PDA

View Full Version : 6th edition 40k - wishlisting



hellspawn1
24-02-2010, 13:44
What would you like to see in the next edition, what improvements/changes should be made to the current one?
Please motivate your suggestions as well.

I for one would like the return of movement stats, and/or the ability for transport vehicles to "run" or in some other way move faster than they do now. Because I believe they should outspeed infantry to a higher degree, especially cross-country in open terrain, thereby making them more fullfilling of their purpose as transports.

Also, unless "run" is replaced by abovementioned stats, "run" should be rolled on 2D6, picking the highest (like difficult terrain tests are now). And on the same note, difficult terrain should just be half regular distance of the moving unit, no unnecessary dice-rolling. I swear, GW has a dice-fetish.

Thud
24-02-2010, 14:24
Yeah, mech definitely needs a boost. :eyebrows:

The Judge
24-02-2010, 14:30
Cover saves to go down across the board, especially for tanks.

Get's Hot! rule to cause a S3/4 hit, rather than an automatic wound.

Wound Allocation to occur between models with different stats (eg. Sergeants and troops) but not different weapons/equipment.

Bunnahabhain
24-02-2010, 14:30
Total reboot, that's actually balanced. Unit activation, real USRs that are universal, and a defined set of terms ( ie turn). All army books done properly at the same time.

And a decent set of FAQs and erratas fixing the worst idiocies of 5th ed to tide gamers and sales over until it is done...

MVBrandt
24-02-2010, 14:35
Go back to post-save wound allocation. Go back to 4th ed. LOS. VP instead of KP, and objectives contested by more than just "anything." Those three changes would go a long way toward fixing any beefs I have.

Lord Malorne
24-02-2010, 14:36
The death of 'obscured'.

Gimp
24-02-2010, 14:37
I would love to see 2 rules books

1) will be the actual rule book

2) will be a collection of the codexs

Hopefully that will aviod balance issues

sabreu
24-02-2010, 14:39
All vehicles should be able to move 18" at a minimum. Fast should get 24"

More weapon subsets: Cryo weapons for ranged, a category of weapons that ignore invuls for close combat as examples.

More universal special rules.

Core rules refined

WinglessVT2
24-02-2010, 14:46
Books that stand the test of them, aren't exhausted of builds and useful options after two other codices are released, and make the first one utterly obsolote.

Cromwell Haarlock-Leth
24-02-2010, 15:05
Total reboot, that's actually balanced. Unit activation, real USRs that are universal, and a defined set of terms ( ie turn). All army books done properly at the same time.


I would love to see 2 rules books
1) will be the actual rule book
2) will be a collection of the codexs

Bunnahabhain + Gimp = happiness.
If, on top of this, the rules could be clear, without ambiguity, or exceptions = total happiness.

Rydmend
24-02-2010, 15:05
I would love to see 2 rules books

1) will be the actual rule book

2) will be a collection of the codexs

Hopefully that will aviod balance issues

they would never do this, it isn't lucrative on the long term.

The reason they do monthly relases (40k, fantasy, lotr) of new books and models is because it drives sales.

Traitor Legions
24-02-2010, 15:28
I'd like to see a 2nd book optional rules or advanced rules released with rules like overwatch ect brought back, and no more streamlining.

LonelyPath
24-02-2010, 15:34
The return of 4E defencive weapons.

DuskRaider
24-02-2010, 15:53
All vehicles should be able to move 18" at a minimum. Fast should get 24"

You DO realize that if Fast Vehicles were able to get 24", the regular move would be 18" and thus there's a 99% chance that my Orks would assault you Turn One.

incarna
24-02-2010, 15:55
Disclaimer for those all-too ready to blast new and frightening ideas: These are ROUGH ideas – not complete play-tested rules. Judge them on their conceptual merit and feel free to suggest improvements.

1) Weapon skill chart for attacking moving vehicles in close combat. A Bloodthirster or Avatar should probably have a TAD easier time hitting a vehicle than a conscript guardsman. If the vehicle moved flat out, re-roll all successful to-hits. If the vehicle is a skimmer you always need 6’s to hit unless the attacking unit is classified as jump infantry.

2) Units with the Fleet USR may move an additional 2” in the movement phase, may run as normal in the shooting phase, and may still assault in the assault phase.

3) Units with the Slow and Purposeful USR may only move 4” in the movement phase but may always fire heavy weapons. Additionally, due to their ponderous nature, they may wield power fists, thunder hammers, and other close combat weaponry that negatively impacts initiative in normal initiative order.

4) Vehicles may move 6” and fire all weapons, 12” and fire 1 weapon or 18” and fire no weapons. Fast vehicles may move 12” and fire all weapons, 18” and fire 1 weapon or 24” and fire no weapons. Fast vehicles may always move and additional 6” in the assault phase. Weapons of strength 6 or lower are classified as defensive weapons and may always fire regardless of how fast the vehicle moved however, if the vehicle moves over 12” re-roll all successful too-hit rolls (being twin linked cancels this penalty).

5) Attrition Kill Points: for every full 100 points that an army consists of it is worth 1 kill point (thus an 1850 point army is worth 18 kill points) [Units such as spore mines do not count toward this total, thus a Tyranid army may have fewer total kill points than his opponent]. All kill points are assigned to units by markers after deployment but before the first turn of play. Markers are kept with the unit during play but have no significance other than denoting their value. Players may assign a number of kill points to a unit of their choice equal to its total point value divided by 100 rounded up.

6) Assassination Kill Points: for every full 100 points that an army consists of it is worth 1 kill point (thus an 1850 point army is worth 18 kill points) [Units such as spore mines do not count toward this total, thus a Tyranid army may have fewer total kill points than his opponent]. All kill points are assigned to units BY YOUR OPPONENT using markers after deployment but before the first turn of play. Markers are kept with the unit during play but have no significance other than denoting their value. Players may assign a number of kill points to a unit of their choice equal to its total point value divided by 100 rounded up.

7) Desperation: Any model engaged in close combat with a model possessing an AV may choose to make an SINGLE attack of desperation – striking at fuel lines, gears, and other critical but well protected components of the vehicle but leaving themselves vulnerable during the attack. Roll to hit as normal re-rolling any successful to-hits. The opposing player may then choose nullify the attack on a 4+ or 2+ if the vehicle possesses a WS. If the attack is successful the model may roll on the vehicle damage chart. If the end result of the attack of desperation is not that the vehicle is destroyed or annihilated, the attacking model is automatically killed regardless of how many wounds it possesses. Models killed in this manner count toward combat resolution. No armor saves (invulnerable or otherwise) may be made to prevent this death.

8) Models armed with shooting weapons classified as melta roll 2d6 for armor penetration and add 1 to their roll on the vehicle damage chart while in close combat against targets with an Armor Value but may make no more than 1 attack.

9) Go To Ground: Infantry that go to ground receive a 3+ cover save while in cover or a 5+ cover save if not in cover. Models that go to ground may move as if in difficult terrain during the subsequent movement phase but may not fire weapons, run, or make assaults. Models with the Fleet USR may make an assault as if they were assaulting into difficult terrain. Models with the Slow and Purposeful USR may still fire their weapons in the shooting phase but their targets receive a 3+ cover save.

10) Models embarked in a transport that is destroyed are wounded on 4+ (rending) and must make a pinning test. Models embarked in a transport that is annihilated are wounded on 2+ (rending) and must make a pinning test with a -3 penalty.

That’s all I can think of at the moment.

Thanatos_elNyx
24-02-2010, 16:13
Lose the current Wound Allocation rules to balance the abuse that is the Nob Bikers.

Eternal Warrior for Swarms, as I don't see a Lascannon taking out 3 Scarabs with one shot. Change Instant Death to cause D3 wounds and reduce the amount of units with Eternal Warrior.

Make everything do either Shooting Damage or Close Combat Damage, so there is no debate if you get cover saves from strange attacks, etc. (i.e. If it has an AP then it is shooting and you get a cover save, so on and so forth)

Absolutionis
24-02-2010, 16:22
Things that annoy people (or just me) in 5E:

1 - Wound allocation abuse in multiwound units.
- Solution: Can be solved by the 3rdEd rule where attacker gets to choose first a single unit that is forced to take an armor save and then defender chooses the rest.

2 - Cheap transports with negligible penalty for loss. Can be solved by forcing unit inside to "go to ground" after their transport explodes. They're sifting through wreckage or forcing open damaged doors, etc. Also solves the problem of melee vs. vehicles being a really poor choice because it arbitrarily comes after the shooting phase. Right now, if you pop a transport in melee, and the contents destroy you next turn.
- Solution: Unit in a destroyed transport goes to ground.
- Solution: Unit in a transport that takes ANY damage is negatively affected in some way especially if they fired and/or the vehicle is open-topped.
- Solution: Add vehicle-damage table entries that force the embarked units to disembark immediately due to something such as internal fire or smoking parts, etc.
- Solution: Have an option that attacking a transport in melee with grenades or power fists or almost anything can negatively affect the passengers in some way.

3 - Fearless "No Retreat" wounds should simply go. They don't make sense and to a degree make fearless a disadvantage. Should at least be allowed a Fearless tactical retreat. At the very least, outnumbering should count for something. Thirty Orks or Hormagaunts in a combat shouldn't take unnecessary wounds just because they killed 1 terminator and lost 3 of their number.

4 - Return of the movement stat. Allows for more of an opportunity for differing units. Could initially state that all units in codecies without a movement stat are assumed to be 6. Then can appropriately cost things such as Necrons and Terminators with the disadvantage of being slower than usual whereas Hormagaunts and Banshees would be faster than usual.

5 - Remove True Line of Sight. Replace it with base-size matters. Removes silliness such as using laserpointers to approximate that your guy can see the enemy's fingernail. Avoids arguments. Encourages scenic bases. Does not encourage "modelling for advantage" such as scenic Trygons bursting out of the ground or Wraithlords crouching or 3rdEd Carnifexes being smaller than modern. Also eliminates problems with units without models.
- Solution: Base size matters, Measure according to the game being 2-D only.
- Solution: Assign each unit base size an arbitrary height.

6 - Each unit should have a base size listed somewhere in their unit box. Eliminates problems with units that don't exist (Tervigon, Jetbike Farseer, etc) or units that historically came with different base sizes (Jetbikes, Bikes, Terminators) or even units that seem to have inconsistent base sizes in GW scenes (Jetbikes again, Biovores).
- Solution: List base sizes for each unit.

7 - Make USRs actually universal.

8 - Fix kill point missions to care about points values rather than units killed. Killing five Drop Pods should matter much much less than losing two the Land Raiders and two Assault Terminator Squads that it cost you to achieve such a feat.
- Solution: Points values matter.
- Solution: ForceOrg slot matters.

9- Make close combat quicker but not necessarily more one-sided deadly. As it was in earlier editions of 40k, if morale held tight, two squads could be locked in combat for most of the game. Now, with the existence of No Retreat! wounds and wiping out a squad, close combat becomes decisively one-sided with the winning side barely taking a scratch.
- Solution: Fantasy had and (supposedly) will again get it such that combats go on and on until one side is too crippled to go on. This eliminates the unsatisfactorily complete wipe-out or the unsatisfactorily complete get-away.
- Solution: If a squad runs away and gets caught, it isn't wiped out, but combat simply still continues. This allows for the mob of melee to absorb other groups.
- Solution: Close combat mobs "drift" thus making the game more dynamic. Bad idea, but sounds cool to me.

10- Make swarms useful. Swarms are cool, but every swarm unit in the game really has problems.

quantumcollider
24-02-2010, 16:26
I would love to see some new 'crossfire' rule that would make maneuvering more important.

BigBossOgryn
24-02-2010, 16:27
Lose the current Wound Allocation rules to balance the abuse that is the Nob Bikers.

Eternal Warrior for Swarms, as I don't see a Lascannon taking out 3 Scarabs with one shot. Change Instant Death to cause D3 wounds and reduce the amount of units with Eternal Warrior.

Make everything do either Shooting Damage or Close Combat Damage, so there is no debate if you get cover saves from strange attacks, etc. (i.e. If it has an AP then it is shooting and you get a cover save, so on and so forth)

I hardly call it abuse considering how expensive the Nob Bikers are. Is it completely unreasonable to want to protect that massive points investment by using wound allocation?

lightfoot
24-02-2010, 16:34
1 Easier to hit vehicles in CC.
2 If a vehicle is destroyed on a 6 all troops inside are auto wounded and pinned.
3 Troops in tranports may be wounded by a pen hit.
4 Better area terrain rules if you shoot through it your opponent gets the cover save.
5 Cover for monstrous creatures and vehicles in or behind terrain. Get rid of the 50% rule.
6 Swarms can't be instakilled.
7 Frag grenades go back to 4th ed.


All I can think of for now.

Cheeslord
24-02-2010, 16:39
Thoughts off the top of my head:

Clear up single vs. multiple pinning rule (either way)

Sweeping advance less deadly - maybe -1 leadership for every wound IN EXCESS OF ONE that you lost the combat by. Or maybe for every 2 wounds you lost by.

Vulnerable to blasts/templates does not stack with Instant Death

Worse penalty for being in a transport when it blows up.

Remove wound allocation "abuse". If the majority of a unit has 2 wounds each, every 2 wounds remove 1 model (you choose which one) - still treat ICs seperately though.

Clear up what affects units in transports (morale checks, no LOS powers etc.)

Stop preventing ICs fighting in combat with rules supposed to encourage it that actually have the opposite effect (let them use the 2" rule - and be targetted by it!).

Allow ICs falling back to rally seperately from their unit

more mission types. include KP and VP to keep everyone ... angry.

Close assaulting into buildings (if Velociraptors can figure out how to open a door Space marines should be able to...)

In general I would like less descriptive compulsory movement (like all the moves involved in close combat) and more freedom to make the moves as you like but with well defined consequences for where you move to.


Mark.

Thanatos_elNyx
24-02-2010, 16:42
I hardly call it abuse considering how expensive the Nob Bikers are. Is it completely unreasonable to want to protect that massive points investment by using wound allocation?

I'm pretty sure the designers (of BRB or Codex) didn't have the current abomination of Nob Bikers in mind when they designed the Wound allocation rules.

FailSafe07
24-02-2010, 16:48
I for one would like to see either, a) units in transports being auto-pinned after a wrecked or explodes result or b) units in CC who pop transports being allowed to consolidate into combat with the units in transports. if my ASM can charge a Chimera, pop the transport with the powerfist and then consolidate into and assault the squad in the same phase it might limit the transport madness.

the1stpip
24-02-2010, 16:48
Don't increase speed of vehicles, the game will become more of a 'rush forward and hit things). Orks and Dark Eldar will rule (not necessarily bad, however).

Reduce all cover saves by 1.

Vehicles get a 5+ save behind cover, and a +2 save if they are travelling flat out. So a 3+ save if they are moving fast and behind cover. (Try tracking a Raider behind cover thats travelling at that speed).

Units should have a chance to consolidate into combat, but it shouldnt be too easy.

A unit that is in a vehicle that explodes takes a pinning test, with -1 for each wound taken in the process.

Remove a lot of the fearless from the game. This would remove a lot of the problems with fearless.

Ld should count for more.

The most important things (and therefore most unlikely) is that Gw use the codexes to create a more balanced game, rather than to just sell models.

Jagged
24-02-2010, 16:52
Many people have mentioned wound allocation. I'd simplify it to just grouping by toughness and allowing the defender to apply fails where they like.

I'd also do away with the extra wounds caused by not running away.

suprememidgetoverlord
24-02-2010, 16:55
I would like to see the CC chart changed, where if you have triple your opponents WS you hit on 2+, and they hit you on 6+.

Makes crazy WS values a bit better, and is not game breaking.

Make grenades affect whole squad. When my Autarch charges with a squad through cover, it wont feel like heθs just throwing one grenade to one specific guy that he is charging, the rest of the ennemy squad should be affected too.

sabreu
24-02-2010, 16:56
moving 24" isn't really an increase in speed. They decreased it from 4th to 5th if you recall for fast vehicles. I just don't think transports and troops running should be matched speed wise.

Edit:

Rules for throwing grenades in conjection with their established effects or a choose between the two would be nice as well

R0ot
24-02-2010, 17:03
Bring back consolidating into close combat. :D

sabreu
24-02-2010, 17:05
Firing into close combat! Seriously, 90% of the races are ruthless enough to consider this strategy!

sliganian
24-02-2010, 17:08
Ditch the stupid Ramming rules. Entirely. They are waste of space and player attention.

The fact Ramming came back in 5th just showed the delusion GW was under in trying to recreate the 'glory days' (in their minds) of Second Edition.

sabreu
24-02-2010, 17:08
Ramming is awesome. They need to make it better is what they need to do!

Vaktathi
24-02-2010, 17:16
My main issues?

Removal of Kill Points entirely.

Return to 4E defensive weapon rules or even better ditching the entire concept and just moving to BS modifiers.

Change vehicle CC rules, only hit on rear armor if you reduce your attacks to 1 (As with grenades, to represent careful placing of attacks), otherwise hit with full attacks against armor facing. An Ork Nob jetting up to a Predator on a bike to whack it with a powerfist isn't taking the time to carefully attack vision slits and weak points as the rules describe, he's smashing his fist against the glacis plate, not going to have the same effect. Vehicles are about where they should be in regards to shooting, but CC attacks are just far too capable where they really shouldn't be.

Ditching the ubiquitous 4+ cover saves on absolutely everything, either move to 5+ for many things, or even better BS modifiers yet again. In return give infantry one time use Smoke Grenades, work as vehicle smoke launchers (although ideally really be a BS modifer, not a cover save)


Change wound allocation rules back to 4E's with Torrent of Fire/Torrent of Blows. The current wound allocation system is far too gamey on one hand, and hurts generalist armies that rely on specialist upgrades far more than the armies with homogenous units for no real good balance reason.

While I like the current rules for Mech and I think the proliferation of transports is a good thing for the game as a whole, I do think the "vehicle explodes" thing needs to be changed a bit. I'd like to see it as taking an Initiative test for each model inside, every one that fails take a wound with no saves allowed, and have the explosion radius increased to d6+3" and wound on a 3+, making explosions much scarier and more realistic. This wouldn't really be enough to change most peoples mind about running mech, but would tone it down just a tiny bit.



That said, why do so many people want to return to the 4E transport rules or something even worse? Does nobody remember how transports were never taken if you weren't running Skimmerspam? Some of the suggestions in here would see transports evaporate from army lists overnight as they would be far more of a liability (as in 4E) than be of any sort of benefit.

Gaargod
24-02-2010, 17:17
I hardly call it abuse considering how expensive the Nob Bikers are. Is it completely unreasonable to want to protect that massive points investment by using wound allocation?


Yes.

Its an idiotic abuse of the rules that really wasn't intended. It was meant to be to encourage a unit which has different loadouts, but people then went overboard. Because of that one unit, more or less, new units such as tyranid warriors, who could really benefit from that ability to mix and match, don't have it.

They're still T4(5) W2 with 4+ armour, a permanent 4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable BIKES. They're not exactly easy to kill.



As to other rules: Absolutionis has put forward some very good ideas.

Especially no retreat. Should only work if you're outnumbered by 2:1 (at which stage they are going to swarmed, which is what the rule represents). Possibly increase the negative penalty if this is the case - fearless troops with good armour just don't care.


Vehicles could be increased speed wise, but if so, they have to be less reliable and easier to kill. If you're trapped in a burning vehicle, you should be in major difficulties.
Taking damage of any sort on the vehicle should cause some distress (i.e. crew shaken = S1 rending hit on everyone, crew stunned = S2 rending up to immobilised, for a S4 rending. Vehicle destroyed, exploded or annihilated - a 7 on the chart, should similarly step up the damage AND have the people inside hit by whatever killed the tank). If a demolisher shell hits your tank, you're NOT just going to get out and keep walking.

ekiander
24-02-2010, 17:20
Make assaulting vehicle transports a bit more friendly. If you destroy it your now locked in CC with the contents, or easier to hit, ect.

ID should be a D3 rule not remove from table. Tone down the eternal warrior. In fact I hate any power/weapon that just removes models.

MCs and walkers should have different cover rules from vehicles making it a bit easier for them to get cover saves. Hell I wouldn't mind if cover changed for vehicles if there durability was reduced.

Close Combat shouldn't be as lethal for the losing side. And the to hit chart should be changed. Kind of odd that a WS10 vs WS1 is still 3+ and 5+ respectively.

If a vehicle has a fire port/open topped you should be able to use a template to hit the contents just like a building with a fire port. This may be limited by modeling. I'd even say you could shoot at anyone in an open topped vehicle. 3 or 2+ cover save though.

neko
24-02-2010, 17:24
Defensive weapons need to stop focusing on strength. Either specify in the vehicle entry if the mount is offensive/defensive, or go by the weapon type (assault/heavy/etc).

Another thing I'd like to see in the rules is for defensive fire to actually take place. Pick a primary target like you do currently, and anything in the squad or on the vehicle can fire at that as normal. The weapons that either can't or don't want to fire at that target are supposedly firing defensively, so let us fire them at the closest target in LoS (out to a maximum of 12").

sabreu
24-02-2010, 17:24
Especially no retreat. Should only work if you're outnumbered by 2:1 (at which stage they are going to swarmed, which is what the rule represents). Possibly increase the negative penalty if this is the case - fearless troops with good armour just don't care.

I think no retreat should stay as is, but outnumbering effecting it - If your the victim of no retreat, but outnumber your attacker by 2:1, then a certain amount of those wounds should be mitigated, increasing exponentially. Also, if you outnumber someone and beat them in combat, outnumbering should increase the no retreat wounds.


