layers of complexity to a ruleset which is already burdened by lots of emergent problems.

I think people are looking to add rules to fix what they percieve as broken, however I feel that this is straying into dangerous territory....

the trend of warhammer has been one of simplification through the editions, the game mechanics have become more streamlined since the days of 3rd edition, and I like it that way.

The solution to the percieved problem of power creep and core infantry no longer having a purpose, is surely to reduce the problem again? either by making elite troops less desirable (extra slots, higher points values, limited unit size, limited number of units) or enouraging people to play to the spirit of the game more, play for fun and an enjoyable tactical challenge.

I'm not a super regular player, but to be perfectly honest I haven't seen the same level of problems that many people claim the game has in 7th edition... maybe because my group plays for fun and practices restraint, maybe because we just don't care that much about it all, after all it's only a game..... ;)

Pacorko
06-02-2010, 23:06
Exactly.

Adding is making and already quite debated mechanic, cumbersome. So, no. It's not a better idea. It's just one more rule added to the pile (and no one can blame you, as you follow what GW Studio has been doing for years now).

As our friend above mentions: we need to start putting certain rules in the PYRE and not the PILE.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
06-02-2010, 23:07
Since this got buried in two other posts without any recognition I figured i'd re-post it. Although that doesn't really matter since it will never happen anyway, but i'm bored so lets play devil's advocate!

A unit that is not ITP and not Unbreakable can receive +2 to CR for each infantry unit (of US 10/15+?) within 3" (up to some reasonable maximum).

_____CCCCC
_____CCCCC
X ->
X -> AAAAA BBBBB
X -> AAAAA BBBBB
X -> AAAAA
X ->

Say X is a unit of chaos knights who hit on 3s and wounds on 3s. 10 attacks, 5 hit, 3.3 wound, .5 save. 5 horse attacks, 2.5 hit, 1.65 wound, .3 saves. So roughly 4 die - not hits back. A outnumbers, banners cancel, ranks are negated, A receives +4 for nearby friendly units, X has a flank -- combat is tied.

The knights would need support or lucky rolls to crash into a confident mass of enemy swirling nearby!
SNIP

If applied at all, this type of bonus should only apply to unit's fighting to their front. Knights into the flank of a formation SHOULD destroy that formation. So, the tie in this case while helping the infantry doesn't really make much sense and doesn't reward the knight player for setting up a flank charge.

Daedalus81
06-02-2010, 23:34
often in my job as an engineer, I find that the optimum solution to a problem is not to add something, but to take something away.....

your idea sounds good, but it adds layers of complexity to a ruleset which is already burdened by lots of emergent problems.

I think people are looking to add rules to fix what they percieve as broken, however I feel that this is straying into dangerous territory....

the trend of warhammer has been one of simplification through the editions, the game mechanics have become more streamlined since the days of 3rd edition, and I like it that way.

The solution to the percieved problem of power creep and core infantry no longer having a purpose, is surely to reduce the problem again? either by making elite troops less desirable (extra slots, higher points values, limited unit size, limited number of units) or enouraging people to play to the spirit of the game more, play for fun and an enjoyable tactical challenge.

I'm not a super regular player, but to be perfectly honest I haven't seen the same level of problems that many people claim the game has in 7th edition... maybe because my group plays for fun and practices restraint, maybe because we just don't care that much about it all, after all it's only a game..... ;)

I'm familiar with the KISS mantra, but I tend to forget it from time to time. I agree that adding layers of complexity could simply result in more problems, but there's no harm in pondering, right? :)

The problem itself is more readily perceived in tournaments - after all I do enjoy a good competition now and then!

I stare at my infantry and wonder if I really should have bought the models. Surely, there must be an alternative to all cavalry or magic-heavy lists? Sadly it seems there is not - at least not in highly competitive games and from that stems my desire to fix the system a bit and I assume its the same for others.

Or course when trying to simulate the psychology of humans...and monsters no less you'll inevitably wind up with a horribly complex system.

Eric.Miller
06-02-2010, 23:43
Why are the forums being flooded with these nonsensical "suggestions" on how to fix everything?

Fix the magic phase.
Fix ranked units.
Fix static combat resolution.
Fix Psychology.

None of it will amount to anything. GW will never read any of it or care.

Even if they did, the rules for 8th are probably 100% nailed down and being sent to printers if 8th edition is really coming out sometime this year, so what exactly is the point of all of this mental masturbation?

Can we get a moratorium on this kind of thing? Or at least summarily dispatch it all to Rules Development?

Souppilgrim
06-02-2010, 23:45
I'm familiar with the KISS mantra, but I tend to forget it from time to time. I agree that adding layers of complexity could simply result in more problems, but there's no harm in pondering, right? :)

The problem itself is more readily perceived in tournaments - after all I do enjoy a good competition now and then!

I stare at my infantry and wonder if I really should have bought the models. Surely, there must be an alternative to all cavalry or magic-heavy lists? Sadly it seems there is not - at least not in highly competitive games and from that stems my desire to fix the system a bit and I assume its the same for others.

Or course when trying to simulate the psychology of humans...and monsters no less you'll inevitably wind up with a horribly complex system.

I'm actually for a somewhat deep core rule system. Streamlining stuff is fine, but simplyfying things is not the answer in every case. I don't want to end up playing heroscape or whatever that game is. I think problems arise form special case rules that certain army books allow to creep up rather than bad core rules. Your idea isn't bad, but as one of the posters said above the knights are penalized a little too hard.

Daedalus81
07-02-2010, 00:16
Why are the forums being flooded with these nonsensical "suggestions" on how to fix everything?

Fix the magic phase.
Fix ranked units.
Fix static combat resolution.
Fix Psychology.

None of it will amount to anything. GW will never read any of it or care.

Even if they did, the rules for 8th are probably 100% nailed down and being sent to printers if 8th edition is really coming out sometime this year, so what exactly is the point of all of this mental masturbation?

Can we get a moratorium on this kind of thing? Or at least summarily dispatch it all to Rules Development?

Well, it is a forum. People have perceived inadequacies they want to fix and they just want to discuss them perhaps out of sheer boredom (like myself). I know it won't change a thing, but we can dream. Surely there is no harm in that?

Eric.Miller
07-02-2010, 00:20
Right, no harm in having it in rules development.

Here in General, it is clogging up the forum with a bunch of "Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!" brainstorming without a purpose.

I wouldn't want army lists posted here either, so why should proposed rules changes get a free pass?

There is a subforum for that very subject for a reason - so no one ever has to read it.

Daedalus81
07-02-2010, 04:54
Didn't know there was a "rules development" forum. Sorry there, chap.