Vehicles could be increased speed wise, but if so, they have to be less reliable and easier to kill. If you're trapped in a burning vehicle, you should be in major difficulties.

Remember when vehicles would just get annihalited if they were destroyed when they moved at really fast speeds? An explosion, with auto pinning or wounds would do nice to mitigate the speed nicely i think.

Samus_aran115
24-02-2010, 17:25
OMG. I really want monstrous creatures to be nerfed. Make move through cover a special rule, not a general rule for MCs.

Also,I know this sounds biased, but I'm sick of this vehicle penetration result chart. It seems way to easy to explode a vehicle right now.
I'd like if it was like: "Okay, I roll vehicle destroyed. I roll for explosion. If I score a 4+, the vehicle is exploded. Anything less, it counts as destroyed"

I mean, is that bad at all? I think vehicles are a real investment, so youd'e proably want to at least use them as cover when they are plain-old destroyed. In real life, you have to shoot perfectly to even penetrate a vehicle. To explode it would involve shooting blindly into a fuel tank or something like that. It's not realistic to be able to have a 1in6 chance too completly destroy a heavily armored battle tank.

Maybe the chart could be:
1-same thing
2-same thing
3-same thing
4-same thing
5- destroyed (same thing)
6- destroyed. Roll for explosion

Of course, if your using a meltagun or something, it would be much easier to explode a vehicle. So based on that, certain weapons could allow you to roll lower for explosion (ex. A meltagun or lance weapon explodes the vehicle on a 2 or 3+)

I don't know. I'm probably biased because everytime I use my land raider,it freekin explodes.

EDIT: I also think bombs need to be clarified. I had no ******* clue what bombs did for the longest time because of the crappy rulebook.

forbin
24-02-2010, 17:27
well considering I'm trying to remember what was in the 5th ed , ebayed many moons ago,

yes LOS - our modes occupy a quatum space - use the rules like in 4th - we'll don't go running around with our sword arm stick out do we? (someones going to say they do, I just know it.....)

running - fleet was supposed to mean something still does in 4th , perhaps rework it with
distances for each race being different ?

everything scores, not just troops , I'd consider that fast vehicles going flat out cannot be considered to hold objectives - they're moving too fast
oh they did introduce transports as not scoring because of 3rd abuse

bring back the different tables for glancing penitration , ordanance - single chart too restrictive.

going to ground - why ?

defensive weapons - S6 and below again please - stop trying to nerf Eldar - change the codex!

some type of pinning needs after yer transport dies - maybe as other suggested wounds to be allocated

kill those dammed killpoints - VP are good enought for WHFB, good enought for me.

and when releasing a new rule set - release the marines with it

and please GW , can we have new codicies for the necrons, dark eldar , and Inq codexes first pleeeeze , pretty please ?

Forbin,

Samus_aran115
24-02-2010, 17:29
Bring back consolidating into close combat. :D

Wat? This exists now, I believe...

PxDn Ninja
24-02-2010, 17:39
I would just settle for them getting off their asses and releasing the Army Codex for each army within a year of the new edition, instead of leaving some armies in the wind for 10+ years....

There is absolutely no excuse for this. Driving sales, while it might work, can be done in other, more consumer friendly and creative ways.

Hell, release the book and do the monthly release with the models. That would fix both issues.

wazatdingder
24-02-2010, 17:49
Sweeping advance- Loser should get bonuses for outnumbering winner.
No more 1 model wiping out 10.

Krovin-Rezh
24-02-2010, 18:18
Any wishes I could have have been incorporated into our gaming club's house rules.

It can be found here (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVfqIhwbL6OgZGhmNmpxMzJfMmQ5eDQ4MmYy&hl=en).

Highlights:
• Simpler, more fun night fighting
• Wound allocation uses common sense where LOS is concerned
• Pass BS test not to hit intervening units (line up shots to hit multiple units)
• Consolidating into assaults returns, but you take *some* shots
• No bell curve on Ld tests, more chance of failing at -2 Ld across all units
• Fearless is unmodifiable Ld 10
• Instant Death is D3 wounds after a failed save (EW roll 2D3 & use lowest)
• No 50% rule for regroup, and units don't run off the board unless chased off
• Pinning allows any action, but you get shot at by the pinning unit(s) for each one
• More uses for Insane Heroism
• Grenades can be used against monstrous creatures
• Outnumbering factors into assault results
• Sweeping advance - you only kill as many models as are sweeping
• Vehicles have Ld values, and taking 3+ pen/glancing hits causes a Ld test
• Open-topped only takes +1 damage against glancing hits
• All vehicles can tank shock, but tanks are better at it.
• Monstrous creatures can stampede (TS instead of assault)
• Passengers can shoot at cruising speed
• Passengers take collateral hits when vehicles take damage.
• Shooting within 6" is +1 BS, or auto-hit if target is a building or immobile vehicle.
• +6" to ranges for every 6" above the target

You may not agree with some of these, but I can attest to the games being much more fun when using them!

Sajuuk
24-02-2010, 18:23
Rapid fire weapons to be other than assault or heavy, rather than worse.

If moved - shoot once at range
If stationary - shoot twice at range

Best regards...

Lorieth
24-02-2010, 18:27
This thread seems to be leaning towards heading back to 4th Ed, but personally I think 5th was a big step in the right direction for 40k. 3rd Ed. was a necessary change because - fun though it was - 2nd Ed. was fairly unplayable because of the multitude of different play mechanics, dice rolls and modifiers; the pendulum swung a bit too far though, and IMO 5th Ed. has started to bring some of the flavour back.

The big thing I'd like to change is the AP mechanic. I don't like it that AP3 weapons go through power armour like it isn't there, but Terminators get the same save as they would from a wet haddock. Modifiers are a pain, so I'd suggest a halfway house: if AP=armour save, successful armour saves are rerolled. (Some weapons would need to be rebalanced of course as they'd be considerably less deadly).

I'd also change the ID mechanic for high S weapons: if S>=2T lose 2W. This keeps the flavour of the current rule, but means there is some point to having more wounds and (hopefully) we wouldn't need EW stuck on everything. Of course you could also have if S>=3T lose 3W, etc.

Phil73805
24-02-2010, 18:30
Couldn't agree more Lorieth, the ink is barely dry on 5th edition and we're wondering about the next. 5th edition has been a welcome change in many respects whereas all the suggestions I've seen so far are pretty much a return to the old which everyone complained about then :)

Oktober
24-02-2010, 18:31
Personally a better layout for codexes, like 4th. All weapons, all psychic powers, army list...the way it is now I have to look in about 5 different places just to see everything for the Hive Tyrant...man 5th ed layout blows

TheDarkDuke
24-02-2010, 18:31
They need to readjust things they have tried, like KP back to VP. SOme minor adjustments here and there in the core rules.

Really the biggest thing they need as 40K is very well balanced despite what the naysayers want us all to believe, is simply an answering and set ruling on grey area rules. The core rules can not cover the things they tac on in the codex, and those cause the only real complaints as some come out unclear. Fix the fog and really people will simply be nitpicking to find actual problems to rules.

EmperorEternalXIX
24-02-2010, 18:49
Wow.


"Bring back horrible unbalanced meta-motivated crap from old editions! Make my army win instantly. I use transports make them better/I lose to transports make them worse! Bring back the uber-broken "Don't bring a gun to a knife fight noob!" consolidate-into-combat rules! Take away True Line of Sight and make the game two-dimensional and awkward again! Remove all cover saves/Give everything a cover save! Update the entire game's codex releases in 5 minutes and give them all to us in one book right after the game comes out so we can sit around and bitch about which army gets the first wave of models, and never have even close to a full model range of releases because the company will have to support the entire game all at once! YEAH THAT IS WHAT WE WANT!"

If this thread proves anything to me it is that we as people who play the game are too ignorant of the creative process and too biased by our own individual wants and needs. I can't believe some of the things people are saying in this thread.

"Get rid of Wound allocation it's not fair" It's not fair? Because it is helpful for small units to stay alive? Personally I don't even know why the rules about multiple wound model units are there at all; now that wound allocation is in the game, making its rules apply to units of like multi-wound models would have probably solved the issues with large multi-wound units being too tough to take casualties; models with multiple wounds could just ALWAYS be considered unique and that way volume of fire would be what does them in (i.e. guy A took 3 saves, failed 2, he's gone...guy B took 3 saves, failed 1, he's still here, etc). It'd almost give me a reason to take a heavy bolter once in a while.

"Bring back consolidation into assaults" This is the worst idea I have seen yet. Do any of you even REMEMBER how STUPID 4th edition was with this rule? It was ridiculously easy to dismantle a gunline army and virtually any other army at that. The only one you had to fear was another assault army, and even then, it would be decided by the first turn.

"Bring back model heights and make the game 2d again" WTF?! Someone earlier said "it will stop arguments" ... who argues over TLOS? I mean, at best, a TLOS argument is this:

"Hey I can see your guy's arm, I'm shooting him"
"No you can't"
"Well dude come look"
"Ok" *goes on other side of table* "Alright, fine."

I love how people say stuff like "Let's get rid of abstractions like the laser pointer" and then instead want to rely on completely pointless arbitrary systems based on no reality on the tabletop whatsoever. So my Long Fangs on top of the roof of the Chrysler building can't see past the ripper swarm's close combat to shoot the Tervigon...got it.

I wonder how many of you said this stuff just because other Warseer blowhards have put it into your heads that the game was once "better." 5th Edition is by far the least confusing and most efficient version of the game as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want it to change very much.

All this being said I have some things that I think, from a design standpoint, the game could benefit from.
Weapon Skill often doesn't matter that much. It would be nice if guys with an extremely high weapon skill could hit on 2's on occasion, or if guys with a much lower weapon skill hit on 6's. It should be rare but I think it would make sense.
Special rules for MCs. Right now they are just a really big infantry model, and that's boring. They should be knocking over tanks and terrifying men, etc.
A special rule preventing anyone on this website from complaining inanely about the game design would really make my day. :)


Highlights:
• Simpler, more fun night fighting
• Wound allocation uses common sense where LOS is concerned
• Pass BS test not to hit intervening units (line up shots to hit multiple units)
• Consolidating into assaults returns, but you take *some* shots
• No bell curve on Ld tests, more chance of failing at -2 Ld across all units
• Fearless is unmodifiable Ld 10
• Instant Death is D3 wounds after a failed save (EW roll 2D3 & use lowest)
• No 50% rule for regroup, and units don't run off the board unless chased off
• Pinning allows any action, but you get shot at by the pinning unit(s) for each one
• More uses for Insane Heroism
• Grenades can be used against monstrous creatures
• Outnumbering factors into assault results
• Sweeping advance - you only kill as many models as are sweeping
• Vehicles have Ld values, and taking 3+ pen/glancing hits causes a Ld test
• Open-topped only takes +1 damage against glancing hits
• All vehicles can tank shock, but tanks are better at it.
• Monstrous creatures can stampede (TS instead of assault)
• Passengers can shoot at cruising speed
• Passengers take collateral hits when vehicles take damage.
• Shooting within 6" is +1 BS, or auto-hit if target is a building or immobile vehicle.
• +6" to ranges for every 6" above the target

You may not agree with some of these, but I can attest to the games being much more fun when using them!Now THESE are some original, interesting suggestions!!

nedius
24-02-2010, 18:58
My main beef is mixed abstractions.

I'd go for:

Only those who can see can shoot, only those who can be seen can be hit. This would also apply to weapon removal on tanks.

Terrain on bases gives no cover, AND no hight variation. If you can't drag a rock about for cover, you sure can't drag it about for elovation.

Either TLOS, where cover is decided exclusively based on obscurement, with area terrain limited to very specialist features - water, for example. Or, all cover is 'area'. You're in it, not in it, or LOS passes through it.

incarna
24-02-2010, 19:11
I wonder how many of you said this stuff just because other Warseer blowhards have put it into your heads that the game was once "better." 5th Edition is by far the least confusing and most efficient version of the game as far as I'm concerned, and I don't want it to change very much.


Agreed. I consider 5th ed the strongest incarnation of the game thus far. It could certainly do with some tweeks but no system is perfect.

Poseidal
24-02-2010, 19:18
1. Removal of the AP system, replaced with a specially made version of ASM.
2. Re-introduction of the M stat. The main rulebook has basic values for all races, while newer codices print it in an supercede the basic book.
3. You can now throw grenades, basic types are put in the rulebook (frag, plasma, melta bombs etc).
4. Charge bonus is now what Furious Charge does (but adds the bonus to special weapons that have fixed strength), Furious Charge becomes +1 attack instead.

...well, this was a wishlist rather than a 'what do you think they might do and you will like' list! :D

carl
24-02-2010, 19:24
TBH there's a lot of whichlisting going on in here that really is pure whishlisting IMHO.

However i have seen a few good points being made:

1. Swarms really need ID immunity IMHO.

2. No Retreat needs some modification to make it more effective against the tougher breed of Fearless types without becoming OP. And possibbly some minor modification in situations where the Fearless units majorly outnumber their opponnents.

3. Defintly do somthing to make gunships more mobile. A simple "MBT" USR that littrially copies the current Power of the Machine Spirit Wording from C:SM would be good IMHO, (PotMS would need an upgrade obviously but thats ok IMHO). Just erreta every gunship tank to have it and away you go.

4. A long hard look at target saturation issues and the way this pushes heavy mech lists needs to be made ATM.

5. For my own moment of pure wishlisting: Assuming point 4 can be acomplished. Switch the way shaken works so that it slows movment and dosen't afect, (or less heavilly affects), shooting.

nuclearfeet
24-02-2010, 19:33
just a couple things I would like to see changed:

-bring back VPs
-bring back area terrain for determining cover saves
-bring back the 3rd ed. sweeping advance rules
-movement stats
-MODIFIERS!

sabreu
24-02-2010, 19:37
Alot of good and bad draft ideas here. Loving it!

With that said, I just got reminded of something. Is everyone tired of how stunned rolls in the effects of shaken in it? I think we could do with shaken being able to move, not shot, and stunned being able to shoot, and not move. What do you think?

juggernought
24-02-2010, 19:41
are they talking again about rolling out a new edition?

sabreu
24-02-2010, 19:41
No, not yet. Just having fun in this thread!

sliganian
24-02-2010, 21:16
Ramming is awesome. They need to make it better is what they need to do!

Ramming is "awesome"? :eyebrows: Really?

Not sure where to take that.

Never seen it used.
Never used it myself.

sabreu
24-02-2010, 21:29
Ramming is "awesome"? :eyebrows: Really?

Not sure where to take that.

Never seen it used.
Never used it myself.

Yes, really. Knock off the weapons on a razorback/chimera/whatever, and recoil in horror later in the game when that metal box, seemingly useless rams into your own vehicle and pops them, and/or watching the rammer himself get wrecked or exploding. Fun stuff.

Dreadnaught in your way and all you have are squishy stuff? Ram a vehicle at it! At least it has a chance.

Necrons gauss got your Land raider unable to fire? Choose to PotMs and possibly hurt a monolith, or ram it full speed into a monolith for the same strength of a lascannon! Not particularly effective, but occasionally it'll do something.

Some piddly ork trukk, raider, or a russ's back armor exposed is in your way? Land raider or battlewagon to the face!

Play eldar? be an arragont elf who'd rather die than admit defeat and ram your wave serpents into things, full speed for a strength of 10!

Skullhammas can do that too, and get alot more bang for their buck, crushing smaller vehicles one after another with some luck.


It's awesome. You need to see it in action to appreciate it.

incarna
24-02-2010, 21:40
Ramming is "awesome"? :eyebrows: Really?

Not sure where to take that.

Never seen it used.
Never used it myself.

I ram quite often. My wave serpents can pack quite a ramming punch from 21+" away.

Vaktathi
24-02-2010, 21:51
The problem with the ramming mechanic is that the vast majority of time for most vehicles its useless (i.e. can't get up enough strength to hurt an enemy vehicle, honestly nothing is ever going to get that last 3" of full movement as getting exatcly 3" increments isn't going to happen, so like a chimera hitting a rhino 11" away is going to hit at a total of S6, not that amazing) or is best used by those that would be least likely to use it (why on earth are the Eldar the most adept at performing Kamikaze attacks?)

Being based simply off of distance moved is rather silly (it's a bad measure of acceleration & force), and the mechanic as a whole is extremely under utilized. I can't remember seeing it used in 5 or 6 months.

sabreu
24-02-2010, 22:03
The problem with the ramming mechanic is that the vast majority of time for most vehicles its useless (i.e. can't get up enough strength to hurt an enemy vehicle, honestly nothing is ever going to get that last 3" of full movement as getting exatcly 3" increments isn't going to happen, so like a chimera hitting a rhino 11" away is going to hit at a total of S6, not that amazing) or is best used by those that would be least likely to use it (why on earth are the Eldar the most adept at performing Kamikaze attacks?)

For most players, ramming isn't much of a consideration and is some hazy thought in the back of their rule books. It is a very situational tool, no worse than other mechanisms in the game like forcing space marines off the board by keeping a unit 6" away from it as it falls back, or destroying a unit in a wreckage by surrounding it. As an ork player, I tend to keep the possibility of ramming in the back of my head, so if the opportunity arises I can utilize it to it's best effect. Granted, not every tank have a high av, but the armies that have it can make full use of the rules.

As for the Eldar, it makes kinda sense. Their ground battles are really desperate situations. They wouldn't fight outside of their fleets if it weren't of dire importance. Or some generic hook like that.


I can't remember seeing it used in 5 or 6 months.

It's quite rare to see an effective ram, as much as it is rare to see someone make a squad dissappear from the no doubling back rule. But it happens, and can be quite an effective weapon when it does work!

Crovax20
24-02-2010, 22:10
Movement of foot troops be reduced to 4 inch, so that a vehicle actually does go faster without making vehicles able to *zoof* into an enemy deployment zone in turn 1.

Tell me what you think.. It wouldn't really change anything but make shooting a bit more effective since it would take footsloggers longer to reach their destination.

senorcardgage
24-02-2010, 22:21
My list:

~ Keep the current LOS rules.
~ Get rid of kill points, victory points are a way better indication of game results
~ Make it such that in objectives games points are awarded proportionally to the value of the unit holding the objective, not just "you're either holding it or you're not." For example, if a 4 marines are on an objective they would be worth (170/2) points and a unit of 10 marines on an objective would be worth 170 points.
~ Getting rid of 'only troops are scoring' rule.
~ The strength at which weapons are considered 'defensive' is increased, or gotten rid of entirely.
~ This is probably really unbalanced, but I'd like to see some sort of 'stand and shoot' option available similar to fantasy.
~ Get rid of 'instant death' rule in favour of weapons that do multiple wounds.
~ Inclusion of save modifiers. This can't really happen since it would require an entire overhaul of the codexes, but it would be nice.
~ Leadership modifiers from shooting. I don't see a reason for having modifiers in CC and none from shooting.
~ Cover saves not being so generous, ie) ruins give 4+, crappier stuff giving 5+ or worse.
~ No cover saves for shooting through units! I much prefer the leadership test of 4th edition for target priority.
~ Troops need to be more affected by their transports blowing up. Not in terms of getting hurt, although that would be nice, but rather in terms of entanglement.
~ More standard missions included in core rulebook.
~ This idea is kinda stolen from Corvax20 in the post above, but I think that it might be good to reduce troop movement to 4 inches, as long as running always grants another 4 inches. You could also assault (another 4 inches) after running. Fleet units get 8 inch movement instead of 4 inches (only their 'movement,' not running or assaulting)

That's all for now :p

Malorian
24-02-2010, 22:28
~ Leadership modifiers from shooting. I don't see a reason for having modifiers in CC and none from shooting.

So marines shoot as a combined guard unit, kill 8, and now the remainder of the unit it taking a LD test at -8 :eek:

Seems a little too crazy ;)

senorcardgage
24-02-2010, 22:32
So marines shoot as a combined guard unit, kill 8, and now the remainder of the unit it taking a LD test at -8 :eek:

Seems a little too crazy ;)

I wasn't proposing that it would be in the exact same way. More like for every model you lose after 25% you're at -1, or something . Maybe I was unclear with that...

Then again, if guard loses 8 guys in CC and doesn't kill any then they're testing at -8, so maybe it's not entirely farfetched?

And stop creepin' on me ;)

Commissar Bone
24-02-2010, 22:46
~ This idea is kinda stolen from Corvax20 in the post above, but I think that it might be good to reduce troop movement to 4 inches, as long as running always grants another 4 inches. You could also assault (another 4 inches) after running. Fleet units get 8 inch movement instead of 4 inches (only their 'movement,' not running or assaulting)


Hmmm M 4, with a choice of an assault move of 4" (let's call that Charging) or another move of 4" if neither charging or (say) firing. Let's call that Reserve movement.

Oh wait. Welcome to Rogue Trader c1988. And that's a good thing, btw.

Sooner or later, we'll edition our way full circle. :)

senorcardgage
24-02-2010, 22:49
Hmmm M 4, with a choice of an assault move of 4" (let's call that Charging) or another move of 4" if neither charging or (say) firing. Let's call that Reserve movement.

Oh wait. Welcome to Rogue Trader c1988. And that's a good thing, btw.

Sooner or later, we'll edition our way full circle. :)

Lol, sorry, but I started playing in 3rd edition so I had no idea :p

Ozendorph
24-02-2010, 22:57
Nothing too dramatic really. I'd like basic Deep Striking to be a bit more reliable, or suffer fewer penalties. Missing first turn, having to make a reserve roll to come in later, then deviating (possibly resulting in more penalties), moving for shooting purposes, and finally having no chance to assault...that's a lot of drawbacks.

Overall I like this edition quite a bit. Some of the codices and particular units could use work, but the core rules provide for a pretty fun game currently.

Lord Humongous
24-02-2010, 23:46
I hardly call it abuse considering how expensive the Nob Bikers are. Is it completely unreasonable to want to protect that massive points investment by using wound allocation?

No, but its completely unreasonable that wargear desinged (and priced) for other purposes makes them tougher (or weaker). For example, 5 identical, maximally blinged out nobs is a lot LESS tough than a cheaper unit of dudes who each only have one distinctive piece of bling.

gwarsh41
24-02-2010, 23:58
reading through these its somewhat apparent who plays what army. I like 5th edition. I like it a lot. The only thing that has bugged me is that you can remove any model as a casualty, even if it was no tthe one shot at.
People seem tom complain about swarms a lot, wonder what they play? If you cannot see a lascannon shot killing a pile of worms, how about a dreadnoughts foot? If i step on 10 worms with a 10 tonn mech, i am pretty sure they will all die.

Occulto
25-02-2010, 00:01
Use Epic's turn system.

hellspawn1
25-02-2010, 00:06
Personally a better layout for codexes, like 4th. All weapons, all psychic powers, army list...the way it is now I have to look in about 5 different places just to see everything for the Hive Tyrant...man 5th ed layout blows

I second that! What frikkin' trolls work in the GW department that does the layout? One of many "GW-moments". (a moment defined by a feeling of: "what the hell were they thinking?")

Night Bearer
25-02-2010, 00:16
Most of my wishlist is for things that I find "jarring", in that they break the suspension of disbelief when playing with my little doods:

#1 thing I'd like to see is them finally dropping the "one guy moves, no heavies can shoot" rule. I can't think of a rule in 40k that's more arbitrary-feeling to me.

#2 would be replacing the current AS setup with some sort of modifier-based setup. The current rules feel too simplified and constrained for the variety of weapons in 40k.

#3 would be to somehow make vehicles more survivable. Again, it just seems jarring to see how easily so many vehicles in the game can get popped on a routine basis. Sadly I can't think of a way to do that without making mech armies even better. I can see stopping a Rhino or Chimera for the rest of the game, but seeing tons of them destroyed or even literally blown up every game makes the vehicle system feel really one-dimensional and cheap to me.

Otherwise, I can't think of much. I didn't play 4th, but I was always under the impression that people liked 5th a whole lot better, so it's odd seeing what seems like a lot of "return to 4th" type suggestions.

I'll also admit to being a die-hard fan of 2nd edition. 5th is okay, as far as I've accepted that this is what 40k simply is now, but it is still a subpar system to me. I play more WHFB and Warmachine than 40k because I personally prefer extra detail in my game rules (and am apparently one of the few who had no problem dealing with save modifiers and different dice types).

Ringslinger
25-02-2010, 00:27
Unambiguously written rules. Yes, I'm asking the impossible.

Krovin-Rezh
25-02-2010, 00:37
Nothing too dramatic really. I'd like basic Deep Striking to be a bit more reliable, or suffer fewer penalties. Missing first turn, having to make a reserve roll to come in later, then deviating (possibly resulting in more penalties), moving for shooting purposes, and finally having no chance to assault...that's a lot of drawbacks.
Good ideas. The first thing about DS I would change would be the mishap results. Having the opponent place your unit anywhere is just not a fun thing. He doesn't want to seem like a jerk for sticking your unit in the farthest corner on the board, but if he wants to win, that's what he's gonna have to do. Might as well just kill the unit off at that point.

I'd rather it were something like this:

1-2 Unit destroyed
3-4 Unit delayed
5-6 Scatter again from current location

I actually don't mind not being able to assault (adds strategy to the maneuver), but it would be nice if a direct hit allowed the unit to consolidate D6". Not really a necessity, but it would be a fun addition.

bossfearless
25-02-2010, 01:48
Total reboot, that's actually balanced. Unit activation, real USRs that are universal, and a defined set of terms ( ie turn). All army books done properly at the same time.

And a decent set of FAQs and erratas fixing the worst idiocies of 5th ed to tide gamers and sales over until it is done...

So you mean you want GW to become Privateer Press?

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 01:52
Total reboot, that's actually balanced. Unit activation, real USRs that are universal, and a defined set of terms ( ie turn). All army books done properly at the same time.

And a decent set of FAQs and erratas fixing the worst idiocies of 5th ed to tide gamers and sales over until it is done...

This.
+1
GW to use the internet to it's potential, and communicate with players.

The current incarnation wiped away any progress 4th ed made, and covered it up with OTT BS. Increasing the values of cover, units giving cover to one another and true LOS has given hte game a retarded aggro dynamic where nothing actually does what it's supposed to unless it's numbers or super-kewl-speshul-roolz make it clearly superior. Cover should be a BS modifier again. having to choose between armour, force field and sandbag created saves with them not having any bearing on one another makes absolutely no sense and renders overpriced units with invulnerable saves or good armour disproportionally less effective then they should.

CDR_Culln
25-02-2010, 03:30
I miss throwing Frag grenades, funny there is a grenade launcher, but it has diferent rules in the HAND of a warrior. How does extra armor NOT add extra armor?? Read any Forgeworld books lately? Extra armor does and should give....hold your breath.....EXTRA ARMOR. I know, unbelievable right? Who brings one shot smoke launchers and combi-weapons to a war? It's like bringing a 20 dollar bill to a GamesDay. Tank shock should be more deadly. Really just because you are fearless or have >10 orcs doesn't mean you are impervious to tank treads on your chest. Maybe do an initiative test with modifiers based on speed of the vehicle. Assault distance should be much shorter than 6", making maneuvering your units into position more tactical. Along those lines, how can you remove a model I shot that I can't even see via TLOS? Yeah, you wanna hang your heavy weapon guy around the corner, you should run the risk of them being shot in the face. Many times have I witnessed the dreaded Nob at the front of a huge mob endure countless barrages of fire that would tear down a gargant at the ankles, yet he still makes it all the way across the field. I understand having lakkies and people take shots for the leader, but he IS IN THE FRONT. And finally, I have to address cover saves for enemy troops, given by other enemy troops. Harder to hit, I can see, but negating the bullet/blast/laser all together is just beyond comprehension. All complaining aside, we all enjoy the game and if GW had done such a terrible job, we wouldn't play or even discuss the next edition. Culln out....

vladsimpaler
25-02-2010, 04:30
1. Run: Reduce to d3 inches.

2. Increase the size of the table. What's it now? 4x8? How about 5 or even 6x8?

3. Re-introduce "Break Off"- Where you can voluntarily fall from combat if you pass an I test or something, and if you fail you get sweeping advanced. Also make it an option to "Pile In".

4. Increase the speed of vehicles

5. Overwatch

6. Cover becomes a BS modifier. The current rules are so unintuitive that it hurts.

7. Change would allocation, it royally sucks.

8. Remove Kill Points. Dumbest idea ever for 40k, and that's saying something.

9. Make LD actually mean something or just remove it. Seriously.

Creeping Dementia
25-02-2010, 04:47
Fix wound allocation would be first priority. It sucks getting 6 Divine guidance (rending) wounds off yet only actually cause a couple wounds.

Kill points are just dumb, there really just isn't a way to fix them that works. Victory points or just straight up objectives. The funnest games I ever play are objective missions anyway.

Other than that I'm good, I really do like the current edition.

Void Reaper
25-02-2010, 05:19
I'd like to be able to fire at multiple targets with the same unit (and maybe give a bonus to those handful of things in the game that currently can);
Get rid of KPs, go back to VPs;
Make more generous maximum vehicle speeds, but keep the currenlt limitations on how fast a vehicle can move and still drop off troops;
allow vehicles to move and fire somewhat more easily (maybe just add a dice roll penalty, rather than not allowing them to fire at all);
make deepstrike more reliable (at least more likely to arrive);
d3 wounds instead of instant death;
tone down the AP on certain weapons (battle cannon, earthshaker)

Just my thoughts. Overall, I like 5th Edition. I HATE trule line of sight from a game-design-game-theory-abstractions-vs.-concrete standpoint but...sigh...it does make things play more quickly, so oh well.

senorcardgage
25-02-2010, 05:33
tone down the AP on certain weapons (battle cannon, earthshaker)


No way, man. Those are huge *******' guns!

Plastic Rat
25-02-2010, 06:51
I would love to see some new 'crossfire' rule that would make maneuvering more important.

This would be my number one wish. Make moving your soldiers around the board actually require some thought.


Use Epic's turn system.

Hell, they could pull just about anything from Epic and it would make the game cooler. +1 on the turn system.


Stuff I want:
- An integrated turn system or reactionary mechanic (e.g. overwatch or return fire) so that your opponent's turns actually require something from you other than rolling dice.

- Less focus on dice. Too much random right now. Want more stuff where your brain actually matters.

- Make close combat more interesting. Have where you position your guys, in base to base or out count for something. E.g. rough idea, let models not in base to base fire pistols, but not actually participate, kinda like Epic's supporting fire or something.

Griffindale
25-02-2010, 06:54
I would like the game to be streamlined and made for tournament play. I see GW has two options with the future of 40k:

Keep making the game as a casual play game and annoying tournament-style players.

Make the game ready for tournament play and casual players will honestly play it how they like regardless.

Plastic Rat
25-02-2010, 07:05
I would like the game to be streamlined and made for tournament play. I see GW has two options with the future of 40k:

Keep making the game as a casual play game and annoying tournament-style players.

Make the game ready for tournament play and casual players will honestly play it how they like regardless.

You sir make me a sad, sad rat. :(

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 07:18
You sir make me a sad, sad rat. :(

Sad Worm:(

There is no reason they can`t do both. They pulled it off with Epic.

Jayden63
25-02-2010, 07:18
Rather than fixing 5th ed., I'd rather go a step backwards and fix 4th ed. Just get rid of entanglement and fix escalation and skimmers moving fast and the game probably would be near perfect for me. Maybe get rid of range and LOS sniping since that for some reason really puts a thorn in some people panties. Personally, I rather saw it as a measure of skill.

5th ed, just took away too many player options and made the game feel more like it runs on auto pilot.

Occulto
25-02-2010, 07:19
Hell, they could pull just about anything from Epic and it would make the game cooler. +1 on the turn system.

I reckon blast markers might be a tad unwieldy. :p

Big units are a lot rarer in Epic than 40K.

GoGuard!
25-02-2010, 07:40
Oh Lord where to start?


Change to a per model rather than per squad approach when determining who can shoot assault etc.

That way i could fire my heavy weapons and charge with all models who didn't fire the heavy weapons. I could even hold back some of my troops and rapid fire them, Covering Fire if you like.

Or I could move parts of the squad to better positions without worrying about the fact that for some reason the rest of the sqaud also counts as moving.


Also please do something to make leadership an important part of the game! Lower base leaderships across the board would be nice, offset with a bubble of leadership from your general.

Either add more moral effects (Fear, panic etc) or make the penelties for failing the checks that are there currently much harsher after you've been reduced below half squad strength (Like Flames of War) even for space marines!


Trasports need tweaking as well. Firstly fix firing weapons out of vehicle hatches especially heavies while moving. fits in with above system. Since all the models in the transport moved no heavy weapons fire and much less effective small arms fire.


Make being assualted while in a transport as DISadvatage, a BIG disadvatage, if they've caught you in you trasports, and have weapons that can knock them out you should pay for it!

No sure how harsh to go, but defenitaly have the unit inside a transport that gets knocked out suffer wounds, with no armour saves.

And not sure if this is still true, but make opened toppeed vehicles open topped even ifd the crew is wearing power armour! How does your power armour protect the electronics inside your landspeeder?!


Also liked the posts in this threads calling for BS modifiers! Dare i even bring up AS modifiers to replace the retarded AP system? (Durr Basalisk shells bouncing off terminators Hurr)

Griffindale
25-02-2010, 07:41
You sir make me a sad, sad rat. :(

How? You get the best of both worlds.

Noone plays Epic. Its a myth. All I ever see is those little micro-machines up for sale on Ebay.

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 08:01
Go on taccomms or the SG section here on Warseer. It`s actually a better game. The only appeal of 40k is watching your 28mm scale dudes run around the board killing each other. Ie. the aesthetics. As much as it pains me, 40k is a crappy game. Epic is fun and balanced, and crucially does not become less fun when played competitively.

EmperorEternalXIX
25-02-2010, 09:48
That must be why so many hundreds of people are playing that instead of...oh wait. :\

Plastic Rat
25-02-2010, 09:52
Go on taccomms or the SG section here on Warseer. It`s actually a better game. The only appeal of 40k is watching your 28mm scale dudes run around the board killing each other. Ie. the aesthetics. As much as it pains me, 40k is a crappy game. Epic is fun and balanced, and crucially does not become less fun when played competitively.

I hate this to be another 'what he said!' post, but seriously, Lord of Worms has it nailed.

I play Epic for the gameplay.

I play 40k because the 28mm miniatures are just the coolest things ever. The ultimate for me would be a 28mm game with the simplicity, speed and tactical depth of Epic... combined with the support 40k gets.

No I don't want Epic in 28mm... just the approach to the rules that Epic takes.

Vaktathi
25-02-2010, 10:06
That must be why so many hundreds of people are playing that instead of...oh wait. :\

Well, it doesn't help that the mini's are old and very small (thus not as visually appealing), and that you can't, you know, actually buy it anywhere.

Other games can have far better rules and systems and not be as popular if they aren't promoted or marketed well (or at all in Epic's case), and most importantly, aren't *available*. Try finding Epic stuff outside the GW online store where its stuck in an obscure corner having to hunt through two different side menu's.

High sales and product participation are not indicative in any way of how good the rules are. Mediocre systems will sell like hotcakes if they're flashy and have great marketing compared with a better system that gets no shelf space or marketing & promotion materials or product support.

Don't fool yourself into believing otherwise.


EDIT: as a good proof, Deus Ex, probably the best PC game of 2000 and one that has gone down in PC gaming legend, got outsold significantly by Barbie Pet Rescue.

Plastic Rat
25-02-2010, 10:08
That must be why so many hundreds of people are playing that instead of...oh wait. :\

Yes, because the choice of the masses is always the best one in every way right?

Cheeslord
25-02-2010, 11:04
Beacuse GW don't push Epic at all any more but they push 40K, LOTR and Fantasy ... GW business model (I suspect) is based on all their stores getting and keeping people in the hobby with tournaments, games days, open gaming etc. People play (and buy) what gets the limelight from GW.

borithan
25-02-2010, 11:05
No way, man. Those are huge *******' guns!But they don't rely on hitting you with the shell. Yes if you are hit by the shell itself you are going to be very, very dead, but most of the effect (ie, the blast template) is based on the blast and fragments of the exploding shell, which would not have the same impact on a 7 foot tall guy fully enclosed in sci-fi plate armour. Depending on what exactly the blast represents (ie, does it actually represent an in figure scale area from the impact point, something like 5 metres radius, or is it an abstraction of the area affect of the shell, the wide area that fragments will be thrown over) "realistically" the blast shoiuld be much reduced away the impact point, much how it works now with blast weapons and vehicles. The WW1 rules based off the 40k rules, for example, treats even heavy guns blasts as S3-5 (direct impacts, ie under the hole, are much higher), as it is the fragments that do most of the distance damage, which would be about as deadly as a hail of bullets. See also the Empire mortar from Warhammer. Reduced AP could be one way of doing it in 40k.

Now, I know it is currently balanced for AP3 (for the battlecannon), so it would not be a good idea at the moment, but it would be something for them to consider.

metal bawks
25-02-2010, 11:26
It is not right to directly compare 40k and Epic: Armageddon. They try to do completely different things.

Epic is quite abstract and concise, and intended for people who like tactical challenges, and prefer good rules over visual appeal.

40k is tactically fairly simple and goes out of its way to make units characterful. It is intended for people who want a simple, visually appealing game. The rules could be more clearly worded, though, I agree about that. Right now it's just likely to cause arguments and slow down the game.

Fun is rather subjective, is it not? I know plenty of players who would not find Epic appealing even if it was a core game.

EmperorEternalXIX
25-02-2010, 11:40
High sales and product participation are not indicative in any way of how good the rules are.Fortunately neither is our opinions of the rules' quality. Are we able to play the game with minimal confusion? That is the only gauge we have for a ruleset's functionality. How "good" the game is, is entirely subjective person to person.


Yes, because the choice of the masses is always the best one in every way right? In most things, no. But gaming is something people do for enjoyment, and a lot of people play 40k to the exclusion of many other games, indeed even other things in our lives. Surely, it must be a good game, then? Perhaps others like Epic are more functional for evenly matched competitive play, but the 41st millennium fiction (and indeed, the omnipresence of war itself, upon which the game is based) are not fair.


EDIT: as a good proof, Deus Ex, probably the best PC game of 2000 and one that has gone down in PC gaming legend, got outsold significantly by Barbie Pet Rescue. You miss the point of a game. How do you know that countless thousands of children enjoyed that game, every bit as much as you and I may have enjoyed Deus Ex? Games are not about functionality, they are about enjoyment. Hell, I buy the WWE Smackdown games every year and they are broken all to hell; but I have fun playing them despite that. ALL GAMES bear this similarity. Sales of games are seldom if ever "illegitimate" -- somewhere, someone is playing that game, and probably liked it if they bought it (or, in the case of Barbie, asked for it for Xmas, etc).

There is always a lot of talk about 40k not being very competitive. These guys are usually the same guys who want to solve the problem of competition by changing the entire game to exist only for that purpose. That just isn't the answer.

Also, for what it's worth, many people claim they have solved large "problems" in the game's balance, but ignore the fact that their ideal outcomes swing the balance wildly the other way. For example, I cannot tell you how many times -- in this very thread, even -- I have heard stuff like "Kill points are unbalanced! Bring back VPs!" VPs are unbalanced too -- or do you think it's fair to lose a game because the enemy killed one model that had a very expensive hat on? It's unfair to win a game because you killed 7000 guardsmen, but to win because you got a lucky one-shot on an expensive vehicle or special character even if the other army barely loses any men is fair? Even if it's wonky, at least kill points has the basic idea of "I killed more units than you did" ... the same can't be said of VPs, which happily results in unusual wins and draws when just a look at the board seems to say otherwise.

Almost every game my friends and I played of 4th edition had a unsatisfactory, awkward outcome that made no sense and seldom reflected the tide of the game itself. We often felt like we were doing a great job offensively and then lost/doing a poor job defending ourselves and won. Nevermind the times that we lost games because stuff like "oh hey I'm on top of a mountain but I can't see past that scarab swarm's close combat." If there was more of that dumb stuff in fifth edition I could see the argument for gutting it out, but really, not one of those stupid things has happened to anyone I know who plays the game since fourth edition.

(As a side note, I always wondered if maybe KP would work better inside out, and it was relative to your total KP to start with...but it seems like it gives a disadvantage either way, just to a different build).

Regarding Kill Points...it really all goes back to the "weak" armies. Sure...KP is unbalanced because it hurts hordes of ****** guys. No one seems to mind VP being unbalanced for small squads of expensive guys (who, if you ask me, are already at a stupid disadvantage anyway, when faced with 4x their number that has only -1str and -1T, a lot of the time).

When you couple this with the fact that mostly every KP game I have witnessed has been a clever back and forth struggle, ending with a difference of only a few units, it reinforces my point -- the game does not need to be gutted to make it work better for what is ultimately a relative handful of the audience.

That is, of course, assuming it worked poorly in the first place, which it doesn't. Many tournaments go off without a hitch and strike a fine balance between 40k's immersion and its mechanics. Such musings are often the outcries of people who got owned at a tournament and want to blame their model's stats and the other guy's special rules instead of his own failings (aka an Imperial Guard player... "I lost! That codex must be BS!")

The game does not need to be altered to be more like another one; if the other one is more to your liking, I would hope that you would just play that game, and not insist on trying to alter the game I like to satisfy some inane desire for competition to be fair. I mean, it's not supposed to be fair when a Carnifex gets in hand to hand with a Guardsman, and to "even out the game" too much for competition's sake would take all the fun out of it. After all, the more unlikely the guardsman's victory, the more heroic he seems; the more obscene the MC's victory, the more brutal he seems. Level the playing field of a game like this too much and the outcomes become elementary, dull even.

If they take this stuff away, you might as well go play chess -- aka, a game with just rules and a system, with no imagery or imaginative stimulation beyond strategizing of any kind.

That's my $.02, anyway. Sorry if it irks anyone. I know here at Hateseer I must seem crazy, but I actually pretty much like the game the way it is. Imagine that.

EDIT: Sorry...went off on a tangent there...

BigBossOgryn
25-02-2010, 12:17
I'm pretty sure the designers (of BRB or Codex) didn't have the current abomination of Nob Bikers in mind when they designed the Wound allocation rules.

I find that hard to believe considering the Ork Codex was bought out before the current BRB.


Yes.

Its an idiotic abuse of the rules that really wasn't intended. It was meant to be to encourage a unit which has different loadouts, but people then went overboard. Because of that one unit, more or less, new units such as tyranid warriors, who could really benefit from that ability to mix and match, don't have it.

They're still T4(5) W2 with 4+ armour, a permanent 4+ cover, 5+ invulnerable BIKES. They're not exactly easy to kill.

I have to disagree. With the sheer amount of high AP and Str weaponry that is readily available to just about every army they can quite easily be torn up before they reach the enemy. They aren't the threat they were and I have to ask if how much of this 'Nobz Bikerz are broken' is genuine and how much of it was Internet hyperbole. I use them and have come up against them, honestly, I can't see the fuss.


No, but its completely unreasonable that wargear desinged (and priced) for other purposes makes them tougher (or weaker). For example, 5 identical, maximally blinged out nobs is a lot LESS tough than a cheaper unit of dudes who each only have one distinctive piece of bling.

That's more of a pricing issue than a rules issue.

senorcardgage
25-02-2010, 12:27
Now, I know it is currently balanced for AP3 (for the battlecannon), so it would not be a good idea at the moment, but it would be something for them to consider.

It would be something to consider for sure, but it would be very difficult to do without seriously hurting many units.


That's more of a pricing issue than a rules issue.

What are they going to say? You can give one biker an ammo runt for 10 points, or the entire unit ammo runts for 5 points for the whole unit? I think the previous poster had a really good point.

dante76
25-02-2010, 12:28
As the new games is True LOS and the codex's are moving towards outflanking armies, Id like to see a reward/punishment for shooting your enemy in the back. Some sort of reaction or turn to face rule. I know thats a move back to 2nd(?).

lanrak
25-02-2010, 12:44
Hi all.
I know this is NEVER going to happen,( due to corperate interferance), but a complete re-write to deliver more intuitive game play, and return the rules to game play ratio back to a more exceptable level.

Any rule set that has more exceptions than rules is in serious trouble.:evilgrin:

TTFN
Lanrak.

Darnok
25-02-2010, 13:02
I have fun with the current 40K rules, so I would like only minor changes. But there are some issues...

Psychology. It doesn't really matter four out of five times. Yes, I am biased by playing Daemons and Orks, against Marines mostly, but nearly every army has lots of special rules or gimmicks to circumvent the whole topic. I don't want to jump into a 40K-WFB-comparison (please don't start it either...), but WFB has got a much more refined set of psychology rules, which actually matter.

Armour saves and weapon stats. I find the AP system to be practical in game terms, but it is not differenciated enough in my opinion. I would like to have a modifier system in addition to the current mechanics, there, I said it. :shifty:

Turn sequence. I'm unsure about this one, but I think it might be much more furn to be more involved in the game. Currently you have to do virtually nothing during the opposing players turn, other than removing casualties and some dice rolling in close combat.


On another note: please stay on topic. This thread is not about why Epic is a better game or not.

Bunnahabhain
25-02-2010, 13:08
^^^ Nice rant there. you do have some practice at them though...

How are you arguing VPs are less balanced than KPs?
If the VPs are unbalanced, then it's a fault of the codex, and the unit being overpriced. If your squad of say... Dark Angles seem worth a silly number of VPs when they get munched by ....30 slugga boys with PK nob, then that is a problem with the respective codexs, not the mechanism.
Surely the fact that if those 30 orks kill those 10 marines in one squad, they're worth 1 KP, but if the same squad has combat squadded, then they're worth 2KPs, shows a significant failing.
Victory points are as balanced as the points in codexs, kill points as they stand are not, and punish players for following the background in many places.


Most of your other points are valid.

senorcardgage
25-02-2010, 13:50
How are you arguing VPs are less balanced than KPs?
If the VPs are unbalanced, then it's a fault of the codex, and the unit being overpriced. If your squad of say... Dark Angles seem worth a silly number of VPs when they get munched by ....30 slugga boys with PK nob, then that is a problem with the respective codexs, not the mechanism.
Surely the fact that if those 30 orks kill those 10 marines in one squad, they're worth 1 KP, but if the same squad has combat squadded, then they're worth 2KPs, shows a significant failing.
Victory points are as balanced as the points in codexs, kill points as they stand are not, and punish players for following the background in many places.


Agreed! I mean, kill points are balanced inasmuchas they counteract the desire to take tonnes of weak units in objective missions. But, why look it at that way?

Instead, I would think it would make sense to award VP for the units holding an objective in objective games and award VP for units killed in 'kill-em-all' missions.

Then we wouldn't have any of this BS of rushing land speeders onto objectives on the last turn. You can have your 50 point land speeder on the objective and get 50 VPs for it, but it wouldn't negate my 250 VPs for having a land raider on said objective.

Heck, I'd even be satisfied with using VPs as a tiebreaker as part of the core rules, instead of how it is optional now. Or, you could have victory point missions and kill point missions in the book.

beagle1
25-02-2010, 14:00
I'd like to see rapid fire changed to; 2 shots if you don't move, 1 shot if you move [all at up to max weapon distance].
Also Mortars and Machinegun-like weapons should be able to produce a much higher dead toll.
The modern battlefield/table should be a lonely place [if you stand-up milling around that is;)].

Cheers B1

AndrewGPaul
25-02-2010, 14:12
Most of the issues seem to be about Codexes, not the core rules. It'd be nice to think that when 6th edition is written, they also write a good internal "developers' bible", with the way they see the game going. For instance, it'd be nice if "Instant Death" was universal, without for instance "Eternal Warrior" providing an exception, only for a new weapon to be an exception to that exception, etc. Similarly, if multiple codexes are going to use the same units (e.g Land RFaiders in the various Space Marine books, Inquisition, etc, or Chimeras in IG and Inquisition), make sure you do the most generic book first, and make the writers of subsequent ones stick to it.

Regarding Wound Allocation, my preference would be to assign hits as evenly as possible, starting with the model closest to the shooter and working back. Models in the open are hit before models in cover, and models out of LOS (not including LOS blocked by members of the same squad) aren't hit at all. Do this for each weapon type* individually; If a Space Marine Tactical Squad is firing at a mob of Orks, you'd allocate the hits for the bolters starting with the guy at the front, then the hits from the plasma gun, again starting from the guy at the front, then the heavy bolter.

There are arguments both ways for doing each weapon group one at a time (i.e. fire all the bolters, allocate hits, roll wounds, make saves, remove dead guys, then do the same for the plasma gun) or doing them all simultaneously (so the guys at the front all take a hit from a bolter and the plasma gun and the heavy bolter, then make all Wound rolls), and I'm not convuinced either option is better than another.

Overall, though, my overriding concern would be to remove special rules if at all possible. For example, if Space Marines are failing morale checks too often at Ld8, why not just make them Ld9 instead of giving them ATSKNF?

Pink Horror
25-02-2010, 14:26
Who brings one shot smoke launchers and combi-weapons to a war?

What kind of person thinks that one turn of shooting is supposed to represent only one shot?

Bunnahabhain
25-02-2010, 14:39
Originally Posted by CDR_Culln
Who brings one shot smoke launchers and combi-weapons to a war?

The wehrmacht? Panzerfausts were one shot weapons, and widely issued, used, and highly effective.

Many modern armies have effectively disposable anti-tank rocket launchers as well.

borithan
25-02-2010, 14:39
Similarly, if multiple codexes are going to use the same units (e.g Land RFaiders in the various Space Marine books, Inquisition, etc, or Chimeras in IG and Inquisition), make sure you do the most generic book first, and make the writers of subsequent ones stick to it.But then GW likes doing rules development as they are going on with their codices... a flaw based on the fact that they generally want to avoid making things like FAQs and errata vital to knowing the full rules of the game (or a particular race), and wanting to keep armies contained within one book. They see a change they want to make and they make it in the next book they write. However, if it happens to be a unit shared by another codex, this means that things become inconsistent, but apparently their policy remains the priority over making things universal.



Overall, though, my overriding concern would be to remove special rules if at all possible. For example, if Space Marines are failing morale checks too often at Ld8, why not just make them Ld9 instead of giving them ATSKNF?But the whole image of Space Marines doesn't really fit them routing away from a sufficiently lost combat like some gretchin or what not. I don't think the problem was them not passing enough leadership saves, but them suffering the exact same leadership results on a failed test. They don't want Space Marines to be destroyed by sweeping advance, or to run off a table edge purely because their squad is at less than 50%.


Who brings one shot smoke launchersModern vehicle smoke launchers are "one shot" (or limited shot, maybe 2 or 3), or at least they were last I heard. They can be reloaded, but you have to get out of the vehicle and load the smoke charges in. Not something you want to do under fire. So for any particular engagement, it is one shot... or however many pre-loaded shots it has. Auto-launchers used to have 2 shots (one for each launcher of 3). Partly it make sense, partly it is an abstraction for rules and balance sake.

Combi-weapons... well, they didn't use to be one shot for the non-bolter part. That was almost certainly just a balance/gameplay change. There would be very few occasions indeed when you could choose the bolter element over many of the attached weapons if they didn't have some limit on it. It would really only be worth using a bolter over a flamer if stationary at long range (and then why are you giving the unit a flamer?). A plasma gun... well, I guess you might want to avoid suffering "gets hot" but I can't see that ever being an overriding priority, at least in the hands of anything that actually carries combi-plasma rifle. Combi-Meltas... again, if stationary at long range (and then again you have to question why you have given the squad a meltagun?)... or if you so desperately preferred the extra shot with the bolter.

Void Reaper
25-02-2010, 16:26
But they don't rely on hitting you with the shell. Yes if you are hit by the shell itself you are going to be very, very dead, but most of the effect (ie, the blast template) is based on the blast and fragments of the exploding shell, which would not have the same impact on a 7 foot tall guy fully enclosed in sci-fi plate armour. Depending on what exactly the blast represents (ie, does it actually represent an in figure scale area from the impact point, something like 5 metres radius, or is it an abstraction of the area affect of the shell, the wide area that fragments will be thrown over) "realistically" the blast shoiuld be much reduced away the impact point, much how it works now with blast weapons and vehicles. The WW1 rules based off the 40k rules, for example, treats even heavy guns blasts as S3-5 (direct impacts, ie under the hole, are much higher), as it is the fragments that do most of the distance damage, which would be about as deadly as a hail of bullets. See also the Empire mortar from Warhammer. Reduced AP could be one way of doing it in 40k.

Now, I know it is currently balanced for AP3 (for the battlecannon), so it would not be a good idea at the moment, but it would be something for them to consider.

Thank you. My point exactly! The low AP of large blast template weapons makes little sense to me, as even basic body armor can protect a soldier from the majority of fragmentation (assuming it hits him where he's wearing the body armor). The concussive effects of a blast would, presumably, be absorbed by a Space Marine's much better armor and super-tough physiology.

I agree though, the current gameplay balance would prevent this, so they should consider it further.

Overall, I LOVE the AP system, so much better than Strength modification. My major gripe in 2nd Ed is that well armored troops hardly ever got to USE their 3+ save. Much cleaner and easier and, in my opinion, more realistic to use AP--either the incoming round gets through the armor without being bothered (in which case only physical toughness will keep the target alive) or it gets blunted and stopped (in which case physical toughhness will keep the soldier conscious). Works great in my opinion.

Frogczar
25-02-2010, 16:39
No more True LOS. It is more of a hassle than a help. Go back to area terrain blocking LOS, heck just go back to 4th edition LOS rules.

Why is it all troops can be shot (lost as casualties) if one member of a unit can be seen around a wall, but they can't all shoot back? Nonsense.

Most of the regular players in my area quit and went to Warmachine for these two reasons.

At least they are fixing the awful missions in the book with a new "Battle Missions" book.

-Frog

borithan
25-02-2010, 16:59
Overall, I LOVE the AP system, so much better than Strength modification.Well... I would like a return of ASM, but I agree linking it to strength was a bad idea. Better the 1st edition system where weapons had ASM but strength played no role. A power sword, a strength 5 weapon, had an ASM of -1... while in 2nd edition they upped this to -3 to make it more worthwhile, as S5 automatically got -2 in close combat. They would have to tone down some of the ASM though... like lasguns and autoguns would probably lose their -1.



Much cleaner and easier and, in my opinion, more realistic to use AP--either the incoming round gets through the armor without being bothered (in which case only physical toughness will keep the target alive) or it gets blunted and stopped (in which case physical toughhness will keep the soldier conscious). Works great in my opinion.To my mind the reduced armour of the ASM reflects the fact that more of the armour can be penetrated. A weapon with a greater ASM would penetrate a greater proportion of the armour and so reduce the overall effectiveness as far as the game is concerned. If you could keep track of the individual parts of the body which rounds impacted on (which would be daft), then a simple penetrate/not penetrate system is fine.

McLucien18
25-02-2010, 17:04
Change from kill points,
a redesigned cc chart to make WS10 etc. worth it,
Heavy weapons fire only negated if the specific model itself moves,
Swarms improved.

Tbh 5th ed i have been happy with though.

Pink Horror
25-02-2010, 17:06
Well... I would like a return of ASM, but I agree linking it to strength was a bad idea. Better the 1st edition system where weapons had ASM but strength played no role. A power sword, a strength 5 weapon, had an ASM of -1... while in 2nd edition they upped this to -3 to make it more worthwhile, as S5 automatically got -2 in close combat. They would have to tone down some of the ASM though... like lasguns and autoguns would probably lose their -1.

OH MY GOD! Someone typed "lose" correctly on the Internet! :D

Samus_aran115
25-02-2010, 17:13
Rapid fire weapons to be other than assault or heavy, rather than worse.

If moved - shoot once at range
If stationary - shoot twice at range

Best regards...

Ino Rite? I freekin hate those rules. They need to be different. Not a combination of the too. Why can't we assault after firing them? They are rapid for a reason...

Samus_aran115
25-02-2010, 17:25
#3 would be to somehow make vehicles more survivable. Again, it just seems jarring to see how easily so many vehicles in the game can get popped on a routine basis. Sadly I can't think of a way to do that without making mech armies even better. I can see stopping a Rhino or Chimera for the rest of the game, but seeing tons of them destroyed or even literally blown up every game makes the vehicle system feel really one-dimensional and cheap to me.


Yeah. That's what my entire post was about on page two. I'm fine with every except exploding vehicles. A 1in6 chance to completely destroy a vehicle is very unlikely by my standards. Aside from that, bikes counting all difficult terrain as dangerous is so stupid. It needs to be at the discretion of the players, not a solid rule. What if I have to move through rubble or a crater? How the heck is that dangerous terrain? Is the biker that stupid that he can't be more careful?? (maybe orks can't. LOL)

Darnok
25-02-2010, 17:57
a redesigned cc chart to make WS10 etc. worth it

How could I forget that one. :shifty:

A big +1 to this one. I absolutely hate the way WS is handled currently. I could live with six levels of difference, but at the moment it is usually just 4+/5+ (getting that possible 3+ is quite rare in my experience...). This should be changed in my opinion.

carl
25-02-2010, 18:26
I think several others have mentioned various ponts about how so many of these are related to sheer crazy wishlisting that is adressing specific concerns with specific codex's. However i do feel some nice idea's have surfaced, (besides my own obviously, i AM biased).

Before I bring up anything else i've seen that i liked io'd like to refute another posters claim:


If you cannot see a lascannon shot killing a pile of worms, how about a dreadnoughts foot? If i step on 10 worms with a 10 tonn mech, i am pretty sure they will all die.


Except a swarm isn't 10 worms. It's thousands of them covering a huge area. Each Swam base represents somthing like a hive full of bee's/wasps/ants/locusts/whatever else similar you can think of.

No high strength single hit, (like a OPF, DCCW, Lascannon/e.t.c.), covers a large enough area to relal mes up a single swarm, let alone multipules. Yes blasts should make a mess iof them,. but thats adequetly covered in their rules allready.

Onto the good stuff:

Crossfire rules. Whilst deciding what kind of negetive effect they have is going to be hard. The Epic system gives a sinmple setup for determening if a cross fire takes place, (draw a line from the shooter through the target, and if any freindly unit falls along that line and is not between the firer and the target a crossfire is considered to have occoured), thus it's just a matter of deciding on the penalty to apply.

Another selection of random idea's i liked:


Grenades can be used against monstrous creatures


a redesigned cc chart to make WS10 etc. worth it


Run: Reduce to d3 inches.

(Provishinol, i'd have to see how this plays out, but it would be nice, especially if Fleet upgraded it back to D6 and running no longer prevented assualt, regardkless of lack of fleet or not. Would help prevent normal guys keeping up with tanks allmost, while the ability to assualt after running D3 would probably produce a net increase in mobility, albit at a lower average speed).


Psychology. It doesn't really matter four out of five times. Yes, I am biased by playing Daemons and Orks, against Marines mostly, but nearly every army has lots of special rules or gimmicks to circumvent the whole topic. I don't want to jump into a 40K-WFB-comparison (please don't start it either...), but WFB has got a much more refined set of psychology rules, which actually matter.





One other rule i'd like to see is some kind of suppreshion fire effect, where you use your weapons to pin an enemy down, but don't directly damage them unless they decide to bull their way through the defensive fire on purpose.

here's a draft of the basic idea, (though probably a bit OP ATM):


Suppreshion Fire:

Suppreshion fire may be used by any unit providing the following conditions are met:

1. the unit is able to fire at least 6 non-one sot shots's at the target, (note: the acual barrage of fire used may concist entierly of 1 shot weapons shots, the unit mearly has to be capable of meeting the requierments even when these weapons are exauhsted).

2. The target unit must not be within 12" of the firing unit or any model from the firing unit.

3. The Firing unit must be otherwise eligible to shoot under the normal shooting rules, and all other conditions, (especially the minimum shots requierment in ciondition 1), meatable within these restrictions.

4. No other shooting, with the exception of forced mandetory shooting and shooting that has non-lethal effects, (e.g. other suppreshion fire or Tau Markerlights), may have taken place in this shooting phase.

5. The Target unit must not have any models with an AV value present.

6. The unit cannot be a lone Independent character that is not also a Monstorus Creature.


If the above conditions are met then the unit may use su[ppreshion fire on it's declared target.

The procedure is simpe. Choose which weapons you will fire and roll to hit as normal, (Blast Markers and the like never scatter, even if they would normally allways do so). Resolve any non-lethal hit's, (such as Tau Markerlights), as normal. All shooting able to cuase a wound however is handeled diffrently. Simply count up the total number of hits inflicted, (don't roll to wound or for saves). If the unit is NOT an MC, then this number is their suppreshion value. If the unit IS an MC then halve the number rounding up, and this is the MC's suppreshion value.

Suppreshion Value:

This is simply a meashure of how well suppressed the target is. So long as the enemy unit that is suppressed does not move, shoot, assualt, or use psychic powers, (except those that are allways active and require no test), in it's next turn, it will suffer no i'll effects.

In Addittion a unit that is suppressed gains a 3+ cover save that cannot be improved in any way, (though it may be re-rolled if an effect is present which allows this).

If however it does any of the above, as soon as the action is declared the unit suffers a number of automatic wounds equal to it's suppreshion value, (note it will only suffer this once even if it does multipule ofthe above). Cover saves may not be taken, but all other forms of save may be taken as normal.

Multipule units using suppreshion fire on the same target:

Somtimes you may wish to apply suppreshion fire to a target unit with more than one unit. this is fine, simply determine each units firing seperatly and add all the resultant suppreshion values together.


I know the above is a littile complex sounding at first, but in reality it's quite simple. It's effects are even simpler. It gives you one turn of breathing room at the cost of the shooting from one or more units. The rules also deter you from using suppreshion fire, and then shooting it up to make it fall back and suffer wounds. it also gives you a handy way of shutting down single troublesome units, (this would automaticlly curb the power of single models/unit, e.g. Lash and JotWW Psykers, Nob Bikers, Asualt Termies, e.t.c.), when you really need to, but unless you score a really low suppreshion value or your opponnent is willing to risk the losses for some big gamble, your giving up the chance to permanantly put the enemy out of the game.

The primary issue i see is people abusing it in various ways with units that have a lot of Low S high RoF weapons, or certian abusive unit combinations able to put a lot of suppreshion on somone quite cheaply.




Thank you. My point exactly! The low AP of large blast template weapons makes little sense to me, as even basic body armor can protect a soldier from the majority of fragmentation (assuming it hits him where he's wearing the body armor). The concussive effects of a blast would, presumably, be absorbed by a Space Marine's much better armor and super-tough physiology.



Some fluff sources seem to place the aproximate blast size of the templatre as being the radius at which the sheel put's out sufficent concussive force to shater the armour and whoever is inside it.

Remember a battlecannon shell from a normal LR is 200mm, or 8 inches. Thats a hefty shell, (around 220LB's for the WW2 american 8" howziter). True the curent 5" template is stil major overkill, (a 1000LB bomb from WW 2 would have about the same blst radius if we went with 1" = 6 feet in scale).

AndrewGPaul
25-02-2010, 18:27
How could I forget that one. :shifty:

A big +1 to this one. I absolutely hate the way WS is handled currently. I could live with six levels of difference, but at the moment it is usually just 4+/5+ (getting that possible 3+ is quite rare in my experience...). This should be changed in my opinion.

Huh? Getting a 3+ to hit should be easy.

Attacker's WS > Defenders WS => 3+ to hit
Attacker's WS < 2x Defender's WS => 5+ to hit

all else => 4+ to hit.

What army are you using, and who are you playing against? Marines should be getting 3+ to hit Guard, Tau and Eldar Guardians, at least

(but not Orks. When did Orks become WS4?)

Pink Horror
25-02-2010, 19:26
The primary issue i see is people abusing it in various ways with units that have a lot of Low S high RoF weapons, or certian abusive unit combinations able to put a lot of suppreshion on somone quite cheaply.

You think? You basically just invented a way to get around strength and toughness by delaying the result. And by fluff it makes no sense at all. What is the difference between choosing to suppress and choosing to kill, anyway? Shouldn't trying to kill result in the deadliest shots? I think the main difference is that suppression fire is more overt ("Hey you guys! I am shooting lots of bullets at you!") and kill shots are more about controlled bursts. It makes sense for plague marines to be hard to suppress. They are absurdly tough and completely fearless. But your system would turn them into sissies or paste.

A much simpler rule would be that any enemy unit that ends its move within 12" of a rapid fire gun gets shot once by it. No overwatch mode, no limiting factor (it is "rapid fire", right?). That would give rapid fire a boost. That gives them a good trade-off with assault weapons: assault weapons are good for offense, rapid fire is good for defense.

I'm also a fan of damaging the contents of a transport with any hit. The strength could naturally be the roll on the table. So, a 4 represents massive damage to the underside of the vehicle, which naturally injures a few passengers. Passengers should have to take pinning tests if anyone is wounded on the inside. Pinned passengers cannot disembark or shoot.

EmperorEternalXIX
25-02-2010, 20:14
^^^ Nice rant there. you do have some practice at them though...

How are you arguing VPs are less balanced than KPs?
If the VPs are unbalanced, then it's a fault of the codex, and the unit being overpriced. If your squad of say... Dark Angles seem worth a silly number of VPs when they get munched by ....30 slugga boys with PK nob, then that is a problem with the respective codexs, not the mechanism.
Surely the fact that if those 30 orks kill those 10 marines in one squad, they're worth 1 KP, but if the same squad has combat squadded, then they're worth 2KPs, shows a significant failing.
Victory points are as balanced as the points in codexs, kill points as they stand are not, and punish players for following the background in many places.


Most of your other points are valid. I assume you were talking about my late-night barely-focused run-off-at-the-mouth soapboxing from my last post, heh.

My belief is that if KP had been worded differently and justified better in the fluff, it wouldn't be so widely debated. The actual mechanics aside, if it was called "Battlefield Control Points" or some such, and the fluff of them read that you were scoring points based on denying your enemy control of the battlefield area based on active functional units remaining, it probably wouldn't seem so awkward. Remember, when you score a KP, it is not because of the unit you killed, it is because the enemy now has one less "thing" with which to try and influence in the battle.

While you make a valid point that the codex releases are the source of point discrepancies, and thus are the source of the VP imbalance that I talked about...I don't think anybody is going to be able to accept a future in which Marneus Calgar, Logan Grimnar, and Eldrad cost 100 points in order purely to make victory points make more sense.

I will always find victory points unbalanced, and I am glad they have KP in the game instead. The reasoning is simple: if they had VP, they would have to balance the points levels as you have said; there would be many awesome or fun or fluffy units that people wouldn't take because of the point costs. 40k would get very vanilla very fast; people would stop taking upgrades across the board, because it would be tactically stupid to do so.

The meta game of victory points is completely foolish, too. As it is, KP games see a lot of players hiding out their weak or easily-killed units to avoid giving away easy KPs. I like this, because it's somewhat realistic (for lack of a better word). In VP games, I often had my HQs cowering in the brush or hiding miles away from the enemy, while sending my cheapest losers to try and hopefully influence the game in my favor. Any mode where having powerful soldiers is a liability seems silly to me, especially when it used to make me and many others wish in the days of 4th ed that I didn't have to take an HQ at all.

Bottom line: KPs are the reason they can use points as just an internal unit-to-unit balancing tool. If you bring back VPs, the entire way they point things has to change and become, in many cases, unfair (otherwise there are a lot of things you'd never see again). They would have to fudge it more in the other direction -- making points values lower and lower, in order to make people use half the stuff in the codex.

precinctomega
25-02-2010, 20:20
My principle wish for 6th Ed is that they hold off on it until all of the codexes have been updated.

Although the BRB suffers from the usual GW lack of clarity/consistency/competent sub-editing issues I think the rules are as good as they've ever been and, short of a full reboot (which is very, very unlikely to happen), scarcely even need tweaking.

Of course, there are lots of rules that people don't like or don't agree with but, in most cases, that doesn't make those rules bad rules. Most problems of that nature can be sorted out with minor tweaking that doesn't really justify a new edition.

I think the main development for 6th Ed will be in the background. I have no firm justification for this except my limited knowledge of the people in question and of what's going on inside the Studio and related departments, these days. So here's PO's prediction for background in the 6th Ed rules:

There will be separate sourcebooks for four (possibly five) separate "historical" eras, giving rules, scenarios and force modifications for each era. These eras will be: The Horus Heresy, the Novaterran Interregnum, the Age of Apostasy & Plague of Unbelief, the Age of Ending and the Post-Imperial Age.

R.

Vaktathi
25-02-2010, 20:26
I will always find victory points unbalanced, and I am glad they have KP in the game instead. The reasoning is simple: if they had VP, they would have to balance the points levels as you have said; there would be many awesome or fun or fluffy units that people wouldn't take because of the point costs. 40k would get very vanilla very fast; people would stop taking upgrades across the board, because it would be tactically stupid to do so. This isn't true already? My experience, in 4th and 5th, has never been anything aside from this. People either will take very points efficient stuff or they'll take points inefficent units knowing what they are. KP's don't change this. Nobody has seen an increase in the use of Techpriests, Spawn, or the like after the introduction of KP's.

If GW did their job and did a decent balance adjustment, you wouldn't end up with horrific internal imbalance, and everything could be justified taking in some manner.

that's not the fault of VP's, that's the fault of bad codex design & balance.

It *should* hurt you if you lose your expensive powerful stuff, and your cheap stuff *shouldn't* matter if it dies. That's how real life works and how games my their usual nature play.

KP's are a hamfisted balance mechanic trying to accomplish what the FoC and points levels already do much better. It's far too gameable and far more imbalanced than the issues with VP's ever were.

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 20:30
The problem isn't the mechanic itself, but the fact that armies have ways to exploit it that make even less sense. If I kill five infantry squads of guardsmen, that's five kill points. If I kill one platoon made up of five squads clumped together like meatbags, that's one kill point. That's stupid.

Most units have what used to be upgrades included as standard, like frag grenades and whatnot. Besides, losing an HQ unit would give away a lot of VPs under the old rules too, it's just that now they can be targeted easier. It's not VPs that makes people careful, it's the ease of losing the unit itself. If I have a chance of peppering Marneus Calgar I'm not thinking "oh cool I'm gonna get an "easy" kill point", I'm more concerned about getting a powerful unit out of the game. The issue I have with it is not only the excessive artificiality, but how every interaction with the rule in the newer codices reinforces said artificiality. Splitting your Tactical Squad into combat squads means losing them is twice as bad on the Strategic level, for some reason. The Guard platoon thing above, as well as a squad of three tanks giving up a KP, but a squad of one tank also giving up only one KP.
The emphasis on having to wipe out the whole unit in order to get any closer to victory is also more annoying. A single grot can hold/contest an objective, and won't give up a kill point either. That's just stupid.

Absolutionis
25-02-2010, 21:20
My principle wish for 6th Ed is that they hold off on it until all of the codexes have been updated.No, not even that. Hold off and then give us a year or so.

The codex that comes out at the end of the cycle is going to be screwed.

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 21:26
No, not even that. Hold off and then give us a year or so.

The codex that comes out at the end of the cycle is going to be screwed.

That's why the whole thing needs to be rebooted. Everything is so bloated and messed up, I'm already sick of this edition and it's still "new".

CDR_Culln
25-02-2010, 21:37
What kind of person thinks that one turn of shooting is supposed to represent only one shot?

The fact that you roll a single die, or the effects last for a single turn. Why not have the option to buy a multi-smoke launcher or actual version of a weapon, vice just a combined one-shot.

senorcardgage
25-02-2010, 22:05
My belief is that if KP had been worded differently and justified better in the fluff, it wouldn't be so widely debated. The actual mechanics aside, if it was called "Battlefield Control Points" or some such, and the fluff of them read that you were scoring points based on denying your enemy control of the battlefield area based on active functional units remaining, it probably wouldn't seem so awkward. Remember, when you score a KP, it is not because of the unit you killed, it is because the enemy now has one less "thing" with which to try and influence in the battle.

That just doesn't make any sense. What can the enemy control the battlefield with better: two ramshackle tiny vehicles or a humongous and devastating tank? By your reasoning above it would be the ramshackle vehicles, but I find that extremely hard to believe.




While you make a valid point that the codex releases are the source of point discrepancies, and thus are the source of the VP imbalance that I talked about...I don't think anybody is going to be able to accept a future in which Marneus Calgar, Logan Grimnar, and Eldrad cost 100 points in order purely to make victory points make more sense.


Why in God's name would they have to cost 100 points for them to make sense? They are either very dangerous offensively, defensively, give bonuses to their comrades or a combination of these. Don't you think that gives them a greater ability to influence the battlefield? Believe me, I would way rather lose my librarian than my Marneus Calgar, and that should be reflected gamewise.



I will always find victory points unbalanced, and I am glad they have KP in the game instead. The reasoning is simple: if they had VP, they would have to balance the points levels as you have said; there would be many awesome or fun or fluffy units that people wouldn't take because of the point costs. 40k would get very vanilla very fast; people would stop taking upgrades across the board, because it would be tactically stupid to do so.


That might be the craziest thing I've read on here in a long time. People take upgrades because it makes their units better... Isn't that reason enough? I mean hell, as far as I can tell you're suggesting nobody would ever take terminators, etc because they're just a waste of points. Oh, and not to mention everyone would play guard because they would just want the cheapest units possible... right? :rolleyes:



The meta game of victory points is completely foolish, too. As it is, KP games see a lot of players hiding out their weak or easily-killed units to avoid giving away easy KPs. I like this, because it's somewhat realistic (for lack of a better word). In VP games, I often had my HQs cowering in the brush or hiding miles away from the enemy, while sending my cheapest losers to try and hopefully influence the game in my favor. Any mode where having powerful soldiers is a liability seems silly to me, especially when it used to make me and many others wish in the days of 4th ed that I didn't have to take an HQ at all.


The point you seem to be missing here is that units are costed based on their effectiveness on the battlefield. If you're taking ridiculously expensive HQ's that are hiding I think you need to ask yourself "Why am I taking these guys in the first place?" And the reason why you wouldn't just send out your cheapest losers is because they don't kill things. It's not like you're going for KPs and your opponent is going for VPs or anything.



Bottom line: KPs are the reason they can use points as just an internal unit-to-unit balancing tool. If you bring back VPs, the entire way they point things has to change and become, in many cases, unfair (otherwise there are a lot of things you'd never see again). They would have to fudge it more in the other direction -- making points values lower and lower, in order to make people use half the stuff in the codex.

Can you come up some examples of what you would "never see anymore?" As far as I can tell, you're essentially suggesting that we should do away with points altogether and just have limits as to how many units you can use. Don't forget that VPs were used for a long time before KPs were ever invented and I don't remember witnessing any of the catastrophic events you prophesize. When the switch to 5th was made, were there any units that people didn't use anymore because of kill points? I very highly doubt it. If anything its the exact opposite, with people not taking cheap stuff because its such a liability.

Vepr
25-02-2010, 22:13
I am amazed at how many people want to buff vehicles and mech in general. Do they really need a buff at this point? :eyebrows: It is pretty much go mech or go home as it is. I am not saying I think we need to nerf vehicles or mech but in no way do I think they need more survivability, speed, and firepower etc. :wtf:

Malorian
25-02-2010, 22:22
Blah blah, kill points are great, blah blah...

You are crazy... plain and simple...

How can anything be a better comparision of units and their worth than victory points.

Sure you can have times where it is slightly off but it's never as bad as:

1 kill point = 10 scouts = 10 marines = 10 terminators

or

1 kill point = 1 ork buggie = 1 rhino = 1 pred = 1 landraider


Kill points ruined 40k and is what led (at least in part) to people taking big super units and tank armies.


There is talk that kill points might be moving into the next edition of fantasy, and even though there are also rumors of it being a bit more complicated to be more fair, you can't get away from the fact that it is just trying to reinvent a system for one that already exists and works better.

You can bet that unless it's a LOT better than the kill point system in 40k that I will lose interest just as I did with 40k.

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 22:37
Basically, if anybody is saying that Kill Points are good because they help balance mech armies then that is an indication that:
1.) Getting rid of entanglement
2.) Making vehicles harder to kill
3.) Making transports half-price
was a bad idea. Individually they may be fine, but all together they are terrible. Then they tack on the worst, most artificial victory mechanic imaginable, and mech is still good?

Vaktathi
25-02-2010, 22:38
I am amazed at how many people want to buff vehicles and mech in general. Do they really need a buff at this point? :eyebrows: It is pretty much go mech or go home as it is. I am not saying I think we need to nerf vehicles or mech but in no way do I think they need more survivability, speed, and firepower etc. :wtf:

There's a couple issues with vehicles that are odd, that apply more to Guntanks than anything else. The game is very forgiving of transports, and while I think most of the ideas in this thread on them have been off the crazy deepend trying to nerf them, I'd like to see a harsher explosion result in terms of casualties at least.

When it comes to MBT's and gun tanks however, these have reverted to their 3E pillbox status. We're now seeing these vehicles having to get "patched" as it were with rules like Lumbering Behemoth and Power of the Machine spirit to get around the very poor defensive weapon rules that don't function very well. I expect we may see something similar for the Falcon. The Tau have somewhat of a mitigation already.

The assault rules are also a bit awkward. There's no accounting for WS, and some things just practically auto-kill vehicles once they get into them, and with rear AV10 as practically universal, there's no difference between trying to kill a Trukk in an assault, or trying to kill a Leman Russ. Likewise the always hit on rear armor thing is awkward. As I pointed out earlier, a nob riding up on a bike with a powerklaw isn't taking the time and care to seek out the weak points that teh AV10 is supposed to represent, hence why I proposed either full attacks against armor facing or 1 attack (just as with Grenades) against rear armor and having to choose.


1.) Getting rid of entanglement
2.) Making vehicles harder to kill
3.) Making transports half-price These things *killed* mech in 4E for armies that weren't skimmerspam lists. The transport costs were bloated, they really were. 90pts for a chimera was never solid (the problem there was that they then gave them a 5man fire point making them probably too good of a bunker, after cutting their price to a more reasonable level). Entanglement & auto-disembark made transports worthless death traps. Vehicles were simply too easy to kill in 4E, all around just far too easy.

hellspawn1
25-02-2010, 22:56
I am amazed at how many people want to buff vehicles and mech in general. Do they really need a buff at this point? :eyebrows: It is pretty much go mech or go home as it is. I am not saying I think we need to nerf vehicles or mech but in no way do I think they need more survivability, speed, and firepower etc. :wtf:


not only mech-armies has transports, or vehicles in general...
all armies, mechy or not, would get vehicular benefits (except maybe nids)

Amnar
25-02-2010, 22:57
Total reboot, that's actually balanced. Unit activation, real USRs that are universal, and a defined set of terms ( ie turn). All army books done properly at the same time.

And a decent set of FAQs and erratas fixing the worst idiocies of 5th ed to tide gamers and sales over until it is done...

Never going to happen, it just makes way too much sense... we can't have that...

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 23:08
These things *killed* mech in 4E for armies that weren't skimmerspam lists. The transport costs were bloated, they really were. 90pts for a chimera was never solid (the problem there was that they then gave them a 5man fire point making them probably too good of a bunker, after cutting their price to a more reasonable level). Entanglement & auto-disembark made transports worthless death traps. Vehicles were simply too easy to kill in 4E, all around just far too easy.
That's fine, but now like others have said, it's go mech or go home and KPs is the closest thing to balancing it even slightly. That is an indication of how out-of-wack the entire system is, that such a ridiculous, counter-intuitive mechanic is needed to keep mech from being auto-win.

Vaktathi
25-02-2010, 23:13
That's assuming KP's have anything to do with mech, it's a rather large leap that many people have just assumed (somewhat recently I might add, that theory wasn't even floated for a long while until after 5E came out) with absolutely no reinforcement or indication from GW.

People have talked about MSU's, mech, horde versus elite, etc. The simplest explanation is still simply less complex victory tabulation.

Badger[Fr]
25-02-2010, 23:14
I wish "Stunned" results would matter more. Penetrating hits should automatically stun a vehicle. Extra armour would suddenly become worth its points, and transports would no longer be a no-brainer (being rather easy to stop unless you buy a costly upgrade).

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 23:16
That's true, but I'm just rebutting what is often the only actual defense of KPs. The other problem is that nothing has any reinforcement from GW, they have no communication at all, and are frequently accused of ignoring their playtesters.

Vaktathi
25-02-2010, 23:18
;4431679']I wish "Stunned" results would matter more. Penetrating hits should automatically stun a vehicle. Extra armour would suddenly become worth its points, and transports would no longer be a no-brainer (being rather easy to stop unless you buy a costly upgrade).

Well, on a penetrate, you're killing it or stunning it 50% of the time anyway, and either stunning, killing or immobilizing 66% of the time. I still doubt you'd see EA in many more armies, perhaps more in SM armies, but certainly not IG.

Do we really need something else to kill off the use of gun-tanks?


People seem extremely focused on transports as an issue, without regard to the actual battletanks and shooty vehicles.


That's true, but I'm just rebutting what is often the only actual defense of KPs. The other problem is that nothing has any reinforcement from GW, they have no communication at all, and are frequently accused of ignoring their playtesters. Ah ok, got it :D

KingNova3000
25-02-2010, 23:24
1. Run: Reduce to d3 inches.

2. Increase the size of the table. What's it now? 4x8? How about 5 or even 6x8?



So you want larger playing areas but less movement for infantry? Mmm sounds like you play a gunline army.

carl
25-02-2010, 23:26
You think? You basically just invented a way to get around strength and toughness by delaying the result. And by fluff it makes no sense at all. What is the difference between choosing to suppress and choosing to kill, anyway? Shouldn't trying to kill result in the deadliest shots? I think the main difference is that suppression fire is more overt ("Hey you guys! I am shooting lots of bullets at you!") and kill shots are more about controlled bursts. It makes sense for plague marines to be hard to suppress. They are absurdly tough and completely fearless. But your system would turn them into sissies or paste.

A much simpler rule would be that any enemy unit that ends its move within 12" of a rapid fire gun gets shot once by it. No overwatch mode, no limiting factor (it is "rapid fire", right?). That would give rapid fire a boost. That gives them a good trade-off with assault weapons: assault weapons are good for offense, rapid fire is good for defense.

I'm also a fan of damaging the contents of a transport with any hit. The strength could naturally be the roll on the table. So, a 4 represents massive damage to the underside of the vehicle, which naturally injures a few passengers. Passengers should have to take pinning tests if anyone is wounded on the inside. Pinned passengers cannot disembark or shoot.

To clarify as you seem to have missed a couple of important points:

1. If you read the rules carefuilly for describing how units get cover saves in the BRB they explicitly refer to the models having to aim round the intervening. Normal fire represents carefully aimed bursts.

This suppressive fire represents littrial spray and pray tactics. It's a lot less accurrate than aimed fire, but the sheer increase in bullet density means actions that would have a low risk under aimed fire conditions, (moving from cover to cover, popping up to fire a quick burst, e.t.c.), are much more likliy to get you hit, siomply because the sher amount of bulets flying around and the random nature means there's littile you can do besides minimising exposhure time to get through it alive and unhurt.

Ukltimetly how tough you are and how brave you are has only a limited influance on your ability towalk through a hail of bullets.

Thats part of the reson it ignores the to wound roll. If you stick your head up to shoot or try to move very far your going to spend so long exposed and take so many hits that your actually taking more damage than you would under aimed fire conditions. If you like each "hit" in the suppreshion fire to-hit rolls actually represents several hits under normal fire conditions. So in many cases it can actually save you a lot of pain, since your not making massive numbers of to wound rolls. You still also get your saves, (remeber these wounds do not have an AP value specifed). This can actually make it an advantage for some units at times if facing units with lots of low AP weaponry.

2. The second point is that you can take multipule hits from several diffrent weapons. Keeping track of that over a full turn for more than 1 unit would be very hard.

3. The final point is that if it dosen't seriously threaten you and in some way ffer a componsation for normally NOT kiling anything, it would be an unused rule as it would offer an insigificant advantage over actually killing them. it has to be somthing that threatens to end them as a unit if they try and bull through it without it requiring as much firepower to pull off as is required to kill them.

4. I think you've misunderstood somthing. As long as they don't Move, Shoot, use Psykic powers, or luanch an assualt of their own they will not suffer any wounds and the suppreshion effect dissapates at the start of the suppresing players turn. As such unless you absolutly must bukll your way tyhrough the firepower, simply don't do anything with the affected unit next turn and your enemy has managed to stop you using one unit for one turn but has done no damage with one of his units.

5. Horde armies just don't have enough shooting to make tough elite armies lose most of their units to suppreshion, said elites have too good a savve. On the same note an elite army lacks enough units to affect all the units in a horde army. Thus long term trying mass suppreshion is a really bad idea. But using it for it's intended purpose of keeping a key enemy unit out of the fight for a turn is very useful.

6. As i noted many units have good saves. Pluage Marines, termies, Necrons and several other unit only begin to really hurt from suppreshion fire at values of >20. Thats a suprisingly hard value to hit. Even 2 quad ML Dev squads can only just hit it. Guided War Wal;ker with twin scatter lasers on all 3 are a littile below it, and even the umbiguious LR Crusader can only get half way there. Even Tau with Markerlights would need at least a couple of FW squads that haven't moved this turn being Marked in at BS5 to pull it off. Any army that wants to suppress your lovely super tough elites is going to have to dedicate more than one unit to it. In fact I think only in Apocolypse could one unit pull it off, (namely the various Super Heavies).

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 23:29
People seem extremely focused on transports as an issue, without regard to the actual battletanks and shooty vehicles.

People are focused on it because that's what's seeing use. The fact that nobody uses them except for Guard speaks volumes. The current Main/Defensive weapon rules basically relegated every tank back to a 3Ed pillbox except for Leman russes. That's ridiculous. Predators are a garbage waste of points, unless you want a Dakka-Pred for fighting orks or something, theyre far too crappy. Land Raiders are garbage as well, except as Terminator delivery systems, so clearly the Redeemer and the Crusader are better options; the phobos has no purpose, especially in Chaos.

neko
25-02-2010, 23:32
KP will only start to make the slightest bit of sense when the number of KP gainable from a unit a proportional to the unit's sttategic value.
Even if you say that a KP is the reward for denying the enemy a theoretical Control Point, a more powerful unit should be worth more of these Control Points. Hell, if you subscribe to the Control Points theory, I also want my surviving units to be worth these Control Points to me at the end of the battle.

Lord of Worms
25-02-2010, 23:37
I just see them as being evidence of a hasty, last minute patch-job. I think if they even explained their reasoning either in a WD article or the book itself, not as an advertisement or in corporate speak, but a down to earth explanation: ..."Because mech was too powerful", "small units were too effective in playtest" or something, it would make it much more palatable.

EmperorEternalXIX
25-02-2010, 23:58
KP will only start to make the slightest bit of sense when the number of KP gainable from a unit a proportional to the unit's sttategic value.
Even if you say that a KP is the reward for denying the enemy a theoretical Control Point, a more powerful unit should be worth more of these Control Points. Hell, if you subscribe to the Control Points theory, I also want my surviving units to be worth these Control Points to me at the end of the battle. Why? Whether you pay 700 points for a unit, or 17 points, it can still only do one of the actions any other unit can: move, shoot, assault.

Every KP is denying the enemy one of these possible actions.

I don't care if you have 7000 points left; if it's all in one nob biker unit, it can still only affect (directly, anyway) one enemy unit with its given actions. It might move onto an objective to claim it (or otherwise, to contest it); it might shoot a unit; it might assault a unit (or split between a couple in certain isolated circumstances). It may even sweeping advance a unit off the table or cause some other kind of morale check.

What people fail to realize is that, on a literal level, the same stuff could possibly be accomplished by a Tau drone squad that could be accomplished by an Assault Terminator squad. All the stats and gear do is make the outcomes more likely to be favorable.

In this way I consider KP somewhat brilliant; the worth of the units lost is reflective of their worth to the General himself (i.e., I lose a kill point, I know have one less "action" with which to try and disrupt the enemy and win), instead of the equipment and abilities they carry.

Should it be more costly to lose some things than others? Sure, I suppose, in the meta game relative to the fluff, yes, it's pretty bad when a dozen suits of precious Terminator armor are destroyed. But the fluff is fluff, and on the tabletop, I am going to put those same models down next game; there should not be additional penalties for taking powerful expensive units than the already-existing penalties of high points and low numbers.

The only thing I am wishlisting into 6th edition, is that Victory Points ("Kill the guy with the expensive gun first!") do not find their way back into mainstream play.

A lot of people replied to my last post by saying they quit the game over KP. You quit the game over a scenario that you can agree not to play and that only comes up 1/3 of the time? And I'm the one being called crazy...

Either way, I'm sticking to my KP argument until someone tells me something a 5 man THSS Terminator squad can do, that a 5 man guard squad can't do.

Sunfang
26-02-2010, 00:02
Plastic wraithgaurd

Lord of Worms
26-02-2010, 00:25
In this way I consider KP somewhat brilliant; the worth of the units lost is reflective of their worth to the General himself (i.e., I lose a kill point, I know have one less "action" with which to try and disrupt the enemy and win), instead of the equipment and abilities they carry.
...
Either way, I'm sticking to my KP argument until someone tells me something a 5 man THSS Terminator squad can do, that a 5 man guard squad can't do.

Kill and Victory points are supposed to demonstrate the ramifications of the battle in the overall campaign. It is an attempt to apply Strategic Level thinking to a Tactical Level game. Having one less unit, meaning one less action is enough of a penalty *in-game* without needing to emphasize it in the post-game resolution. In other words, my five man unit of guardsmen is gone, that means I can't blow up this tank. That sucks, but if it sucks enough then that will lose me the game anyway by not blowing up the tank, rather than tacking on another point to the enemy's score.

Losing five terminators is supposed to be a big deal on the strategic level. You lose centuries of military experience and near-irreplaceable equipment. Losing five guardsmen should be expected and shouldn't matter in the least. Applying the KP mechanic to modern warfare, that would be like saying that losing five men in vietnam is just as much of a blow to the war effort as losing a squadron of fighter-bombers, which is just plain ridiculous.

Joewrightgm
26-02-2010, 00:38
I would like to see vehicle explosions get scarier for infantry; an almost universal piece of advice for all infantry is don't stand too close to tanks: they go up big and are big targets.

neko
26-02-2010, 02:43
If you think KPs are fair because all your concerned about is possible number of actions, then surely we should select our armies by choosing an equal number of KPs instead of an equal number of points. After all, it's the potential number of actions that matters, not how likely each action is to succeed.

shaso_iceborn
26-02-2010, 02:49
Plastic wraithgaurd

Already in the works. Definitive time of release however.........

vladsimpaler
26-02-2010, 02:50
So you want larger playing areas but less movement for infantry? Mmm sounds like you play a gunline army.

Or maybe you could not jump to conclusions. I play a Khorne Legionnaire army. Which specializes in close combat and close range firefights.

Game over. Try again?

neko
26-02-2010, 02:58
Another thing that I'd like introduced is a rule to represent that a unit of 20 should not run away from a unit of 2 if they kill 1 model and the enemy kills 2. Ideally, the unit of 2 should be the ones having to test, but at very least the unit of 20 should be making any tests with extreme bonuses...

Grimbad
26-02-2010, 03:17
Bike shock and Cavalry trampling. It would make WS3, T3 rough riders more appealing. Also, faster cavalry movement.
Tank shock & ramming from drop pods (no Death or Glory allowed from infantry, but if the ram fails to destroy the target the pod is destroyed along with its contents).
S5 defensive weapons.
A separate psychic stat from Ld. If GW feels the need to make almost all psykers have a 10, at least make it so that Guard psykers are more cowardly. Also would allow more interaction with non-psyker units, ie pass psi tests to resist damage rather than I tests.

azimaith
26-02-2010, 03:24
The death of true line of sight in all its forms. The addition of sizes to all models.

The removal of kill points.

The removal of outflanking.

The rebirth of terrain heavy boards.

Impact hits from charging based on unit type, size, and strength.

Attack and defend missions as standard.

Save modifiers or Two number save system (Protection Value and coverage value. IE a IG could be 5+/4+ where the actual save he takes is 5+ but he gets an armor save up to pen 4.

No retreat wounds being based on outnumbering again.

Movement values.

But that's just me.

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 04:15
Why? Whether you pay 700 points for a unit, or 17 points, it can still only do one of the actions any other unit can: move, shoot, assault. Sure, but there must be some account of how *well* it can do these things, not simply that it can do them.



Every KP is denying the enemy one of these possible actions. But takes no account as to the relative value or power of each of these actions.



I don't care if you have 7000 points left; if it's all in one nob biker unit, it can still only affect (directly, anyway) one enemy unit with its given actions. The last time I played nob bikers the unit hit 3 chimeras in one turn. They can cause a lot of damage with each action, and be extremely decisive about it.



What people fail to realize is that, on a literal level, the same stuff could possibly be accomplished by a Tau drone squad that could be accomplished by an Assault Terminator squad. All the stats and gear do is make the outcomes more likely to be favorable. Exactly, and that's what the game should take account of. 2 gun drones aren't going to kill a land raider or defeat a Daemon Prince. A unit of 10 terminators with a mark of khorne upgraded to Khornate champions with lightning claws & chainfists should be worth a damn sight more to achieving victory than equating to the destruction of the gun drones.



In this way I consider KP somewhat brilliant; the worth of the units lost is reflective of their worth to the General himself (i.e., I lose a kill point, I know have one less "action" with which to try and disrupt the enemy and win), instead of the equipment and abilities they carry. And yet somehow the relative effectiveness of each unit at these actions means nothing?





there should not be additional penalties for taking powerful expensive units than the already-existing penalties of high points and low numbers. Yes, there should. That is how victory and progress are measured. Destroying things of little value or effectiveness mean nothing. Tearing the heart out of the enemy by destroying the core of their force and their offensive capability means something, and should count a lot more towards victory.



A lot of people replied to my last post by saying they quit the game over KP. You quit the game over a scenario that you can agree not to play and that only comes up 1/3 of the time? And I'm the one being called crazy... Unless you're at an event and that happens to come into play. You could not attend the event, but that's also just as dumb.



Either way, I'm sticking to my KP argument until someone tells me something a 5 man THSS Terminator squad can do, that a 5 man guard squad can't do.Really? Are you serious? Really?

You know, like present a much greater threat to a larger variety of opposing units with a near infinitely higher chance of success an fifty times the survivability? Aside from shoot lasguns, I'd have to turn the question around and ask what all can the guardsmen do that the termi's can't do better to a much larger array of enemies with a far greater chance of success in fewer turns and nigh infinitely higher odds of survival that demands they be accounted for as highly as the terminators?

That shouldn't count for anything towards victory? I think you'll find game design theory and military thinking decidedly at odds with this in every way.

If you've just lost a tenth of your force in that one unit and I've only lost 1/80th, by every imagineable measure I can think of, the terminators should count for much more. Looking at it from any business, game design, military, economic sense, the destruction of those terminators should be worth more to an opponent than the 5 guardsmen.


A shack in the middle of montana will work for shelter. So will a $200 million mansion in beverly hills. Both can do the same things, why aren't they valued the same? Same principle between this and the guardsmen/terminators. Several orders of magnitude difference in terms of value.

ColonalKlink
26-02-2010, 04:24
for me the new rulebook would be

True Los: keep it, refine it, no more killing things you cant see

Kill points: Refine it or lose it, somthing like 1 KP for every 100 points destroyed

Outflanking: keep it, refine it, somthing like fast attack units only (if equiped with JP,jumpP, FR12 or less tanks, or fleet) i.e fast units that could actually outflank

NO save modifiers: i played 40k from 2nd ed onwards, i do not want this back it slowed down the game too much, and with codex creep being what it is, some armies would have ASM and older ones wouldn't.

Tanks(all kinds): refine the damage chart a little, 3rd we all bitched that tanks were too soft and slow, 4th ed we all complained tanks were too fast/shooty and transports were deathtraps, now we have a middle ground(gun tanks still too slow, but transports are not traps) the chart just needs a tweek

WS!!!!: to actually matter, now i dont like to make sweeping chaged to an already fine set of rules, BUT,
WS does not really matter at the mo, so make it simple, higher WS means 5+ to hit, lower needs 3+ to hit, same means 4+... see simple

Leadership: too much needs to be done with this, even a small change to make it have more of an affect would mean all the codex's would need rewriting, and we all know GW will not make old codex's unworkable with the new rules

i have more but im gonna wait to see what you all think of this lot first, feedback :)

sabreu
26-02-2010, 04:35
On the Kill points issue, there is a simple fix! Make it so only troop choices count. there you go, mitigates all damage.

azimaith
26-02-2010, 04:46
How does that change a the issue when a IG army can have twelve troop choices while another army maxes at six and are designed to work that way. Killpoints are ridiculous, they could just as easily be replaced by VPs again and function just fine.

sabreu
26-02-2010, 04:49
Er, I meant that only troop choices could only claim kill points. Ya know, like you would need your troops to kill things. Since troops aren't the major killers in the battles anyway, it would even up.

...at any rate, this thread is about just throwing out random ideas until they get shot down for being dumb or getting refined to greatness. =P

vladsimpaler
26-02-2010, 04:53
NO save modifiers: i played 40k from 2nd ed onwards, i do not want this back it slowed down the game too much, and with codex creep being what it is, some armies would have ASM and older ones wouldn't.

It takes like 1 second to figure it out. It's not that hard.

Plus the rulebook could include all of the Save Mods for all of the weapons. It's that easy.

azimaith
26-02-2010, 04:59
While complexity for complexities sake is not a good reason for something, I do think save modifiers are hardly difficult enough to seriously slow the game down. Its basic subtraction.

ColonalKlink
26-02-2010, 05:04
yes the rulebook Could contain all the ASM, but it wont, and even if it does when the codexs come out there will be inconsistencies(sp?), also ALL the codexs are pointed for a unit getting its AS, paying 200 points for a terminator unit that only gets a 3+/4+ etc. save until the new codex come out (which is a looong ass time for GW) would anger alot of people and whineseer would get alot worse.. i can see it now

Teh armor modifier system is teh gay why did they get rid of the AP system, im ditching this crappy game for teh warmachine they are betterer than GW... blah blah blah

azimaith
26-02-2010, 06:17
The problem with armor save modifiers is not that they exist, its the level at which they took effect. Instead of the reasonable response of refining it down they just threw it all in a garbage can and burned it.

If GW had tried to invent the airplane the way they make rules they'd make a biplane out of Muenster cheese before they thought about taking an existing design and changing the wing angle by 3 degrees.

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 06:20
I can see where they wanted armor saves to be meaningful, especially for SM's, when heavy bolters left Space Marines saving on 6's, but I agree with Azimaith that they could have just toned down the ASM's in general instead of doing away with the system entirely.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-02-2010, 06:55
Well, I'm personally not completely against ASM - I play Fantasy, too, and ASM don't bother me there - but when I switched from 2nd edition to 4th, I was positively surprised and quite glad to see that powered armour actually meant something. Not against stuff like futuristic microwave cannon or an MBT's main gun but against a whole plethora of small arms. Of course in Fantasy I can get a 1+ save for the expensive models while the State Troops are cheap.

Redscare
26-02-2010, 08:04
The state of 40k's system makes it very hard to drastically change existing rules. This discussion reminds me too much of the French Revolution and its government to be perfectly honest. Let me explain.

-There is a group of well-meaning radicals who call for change but do not know where that change will lead.

-There is a group of conservatives who wish to keep the old regime and do nothing to appease the people.

-A working system is present, but it has too many holes and flaws to be fixed in one sitting.

-The system is far too wide spread to collectively change at the same pace.

-Change too drastic in existing foundations will not end well, or in the least, come easily.

-It's never going to work for everyone.

Basically I'm saying that since certain rules (like the AP system, modifiers, cover saves, armor saves, etc) are too deeply ingrained to be changed easily. Now I find 40k to be an enjoyable game, but sometimes I just hate how its rules work. GW could constantly try to fix it, but in my honest opinion, it's like a case of patching up a sinking ship which should have been scuttled a long time ago. I for one would much rather prefer GW have its period of "revolution" to scrap the whole thing and start over, and make real changes instead of compromises.

Why do I feel this way? Look at 5th edition's most prominent "change".

True LOS. A noble idea, taking the game down to new levels. To make this change work however, 4+ cover save across the board is implemented, because otherwise it would be too much of a boon to shooty armies. Now imagine if they followed some of this thread's advice and implemented a -1 save across the board. Or imagine if they added a (very realistic) penalty to provide modifiers for shooting which benefits all units in cover, and not just units with a specific armor save. It'll be a disaster in the making.

ColonalKlink
26-02-2010, 08:46
yep i agree redscare, 40k does have its problems, alot are core to the game, however i do think only minor changes are needed for now so they can plan ahead for 7th ed.

borithan
26-02-2010, 09:16
The fact that you roll a single die, or the effects last for a single turn.Yeah, but a single turn is not just 1 seconds worth of action. 1 shot represents at least a burst of shots, probably more (or does a Heavy Bolter fire 3 rounds?). I believe someone once said that "Rapid Fire" range represents extremely heavy fire, possibly hundreds of shots being fired by each side.



Why not have the option to buy a multi-smoke launcher or actual version of a weapon, vice just a combined one-shot.Almost certainly game balance and game play. Being able to give your transports a cover save every turn (or at least long enough so that it doesn't matter anymore, ie until they have delivered their cargo) would be a rather powerful ability.


2. Increase the size of the table. What's it now? 4x8? How about 5 or even 6x8?Its 4x6 (recommended), as it has been for a long time. I find it hard enough to get that size of table (Kitchen table is 3x4, and I don't really have anywhere else I could play at home, so I have to rely on playing elsewhere except with small games). It would invalidate many existing tables at wargames clubs (ok, if they tend to play historicals bigger tables are the norm, but the ones I have been to which largely play GW games have 4x6 as the norm).


IE a IG could be 5+/4+ where the actual save he takes is 5+ but he gets an armor save up to pen 4.I know it is just an example, but it seems to be a GW rule that Imperial Guard should never get a save from boltguns, and so boltguns would become AP 4. I would rather they reduced it back to 6+ and reduced the bolter to AP 6 (as its ASM in 2nd ed suggests it should be. Most other weapons that are AP 5 used to have a -2 ASM). Would also help make Eldar guardians make slightly more sense.

But the idea of the two stats seems fine.


Aside from shoot lasguns, I'd have to turn the question around and ask what all can the guardsmen do that the termi's can't do betterHis challange was to find something that the Imperial Guard squad can't do, not what one can do better than the other. Yes the Terminators can do things better, but that is accounted for in their stats and their equipment, but there are few things that the Imperial Guardsman can't do, or at least attempt to.


the terminators should count for much more.Maybe, but is there a way to do it which will not encourage the "kill the guys with the best guns" thinking that VP are quite likely to do? One of the reasons they moved away from VP (largely towards objectives, but also KP) was to avoid thinking like "get back its worth in points", targeting certain units purely because they are worth more victory points, rather than any battlefield concern.


A shack in the middle of montana will work for shelter. So will a $200 million mansion in beverly hills. Both can do the same things, why aren't they valued the same?To the people who each lose one or the other they amount to the same: They have lost their home. Yes, one has greater monetary value (VP in this analogy) but in practical terms the loss is identical to the people that have them (KP). They can probably afford the loss equally, as it amounts to the loss of their home.

The analogy doesn't work that well, but I hope my point gets across.

Yes, there is a problem. Certain armies with lots of small cheap units, which seem like they should be disposable, suffer badly from this rule. However, the move while altering codices seems to be moving towards taking this into account, ie allowing Guard to merge infantry squads and the like. Then KP makes more sense, as the loss of that one large unit will represent a significant unit being lost, and the benefit gained by not suffering so much to KP is balanced by loosing the flexibility of lots of smaller units.



and with codex creep being what it is, some armies would have ASM and older ones wouldn't.List of weapons in rulebook with "These take precedence over codices which list AP values." Or a system for translating AP into ASM. Maybe "AP 5 gives an ASM of -1").


I meant that only troop choices could only claim kill points.Well... those armies which have rather subpar troops choices would be unfairly punished, and you would have rather odd circumstances where you are hoping certain units don't wipe the enemy out... elite assault units would be avoided like the plague (as supporting troops choices would not be able to shoot into the Close Combat to claim Kill Points) and there would certain complicated issues to work out (in multiple combats, where some of the winning units are troops and some aren't do the destroyed enemy count for kill points?).

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 09:33
His challange was to find something that the Imperial Guard squad can't do, not what one can do better than the other. Yes the Terminators can do things better, but that is accounted for in their stats and their equipment, but there are few things that the Imperial Guardsman can't do, or at least attempt to. Hurt wraithlords? ID T3/4 characters, ignore armor saves, penetrate tanks & walkers, Deep Strike, walk through small arms fire, etc?


Maybe, but is there a way to do it which will not encourage the "kill the guys with the best guns" thinking that VP are quite likely to do? What's wrong with that? That's exactly how one normally plays a game of strategy, operates in a competitive environment, and conducts warfare.


One of the reasons they moved away from VP (largely towards objectives, but also KP) was to avoid thinking like "get back its worth in points", targeting certain units purely because they are worth more victory points, rather than any battlefield concern.There's nothing wrong with it *being* a battlefield concern. The only problem comes when it overrides the other mission objectives like it did in 4E objective misssions which was nicely solved by removing the enemy force from victory consideration and presenting objective battles as all or nothing affairs where the state of your forces or the foes was irrelevant if the objective was accomplished.

For battles of annihilation however, shouldn't that be exactly how they play out? You target and destroy the enemies most valuable and potentially destructive assets to achieve victory. With KP's, you often end up simply going after the relatively worthless/sacrificial units as though they were gold because they are worth just a much as the enemies most important assets, and typically far easier to destroy. I find it hard to claim victory with a straight face if I've lost both my terminator squads and a unit of Oblits by killing a devil fish, a couple pairs of Gun Drones and a unit of Kroot.


To the people who each lose one or the other they amount to the same: They have lost their home. Yes, one has greater monetary value (VP in this analogy) but in practical terms the loss is identical to the people that have them (KP). They can probably afford the loss equally, as it amounts to the loss of their home. One can have many, many shacks in montana for the same resources as the Mansion. One can be rebuilt in hours, the other will take years. In the game, both parties are coming to the table with equal resources (points). How that is distributed is done by the allocation of those points to various units. Some armies are designed around just having a billion shacks, whereas others around the Mansion. Designing a victory condition that favors one over the other when the game is already balanced around resources like points & FoC slots (determining how big and how many of something one can have) is detrimental to the system as a whole and counterproductive.



Yes, there is a problem. Certain armies with lots of small cheap units, which seem like they should be disposable, suffer badly from this rule. However, the move while altering codices seems to be moving towards taking this into account, ie allowing Guard to merge infantry squads and the like. Then KP makes more sense, as the loss of that one large unit will represent a significant unit being lost, and the benefit gained by not suffering so much to KP is balanced by loosing the flexibility of lots of smaller units.It's silly that a merged platoon should count toward an enemies victory 2/3/4/5 times less than a non-merged one. The points are all there, the capabilities are different even if somewhat equal (less flexibility, more tarpit/anvil ability & survivability as a whole). Destroying that merged platoon should count a whole lot more than destroying a single squad.

I'd honestly challenge anyone to find any significant change in army construction that are a direct result of KP's and not codex changes and other rules changes. The much maligned Las/Plas squads died out with codex changes, characters no longer operate on their own as they can now be sniped from across the board with a lascannon, people still don't take Land Speeders in squadrons if they've got FoC slots open, etc.


I'm still not seeing what KP's are actually *bringing* to enhance the game, only concerns about the VP system, notwithstanding that VP's are designed around the core balance mechanic of the game.

borithan
26-02-2010, 10:21
Hurt wraithlords, ID T3/4 characters, ignore armor saves, penetrate tanks & walkers, Deep Strike, walk through small arms fire, etc? Hurt Wraithlords (in close combat) I accept. Guardsmen with krak grenades can hurt tanks and walkers (may not be the best investment of 10 points, but it gives them that ability), and they can already do both with their heavy weapons. The rest are "doing the same job better". Terminators are more survivable and they are more likely to kill whatever they run into, but a Guardsman can still do all the aforementioned tasks, aside from Deep Striking, which is just another way of making the unit more maneuverable, which can be done for guard by giving them transports.



What's wrong with that? That's exactly how one normally plays a game of strategy, operates in a competitive environment, and conducts warfare.You deal with whatever is the greatest threat, not what happens to cost the most. Sometimes, and even often, this may amount to the same thing, but not all the time. VP skews your priorities. So do KP. just in a different way. Objective based bames are probably best, as you should be targeting what is the greatest threat to you achieving your objective (or has the greatest chance of denying you enemy's), which is as it should be, but I don't see any particular reason why VP are necessarily better than KP (at least after codices have been written to take this into account, which they increasingly are). It also stops people viewing units as disposable, which is a good thing. You may be forced/want to sacrifice a unit, but you face some consequence for it, rather than just simply going "Ah, its just a squad of guardsmen. Its barely going to give my opponent any VPs".



For battles of annihilation however, shouldn't that be exactly how they play out? You target and destroy the enemies most valuable and potentially destructive assets to achieve victory. With KP's, you often end up simply going after the relatively worthless/sacrificial units as though they were gold because they are worth just a much as the enemies most important assets, and typically far easier to destroy.As I said, stops people from regarding certain units as sacrificial. Ok, while 40k does have ideas of sacrificial units, "realistically" no unit is sacrificed unless there is no other choice, and KP encourages people to think about this. But yes, you're right, it does encourage perverted targeting in some cases. Its not perfect, but I am not convinced a return to VP is really the answer.



One can have many, many shacks in montana for the same resources as the Mansion. One can be rebuilt in hours, the other will take years.Yeah, but if you own a horde of shacks in Montana it doesn't amount to the loss of the same thing. If you compare a person who has a shack in Montana as their home to a person who has a mansion as their home, both amount to the loss of the same thing. To a Space Marine commander a squad of guardsmen is next to worthless... To a company commander in an Imperial Guard unit it represents a much less worthless unit.



It's silly that a merged platoon should count toward an enemies victory 2/3/4/5 times less than a non-merged one. The points are all there, the capabilities are different even if somewhat equal (less flexibility, more tarpit/anvil ability & survivability as a whole). Destroying that merged platoon should count a whole lot more than destroying a single squad.It is purely a gameplay thing, but it does make some sense to me:
A KP game represents a game where the aim is to do as much damage to the enemy, yes? This quite probably reflects an attrition strategy. Attrition relies on you inflicting as much damage on your enemy while trying to suffer as little as possible yourself. Now having units based purely on VP leads to thinking of some small units as being sacrificial, as the loss of those units will only rarely amount to enough to bother you when the rest of the battle is being considered. However, KP makes every unit count. Yes, a large unit maybe should represent more towards a victory if it is lost, but then it already represents a relatively significant loss in ability, unlike a smaller unit of the same figures, and the system in game terms makes you think more about your own losses more than VP might.

Basically KP stops you thinking in terms of sacrificial units. In objective games you are presumably playing a battle where losses don't matter as much, the objective being more important. When you are purely trying to damage the enemy as much as possible you are trying to do it with as little loss as possible, so the idea of sacrificial units should be discouraged.

azimaith
26-02-2010, 10:49
Guardsmen can't ever take armor saves from AP3 or 4 weapons while terminators can. Obviously most IG can't even take saves vs AP5 outside of the few that can get a hold of carapace armor. They also can't carry storm bolters, storm shields, or thunder hammers for that matter.

I forgot why were going over this...

jt.glass
26-02-2010, 13:07
First, please for the love of Terra, no rolling back to 4e. TLoS works fine, IMO, and kill points could use some tweaking but are still better than what came before. :angel:

Anyway, my wishes for 6e:


Generally balance the game better and be more consistant with terminology. I agree with those who have said that a better balanced game helps tournament play (and competitive play generally), and those who don't care about it...well, they don't care about it!

S=2T => 2W (and so on), as somone suggested above.

Fleet actually giving a mobility advantage to everyone, not just those who are good in assault. Not sure what exactly.

Kill points being tweaked so that FoC slot matters, rather than being 1-1 unit (although definitely not based directly on points cost!)

Make Rapid Fire weapons not suck so much, or eliminate them entirely.

6 missions on the standard chart (maybe 6 deployment types too).

Something like Stratagems/Strategic Assets in the core rules.

A fully-updated Apocalypse supplment somewhere close to lauch.

Coming out a good few years away, with all the "missing" codices having come out and had time to be played with before it lands!


If I am being a bit more radical, I would eliminate the movement phase (since models move in every phase now it seems a bit pointless), and add an orders phase at the end. Everyone would get orders similar to what the guard gets at the moment (although guard would still get more/better due to the importance of chain of command). These would be limited extras for a few units on top of what each unit gets to do in the other phases.


jt.

AndrewGPaul
26-02-2010, 13:51
Why not make VPs (or KPs or whatever you want to call them) a stat of the unit? The army list entry could have something like "Space Marine Tactrical Squad. Sergeant and 4 Marines. 5VP. You may add up to 5 additional Marines for 10 points per model. If the unit totals 10 models, add 3 to its VP score". Warmachine does that, and it works reasonably well.

borithan
26-02-2010, 14:11
Guardsmen can't ever take armor saves from AP3 or 4 weapons while terminators can. Obviously most IG can't even take saves vs AP5 outside of the few that can get a hold of carapace armor. They also can't carry storm bolters, storm shields, or thunder hammers for that matter.Its not every detail different between them. What can't they do as in function on the battlefield. Not minor details about what weapons/armour can they take. That just makes them better at doing the same things, not actually them doing something new.

Jagged
26-02-2010, 14:33
Why not make VPs (or KPs or whatever you want to call them) a stat of the unit? The army list entry could have something like "Space Marine Tactrical Squad. Sergeant and 4 Marines. 5VP. You may add up to 5 additional Marines for 10 points per model. If the unit totals 10 models, add 3 to its VP score". Warmachine does that, and it works reasonably well.

Makes sense to me.

If I take a unit of grotz in my army their purpose is to die in front of my boyz or run into mine fields. I shouldn't lose a game point if they do just that.

Bunnahabhain
26-02-2010, 16:27
Plenty of real life precedent for disposable troops. Look at any of the communist dictatorships. Did the Russian and Chinese governments in WW2, Korea and Vietnam, have the slightest qualms about throwing units of men forward to virtually certain death, and occupy the enemy, to allow time for other units to achieve an objective? Iran- Iraq war, both sides used conscripts to clear minefields by walking over them...

It's only modern western values that say there is no such thing as disposable men. The Imperium will certainly view conscripts as disposable, let alone Orks and Nids...

The enemy simply should not receive much, if any credit for killing them.

Darnok
26-02-2010, 17:29
Huh? Getting a 3+ to hit should be easy.

Attacker's WS > Defenders WS => 3+ to hit
Attacker's WS < 2x Defender's WS => 5+ to hit

all else => 4+ to hit.

What army are you using, and who are you playing against? Marines should be getting 3+ to hit Guard, Tau and Eldar Guardians, at least

(but not Orks. When did Orks become WS4?)

I knew I should have had a look at my rulebook again - it is of course the other way around. :o

So lots of chances to roll on 3+ and 4+, but rarely 5+. I now had a look at the table, and out of 100 possible results, only ten are on 5+. So you have a statline ranging from 1 to 10 (with the odd 0 sometimes), and when comparing them for a roll ranging from "certain" (aka 1+) to "never" (7+) with 2+ to 6+ inbetween... they chose to make you roll either 3+ or 4+ 90% of the time. This is just wrong.

AndrewGPaul
26-02-2010, 19:19
It's not "wrong"; it's precisely what they wanted.Warhammer Fantasy Battle used to have a to-hit chart where equal weapon skills hit on a 5+. Come 4th edition, they changed it to speed up combats. Presumably, 40K keeps the same chart because GW wants it to. You may not like it, but that's different from being wrong. :)

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 19:44
Hurt Wraithlords (in close combat) I accept. Guardsmen with krak grenades can hurt tanks and walkers (may not be the best investment of 10 points, but it gives them that ability), and they can already do both with their heavy weapons. The rest are "doing the same job better". Terminators are more survivable and they are more likely to kill whatever they run into, but a Guardsman can still do all the aforementioned tasks, aside from Deep Striking, which is just another way of making the unit more maneuverable, which can be done for guard by giving them transports. Sorta true to an extent, but again the relative effectiveness of each unit must be taken into account. Also, if we're comparing "5 guardsmen" (half a squad) with no equipment (which is what I'm assuming if we're only talking about half a unit) compared with a TH/SS termi unit, much of this goes out the window.

If you're not taking the relative effectiveness and value of each of these units into account, and simply measuring them by how many actions they can take, that measure is flawed. these two units should in no way be equated identically.



You deal with whatever is the greatest threat, not what happens to cost the most. Sometimes, and even often, this may amount to the same thing, but not all the time. In a battle of annihilation, If the enemy values it, you want it destroyed. Both are, and should be, perfectly valid decisions in such a battle. That said, if an opponent is chasing the most expensive thing at the cost of a greater threat that happens to not be the same unit, they may lose a greater proportion of their own force as a result.

KP's have this same problem, but the prioritize the easiest to kill things as opposed to the most expensive, and it is magnified to a *much* greater degree. At least with VP's it prioritizes something of great value to an opponent.



VP skews your priorities. So do KP. just in a different way. VP's value the destruction of expensive & important enemy units. KP's put a greater emphasis on units that are easily killed (and often not significant casualties), and the resulting skew with KP's is far greater than with VP's.

A good example is drop pods. The destruction of these really brings no value to an enemy commander and their loss means nothing to an SM commander, yet they count just as much towards victory as destroying a Land Raider, and as a result their weaker nature makes them a more valuable target and greater priority for an enemy force, when it shouldn't in any way be so.


but I don't see any particular reason why VP are necessarily better than KP (at least after codices have been written to take this into account, which they increasingly are). Again, the relative value of enemy forces is not taken into account. One army can lose 20% of its force and lose while the other is nearly tabled and win...in a battle of annihilation. That is a bunk mechanic.


It also stops people viewing units as disposable, which is a good thing. You may be forced/want to sacrifice a unit, but you face some consequence for it, rather than just simply going "Ah, its just a squad of guardsmen. Its barely going to give my opponent any VPs". Why? That's exactly the core idea around what such armies are designed around and how they play. Some units & armies are just flat out designed to have a high degree of disposability. That's part of the whole game balance thing because they have relatively little capability and an opponent can destroy many of them before taking significant losses.

That's the whole "hordes vs elite" balance theory right there.



As I said, stops people from regarding certain units as sacrificial. Ok, while 40k does have ideas of sacrificial units, "realistically" no unit is sacrificed unless there is no other choice I'm just not seeing why this should be so? Tyranids could care less if those rippers just got flamed, their carnifex probably crushed twice as many on its way to the battlefield. Imperial Guard conscripts are deliberatly walked over minefields to clear them for tanks. This universe is full of examples of this.


and KP encourages people to think about this. But yes, you're right, it does encourage perverted targeting in some cases. Its not perfect, but I am not convinced a return to VP is really the answer. It may not be, but the skew & bias with VP is far less acute.



Yeah, but if you own a horde of shacks in Montana it doesn't amount to the loss of the same thing. If you compare a person who has a shack in Montana as their home to a person who has a mansion as their home, both amount to the loss of the same thing. Yes, assuming they only have 1. However in a game of 40k, we have supposedly balanced forces built around a Points mechanic. As a result, between the two examples, losing a shack would have much less impact.


To a Space Marine commander a squad of guardsmen is next to worthless... To a company commander in an Imperial Guard unit it represents a much less worthless unit. Agreed, but that still doesn't mean its seen as a significant loss to a company commander, just a larger one than to the Space Marines.




It is purely a gameplay thing, but it does make some sense to me:
A KP game represents a game where the aim is to do as much damage to the enemy, yes? This quite probably reflects an attrition strategy. Attrition relies on you inflicting as much damage on your enemy while trying to suffer as little as possible yourself. However the way this is accounted for makes little sense, and in actuality makes the armies that should win battles of attrition easiest have the hardest time. Losses should not be counted in simple elements of maneuver but in the strength and size of the enemy force. This is best measured by VP's, not by KP's. KP's simply measure distinct maneuver elements (units), which has nothing to do with the size and strength of an enemy force.

If I'm playing my 2k IG with 24KP's against my CSM's with 14, and I lose say, 4 chimeras, 3 infantry squads, a 2 platoon commands, a leman Russ and a Vendetta, I've lost 11 KP's, about 40% of my force, but still have the core of my offensive firepower left and maneuver capability as I still have 2 LRBT's, 2 vendettas, a CCS, 4 infantry squads and 5 chimeras left.

If my CSM's lose their Daemon Prince, 2 Oblit squads, 3 units of CSM's, a terminator unit, and 4 rhino's, I've lost ~70% of my force and all offensive capability, and only still have a couple oblits, a terminator squad and one CSM squad left in who knows what condition.

By any reasonable measure, that CSM army should not in any way be the victor. They have been beaten and their effectiveness as a fighting force is gone. The IG army remains relatively intact despite the casualties and is a far more capable and powerful fighting force still.

However, with KP's, all of a sudden, despite being, for all intents and purposes, utterly crushed, the CSM's win, while the IG lose despite lose a far smaller relative portion of their force and still being in fighting shape? By any reasonable standard, those CSM's have lost that war of attrition. Battles of attrition are not won by destroying the largest number of discrete maneuver elements, they are won by destroying the greatest proportion (which is what VP's measure) & fighting strength of an enemy force.


Now having units based purely on VP leads to thinking of some small units as being sacrificial, as the loss of those units will only rarely amount to enough to bother you when the rest of the battle is being considered. Yes, that's how an attrition based army works though relative to a more elite force. You sacrifice relatively meaningless assets to wear down and destroy important enemy assets that can't take the same losses.


However, KP makes every unit count. Yes, a large unit maybe should represent more towards a victory if it is lost, but then it already represents a relatively significant loss in ability, unlike a smaller unit of the same figures, and the system in game terms makes you think more about your own losses more than VP might. The problem is it makes those minor losses hugely more important than they should be, and in effect make the armies that should be great at battles of attrition the ones that have the hardest time with them.



Basically KP stops you thinking in terms of sacrificial units. Yes, but the problem is we have armies and units designed specifically around this concept, and so there's not one much can do about it.


When you are purely trying to damage the enemy as much as possible you are trying to do it with as little loss as possible, so the idea of sacrificial units should be discouraged.Only for armies not designed around this. I agree that for Space Marines, suicide disposal units simply don't compute, but for Orks? What do they care of Gretchin? If 60 gretchin die so a Tac Squad is killed, the orks could, and should, more than satisfied with that.

EmperorEternalXIX
26-02-2010, 21:37
Why? That's exactly the core idea around what such armies are designed around and how they play. Some units & armies are just flat out designed to have a high degree of disposability. That's part of the whole game balance thing because they have relatively little capability and an opponent can destroy many of them before taking significant losses.

That's the whole "hordes vs elite" balance theory right there. I would be inclined to agree, except you talk about the balance of horde versus elite like it's mutually distinctive.

KP is more tactical than VP ever was, and a lot more immersive. I'm sure I'll get crapped on for saying so, but it's true, and I postulate that a majority of warseers don't really get how to adapt their play in a KP scenario to really get the full benefit out of it.

For starters, in KP you will have desperation plays as the game goes on to push your KP up. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but in my gaming group, almost no KP game has ever been a landslide victory. In fact most of them have been close desperate affairs, and my group represents most of the races in the game pretty well (especially your precious and "helpless" Imperial Guard, the "poor victims" of the KP mechanic).

[Aside: In fact at my club, there has, since the new codex, only been a single loss for the Imperial Guard in a kill points mission -- it was inflicted by myself, as the standard Space Marines, and afterward when we calculated our total kill points (because the guy argued jokingly that he lost because the guard are handicapped against kill points), that we had the same number of kill points total (20ish, if you were wondering about the number, I don't remember exactly).]

In Victory Points missions, you are going to be doing stupid things that make no sense. Ignoring units that landing in your midst via drop pod because the Land Raider across the table is worth more; using all your AT on the enemy's HQ to try and get a lucky insta-kill hit allocated on him; I used to run a 5-man scout squad that probably wouldn't even get shot at in Victory Points missions because it was only 100 points.

While this makes sense in some ways, the idea of ignoring targets in favor of others is very non-immersive. You might argue the same is true for KPs, of course, but if your goal is to annihilate the enemy utterly, why would you ignore any of his army? Okay, the drop pod, sure. But it is still armed, still firing at your men (albeit ineffectively). It makes more sense for your troops to become concerned with other units; in KP, everything is worth 1 point, which ultimately means that you can choose to fire your lascannon at a drop pod or a Land Raider, and get 1 point if you manage to kill it. In VP, you would never even consider shooting the drop pod -- who cares? I much enjoy the tactical acumen that comes into play as people plan their KP acquisitions; it also adds a nice layer of strategy for me as the opponent, because I can withhold easier KPs or drop my pods far away, forcing the enemy to chase them, run circles around them with speeders or bikes, etc.

All of that might be technically possible in a VP game, but there is a lot less urgency and a lot less thought behind the actions. Why? Well, it's like Eddie Murphy says: HALF.

Read page 300. The first stupid thing is that it includes all wargear and upgrades in the cost. The rules state that when a model is "killed" he's not really always dead, he might just be injured or have to leave the battlefield, etc. If this is the case, then why is his armor and weaponry giving points away? We didn't "lose" that Terminator Armour, just the guy inside it -- which in general is only as hard to make as a Space Marine anyway. Of course that's a fluff argument and barely relevant, but still.

My main fault with VPs is the half thing. You get credit for killing 5 guys, and it's worth more to you than killing a predator? Then of course there is the whole "Well those guys are below half, I'll ignore them now" thing that used to always happen in 4th. Models that have lost half of more of their wounds also count for a decent chunk of points (more so than any transport in the game...putting three wounds on a trygon prime is worth the same points as killing three separate Rhinos? Putting 2 wounds on Logan Grimnar gives you 130+ VPs...almost the same as killing 4 Rhinos, or 1 Vindicator.

The point I am making here is that VPs accumulate in wildly different numbers from a variety of ways, most of which are meta-game reasoning (i.e., not what your men would do, but rather, what you as a player would do to exploit the points and win...you might say KP does the same, but at least KP encourages your men to behave how they would on the battlefield, i.e "It's an enemy, take it out!" instead of "Well that doesn't look very expensive, and it's only got one gun...let it run around and pelt us, we can get more points elsewhere."

Perhaps the worst part of VPs is the vehicles. Did you know a vehicle with any damage on it whatsoever gives half points? Yes, an undamaged Land Raider that got a single Weapon Destroyed result will give you 125 VPs. Which again, is vaguely equivalent to such wildly different things as putting two wounds on Logan Grimnar, killing several light vehicles, or my personal favorite...killing 25ish Imperial Guardsmen. The most stupid part of this is that if you blow ALL the weapons off a vehicle, it doesn't count more AT ALL. I understand it's for simplicity's sake, but the overall point I'm making here is that VPs are not more logical than KP in any way shape or form. I will reiterate that, for those players out there clinging to that argument: VPs ARE NOT MORE LOGICAL THAN KP IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. So the next time you argue that "A Land Raider isn't the same as a Rhino" I will be sure to counter with "And three Rhinos aren't the same as one optional multimelta that gets destroyed either...what's your point?"

I lost many more VP games in 4th ed because of an expensive model or two, than the Guard have lost KP games in 5th ed, I assure you. This outcry of VP worth would bone just about everyone playing and the game would have awkward stupid outcomes all the time -- just like it did before.

I'm going to rest my case on the issue because I think I've made my point.

carl
26-02-2010, 22:21
I'm going to rest my case on the issue because I think I've made my point.

Which dosen';t make it any less WRONG, or utterly STUPID.

No one's claiming VP's made any more sense. Where claiming they where less idiotic in how they punished anyone who toook or had to take multipule small low value units.

It's also no less silly and makes no more sense that taking one unit instead of 2, (assuming both costs the same points and each is exactly half as effective on the feild). Despite the fact that both are valid ways of doing things.

ALso if your opponnent claimed half VP's for a Vehichial that had suffer a weapon destroyed result they where cheating.

Only immobolising it counted.

To be fair all the old issues with the VP system could be fixed if units only gave VP's if they where completly destroyed. It would still encourage a few more "eggs all in one basket" units, but it would be nowhere near as punishing to units and armies that must come in multipule small squads.

Frankly i'm convinced you play Nidzillia, Seer Council Eldar, or some other similar army where KP's give you a huge advantage, and thus don't want to see it change so you can go on pwning.

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 22:41
KP is more tactical than VP ever was, and a lot more immersive. I think you're the only one I've ever heard, either online or in the store, claim this.


I'm sure I'll get crapped on for saying so, but it's true, and I postulate that a majority of warseers don't really get how to adapt their play in a KP scenario to really get the full benefit out of it. Kill the weeny units, hold off the scary things. Hide with the rest. Done.



For starters, in KP you will have desperation plays as the game goes on to push your KP up. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but in my gaming group, almost no KP game has ever been a landslide victory. Well, considering there's no margin of victory, there's only "win" or "lose" with KP's, it's hard to judge this.


In fact most of them have been close desperate affairs, and my group represents most of the races in the game pretty well (especially your precious and "helpless" Imperial Guard, the "poor victims" of the KP mechanic). I just use IG because it's the easiest to illustrate. I've seen ridiculous game outcomes between almost identical armies as well simply because one lost their weeny stuff (like drop pods). If I kill off 4 drops pods but lose a tac squad, a vindicator and a terminator unit doing it, why on earth am I the victor? By all rights the person who lost the drop pods should win.

I could use another army if your prefer for examples since you seem to have some issue with Imperial Guard. Tau perhaps? It doesn't make a difference either way.




In Victory Points missions, you are going to be doing stupid things that make no sense. Um, more so than KP missions? The KP missions promotes this to a*FAR* greater extent. Don't kill the Land Raider, it's too hard to kill, shoot the drop pod instead!


Ignoring units that landing in your midst via drop pod because the Land Raider across the table is worth more If you're doing that in a VP game you're being stupid. Plain and simple. Sorry, doesn't happen. You kill the immediate threats first. If the LR is right there just about to disgorge stuff or you've got an Ironclad right there that just dropped in, then you'll go after the LR. Not a great analogy.

You'll be much more likely to see people try long ball shots at empty drop pods and immobilzed trucks across the board than trying to deal with the LR on top of them in a KP game.



using all your AT on the enemy's HQ to try and get a lucky insta-kill hit allocated on him Again, if you're doing this, you're being dumb, and are likely going to get stomped in a VP game unless there just isn't anything else to shoot at with those guns.


I used to run a 5-man scout squad that probably wouldn't even get shot at in Victory Points missions because it was only 100 points. If it's not a threat, then its not worth shooting at. If it's an easy target with nothing else threatening nearby, it'll die quickly. Sounds like the VP system reinforcing good tactical decision making.




While this makes sense in some ways, the idea of ignoring targets in favor of others is very non-immersive. Except that this is exactly what should and does happen in any conflict and good game design around capturing or denying the enemy valuable assets.


You might argue the same is true for KPs, of course, but if your goal is to annihilate the enemy utterly, why would you ignore any of his army? Ideally you wouldn't. In all realism however, you go after the biggest threats and what your opponent has sunk most of their eggs into to defeat them. Not smacking weeny units around that are expected to die and then claiming victory.



Okay, the drop pod, sure. But it is still armed, still firing at your men (albeit ineffectively). It makes more sense for your troops to become concerned with other units; in KP, everything is worth 1 point, which ultimately means that you can choose to fire your lascannon at a drop pod or a Land Raider, and get 1 point if you manage to kill it. The drop pod however is a non-threat with no capabilities and does nothing, while being an order of magnitude easier to destroy than the LR.

The drop pod should not be valued on anything near the same level as the Land Raider.


In VP, you would never even consider shooting the drop pod -- who cares? That's the point, you shouldn't. In a realistic combat situation and from any solid game design sense, that drop pod should not contribute to victory in any possible way near as much as killing that Land Raider.


I much enjoy the tactical acumen that comes into play as people plan their KP acquisitions; Put all your eggs in one basket, kill the easy to kill stuff, and claim victory? That's honestly what successful KP strategy boils down to, and its terrible game design, resulting in bunk game outcomes, and very unfun games.


it also adds a nice layer of strategy for me as the opponent, because I can withhold easier KPs or drop my pods far away, forcing the enemy to chase them, run circles around them with speeders or bikes, etc. in a sense perhaps, but then your playing to the KP's rather than the spirit of the mission or what KP's are really intended to portray. Again, poor game design if that is what ends up happening because the victory objective doesn't capture what's supposed to be happening or is totally out of synch with the way armies are supposed to be balanced between each other.




All of that might be technically possible in a VP game, but there is a lot less urgency and a lot less thought behind the actions. Why? Well, it's like Eddie Murphy says: HALF. That's a problem with implementation, which can be fixed in a multitude of ways. Nobody is saying the current VP system is absolutely perfect, but it's a damn sight better than KP's, which factor nothing into the outcome of the value of a unit or of *any* damage inflicted on it. VP's do this and are a much more accurate and fair measure of victory as a result, and both players start from the same place as opposed to KP's where there can be widly varying numbers.




My main fault with VPs is the half thing. You get credit for killing 5 guys, and it's worth more to you than killing a predator? Depends on the 5 guys. If the 5 guys are valued more than the predator and you've just destroyed the combat viability of a powerful and expensive infantry unit in doing so, then yeah, it's should be worth more.

Either way, it's an implementation issue, not an issue with the core of the mechanic like on KP's.


Then of course there is the whole "Well those guys are below half, I'll ignore them now" thing that used to always happen in 4th. Again, this can also honestly be a realistic and viable tactical decision. If an enemy unit is reduced to such a state as to where their combat effectiveness is negligible, then continuing to prioritize their destruction over more pressing threats makes no sense. Pretty much your standard tactical conclusion for such an affair and boils right down to class economic cost-benefit decision making.


Models that have lost half of more of their wounds also count for a decent chunk of points (more so than any transport in the game...putting three wounds on a trygon prime is worth the same points as killing three separate Rhinos? Putting 2 wounds on Logan Grimnar gives you 130+ VPs...almost the same as killing 4 Rhinos, or 1 Vindicator. With characters it's odd because they don't lose any combat effectiveness until they are entirely dead, but again, half killing Logan Grimnar, who may cost 10-20% of an enemies army, should count for quite a bit. You've substantially harmed that asset, and should receive something comensurate to its cost for it.



The point I am making here is that VPs accumulate in wildly different numbers from a variety of ways, most of which are meta-game reasoning (i.e., not what your men would do, but rather, what you as a player would do to exploit the points and win...you might say KP does the same, but at least KP encourages your men to behave how they would on the battlefield, i.e "It's an enemy, take it out!" instead of "Well that doesn't look very expensive, and it's only got one gun...let it run around and pelt us, we can get more points elsewhere." Again however, those are implementation issues that arise as a result of the awkward way things work in the game, and they still aren't as bad as the underlying core issue of KP's just inherently having no meaning and as a result being imbalanced by their very nature.




Perhaps the worst part of VPs is the vehicles. Did you know a vehicle with any damage on it whatsoever gives half points? Yes, an undamaged Land Raider that got a single Weapon Destroyed result will give you 125 VPs. Once again, an implementation issue. GW chose to go a simple route for determining VP gain with regards to damage reduction.

That said, it's also not that bad. Getting a weapon destroyed result on a Hammerhead, Leman Russ or Fire Prism means you've just destroyed the offensive firepower of that vehicle, and thus much of its purpose and value to an opponent, and should be gain VP comensurate to that. It's an issue with transports more than anything where the loss of a storm bolter gives half a rhino's VP away. Akward? Sure, but fixable if people wish to go into more detail with the system, and a minor issue at best.


Which again, is vaguely equivalent to such wildly different things as putting two wounds on Logan Grimnar, killing several light vehicles, or my personal favorite...killing 25ish Imperial Guardsmen. Armies are based around points. Points reflect (or, *should*) the powers and abilities that a unit brings to your army. Inflicting harm or destruction on a unit should be rewarded with something reflective of that value. Hence, Logan's death, with regards to his high points costs & abilities, should be worth several light vehicles or dozens of guardsmen.

Nothing wrong here.


The most stupid part of this is that if you blow ALL the weapons off a vehicle, it doesn't count more AT ALL. I understand it's for simplicity's sake, but the overall point I'm making here is that VPs are not more logical than KP in any way shape or form. Once again, implementation issues, but overall when looking at it they are still more balanced and fair than KP's


I will reiterate that, for those players out there clinging to that argument: VPs ARE NOT MORE LOGICAL THAN KP IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. VP's are centered around the core balance concept of the game (points) and promote intelligent cost-benefit decision making. Something KP's do not do. As a result, they are in fact much more logical and balanced than KP's


So the next time you argue that "A Land Raider isn't the same as a Rhino" I will be sure to counter with "And three Rhinos aren't the same as one optional multimelta that gets destroyed either...what's your point?" So, you're countering an argument that attacks the underlying nature of a system that questions its existence with an argument about simple implementation? Not a very good response. Implementation can be changed and adjusted. It doesn't prove anything wrong with the underlying concept.


That said, managing to defeat the armor on an AV14 vehicle do destroy a powerful vehicle killing weapon that can still be shot even if the vehicle would not normally be able to shoot and be shot at a different target than the other vehicles weapons isn't exactly worth nothing either ;)




I lost many more VP games in 4th ed because of an expensive model or two, than the Guard have lost KP games in 5th ed, I assure you. Really? My experience says otherwise. But either way its subjective. The fact is, losing expensive models *should* hurt. Losing a game because the victory mechanic simply only counts units instead of value or proportion of an enemy force should not occur.


This outcry of VP worth would bone just about everyone playing and the game would have awkward stupid outcomes all the time -- just like it did before. Aside from the character and vehicle things, which are relatively minor issues lets be honest, VP's will result in far less stupid outcomes than KP's will.

Are you honestly going to say that the winner in KP games will have successfully beaten an opponents force more consistently than in VP games? I don't think one can. It's entirely possible to win with a broken and nearly tabled army in KP games against a mostly intact enemy force. I honestly can't find a situation under VP where this would be the case.






ALso if your opponnent claimed half VP's for a Vehichial that had suffer a weapon destroyed result they where cheating.

Only immobolising it counted. Actually they did change this in the 5E book to any "damaged" result.

carl
26-02-2010, 22:48
Actually they did change this in the 5E book to any "damaged" result.

Well yeah fair enough, but it's not often you'll have to use it.

On the other hand the best comparision to his issues is 4th ed VP rules, which i checked before posting that. I also assummed from his comments he WAS talking about 4th ed rules...

borithan
26-02-2010, 22:49
Sorta true to an extent, but again the relative effectiveness of each unit must be taken into account. Also, if we're comparing "5 guardsmen" (half a squad) with no equipment (which is what I'm assuming if we're only talking about half a unit) compared with a TH/SS termi unit, much of this goes out the window.Eh? Why have they got no equipment? Why are they half a unit?



A good example is drop pods. The destruction of these really brings no value to an enemy commanderWell and end to an irritating thing firing storm bolters or missiles close to your army... but yes, not a great gain. Still something a commander would want destroyed if it was in their midst (while VPS would often encourage you to ignore it totally), but not the greatest threat.



and their loss means nothing to an SM commander,Why? A valuable piece of equipment lost. Just because they are throw away items in the game doesn't mean they are meant to be.



Again, the relative value of enemy forces is not taken into account. One army can lose 20% of its force and lose while the other is nearly tabled and win...in a battle of annihilation. That is a bunk mechanic.Not sure how often that actually would happen. It would have to be two rather mismatched armies (one with loads of small weak units, and another with a small number of more expensive units that were otherwise not that successful in the game) for that to happen. And as said, most of the newer codices are taking KP into account in their design.



That's the whole "hordes vs elite" balance theory right there.Not really... it just encourages hordes to have a roughly similar number of much larger units, rather than many smaller units.



Agreed, but that still doesn't mean its seen as a significant loss to a company commander, just a larger one than to the Space Marines.



If I'm playing my 2k IG with 24KP's against my CSM's with 14, and I lose say, 4 chimeras, 3 infantry squads, a 2 platoon commands, a leman Russ and a Vendetta, I've lost 11 KP's, about 40% of my force, but still have the core of my offensive firepower left and maneuver capability as I still have 2 LRBT's, 2 vendettas, a CCS, 4 infantry squads and 5 chimeras left.Looks to me that your infantry company has had much of its heart ripped out of it. It has been reduced to an oversized platoon (and loss many of its officers and most experienced men), it is just that much of its support remained relatively unscathed. Probably has to be withdrawn from the line or merged with other understrength units. You also could have reduced the number of Kill points it was worth (though I guess there is the problem that they wouldn't be able to ride their chimeras during the game).



If my CSM's lose their Daemon Prince, 2 Oblit squads, 3 units of CSM's, a terminator unit, and 4 rhino's, I've lost ~70% of my force and all offensive capability, and only still have a couple oblits, a terminator squad and one CSM squad left in who knows what condition.OK, yes in this case you have a seriously ragged Chaos Space Marine army, and it happens to have ended up a draw rather than a victory. However, take advantage of the rule designed to reduce the Guard's issue with KP and you go from an army of 24 KP to one of 19 (and reduce the kill point loss by 2 or 3) opposed by an army of 14 KP. Not a massive change, and it result does still seem a bit odd, but there are ways to alleviate it.



By any reasonable measure, that CSM army should not in any way be the victor.Well... they aren't. Its a draw that is converted into a victory for the Guard by use of the very rule that is meant to partially deal with KPs.



However, with KP's, all of a sudden, despite being, for all intents and purposes, utterly crushed, the CSM's win,How? Its 11 KPs each.

Vaktathi
26-02-2010, 23:09
Eh? Why have they got no equipment? Why are they half a unit? Because that's what EE brought up in his original analogy. :p



Well and end to an irritating thing firing storm bolters or missiles close to your army... but yes, not a great gain. Still something a commander would want destroyed if it was in their midst (while VPS would often encourage you to ignore it totally), but not the greatest threat. Agreed, but in terms of contributing to victory they should count for very, very little. Under VP's they do, but KP's value them the same as anything else.



Why? A valuable piece of equipment lost. Just because they are throw away items in the game doesn't mean they are meant to be. If an SM commander loses them, it's regrettable, but ultimately they are expendable. Many missions would necessitate their loss depending on the arena of combat and how they intend to exfiltrate.



Not sure how often that actually would happen. It would have to be two rather mismatched armies (one with loads of small weak units, and another with a small number of more expensive units that were otherwise not that successful in the game) for that to happen. And as said, most of the newer codices are taking KP into account in their design. I've been on both ends several times and seen it even more often. Actually with my Eldar a couple weeks ago this occurred, I was lost 3 wave serpents, 2 units of fire dragons, 2 dire avenger units, and 2 units of war walkers, 10 KPs left on the table of 14. My Tau opponent had ravaged me, but I had destroyed 3 units of Gun Drones, 2 devilfish, 2 fire warrior units, a hammerhead a pirhana and some kroot. Losing 1244 to 825 but winning by 1 KP, 9 to 10.



Not really... it just encourages hordes to have a roughly similar number of much larger units, rather than many smaller units. Some can be designed around this, others can't. IG can only do this with Infantry Platoons and *only* with *1* unit choice (infantry squads) out of 6 unit choices (platoon commands, infantry squads, heavy weapons squads, special weapons squads, conscripts and chimeras) in that Troops Selection. With Vets or Penal Legion, there's really not much to be done.

Likewise, with an army like Tau, they are designed around MSU's, they really can't build an effective army designed around large units. Between 3man crisis suit teams, 2man gun drones on devilfish, etc. it's hard to cut the KP's down for them. Mine have 19 at 2k compared with my CSM's 13/14 and my Eldar's 14.




Looks to me that your infantry company has had much of its heart ripped out of it. One platoon would be ravaged, but the big guns are still there and there's still more infantry and the command section. The force remains overall intact.


It has been reduced to an oversized platoon (and loss many of its officers and most experienced men), it is just that much of its support remained relatively unscathed. Probably has to be withdrawn from the line or merged with other understrength units. Perhaps, but at the same time it's just wiped half a company of Chaos Space Marines, destroying hundreds and thousands of years of combat experience and irreplaceable equipment and left the CSM force in no shape to continue operations at all.


You also could have reduced the number of Kill points it was worth (though I guess there is the problem that they wouldn't be able to ride their chimeras during the game). Yes, and in addition requires the inclusion of a Commissar, as otherwise it's extremely easy to break and especially CC sweep a blob platoon.



OK, yes in this case you have a seriously ragged Chaos Space Marine army, and it happens to have ended up a draw rather than a victory. However, take advantage of the rule designed to reduce the Guard's issue with KP and you go from an army of 24 KP to one of 19 (and reduce the kill point loss by 2 or 3) opposed by an army of 14 KP. Not a massive change, and it result does still seem a bit odd, but there are ways to alleviate it. The blob platoons require an entirely different approach to the army, negate the use of the transports, and require a commissar to be effective. It's really an army that has to be built around that. Now sure, I could have built a list around that mechanic, but at the same time it'd still likely have a much large number of KP's than most opponents.



Well... they aren't. Its a draw that is converted into a victory for the Guard by use of the very rule that is meant to partially deal with KPs. :p miscounted units lol. Either way, by any reasonable standard, that should be an overwhelming IG victory.

Darnok
26-02-2010, 23:11
Everybody: cool down. Discuss in a civil manner. Calling people or opinions stupid or dumb will do you no good. Stop it now.


Darnok [=I=]
The WarSeer Inquisition

EmperorEternalXIX
27-02-2010, 01:13
Well, it's worth noting that like all my arguments, I come to the KP/VP debate with the central idea that the game should be transparent. What I mean by that is, the way we have our models behave should, ideally, reflect how they might actually behave. Our decisions as generals/commanders should be comparable to how they might be if we were actually on the field. From that point of view, "ignore the guys that will only kill a couple of us" is not an acceptable from of mind. "Kill the thing we're more likely to kill" is. If a truck with one pistol-armed terrorist drove up to a squad of US Soldiers, and there was an APC across the field a quarter mile away, they aren't going to go, "Well, he's only gonna kill like one or two of us, screw it" and turn their backs to him. That is my whole logic behind how I argue the game. Now, does KP do this effectively? You could argue it either way. All I'm going to say on the ideals of the subject is, there is no reason to fight a good portion of an enemy's army. That said, there are a few points in the above post I'd like to address (Yeah I know I said I'm done, but I can't resist...you guys should know that by now. The stories of the arguments I participate in on this website are hugely entertaining for my group each week, heh).


Well, considering there's no margin of victory, there's only "win" or "lose" with KP's, it's hard to judge this. There is no "margin of victory" in war. You either win or you lose. There is no point at which people at war decide "Well we're just not getting anywhere, are we?" and shake hands and leave. Margins of victory are purely for bragging rights and mean nothing.


I just use IG because it's the easiest to illustrate. I've seen ridiculous game outcomes between almost identical armies as well simply because one lost their weeny stuff (like drop pods). If I kill off 4 drops pods but lose a tac squad, a vindicator and a terminator unit doing it, why on earth am I the victor? By all rights the person who lost the drop pods should win. It makes sense, but "this is a fault of implementation" right? If the Drop Pods had a rule that said they weren't worth a kill point, this wouldn't be so, would it?

Not to mention the outrageous cries of hatred such a rule would bring, as now people would be envisioning impossible SM lists with 3 KP total that can never lose.


I could use another army if your prefer for examples since you seem to have some issue with Imperial Guard. Tau perhaps? It doesn't make a difference either way. I have a rather prodigious issue with the guard community at large, not the guard itself. Guard players are the current "We want the whole game changed around our meta" crowd.


Um, more so than KP missions? The KP missions promotes this to a*FAR* greater extent. Don't kill the Land Raider, it's too hard to kill, shoot the drop pod instead! It doesn't usually go like this, though. If you have the option to kill either vehicle chances are the Land Raider is in your face. If I have an option with which to kill the Land Raider decisively I will opt to kill it instead of the Drop Pod -- because it's DANGEROUS! You paint a picture of people shooting non-harmful units for the points throughout the whole game but that is seldom if ever the case in my experience; more often that happens during the clean-up, after the big things that can CAUSE KPs for the other guy have been neutralized.


If you're doing that in a VP game you're being stupid. Plain and simple. Sorry, doesn't happen. You kill the immediate threats first. If the LR is right there just about to disgorge stuff or you've got an Ironclad right there that just dropped in, then you'll go after the LR. Not a great analogy.But this same thing happens in KP games and you ignore it?


You'll be much more likely to see people try long ball shots at empty drop pods and immobilzed trucks across the board than trying to deal with the LR on top of them in a KP game. "Sorry, doesn't happen." At least not around here. Ignoring a land raider to pop an immobilized truck might get you one KP, but it's gonna give me a chance to get a LOT more.


If it's not a threat, then its not worth shooting at. If it's an easy target with nothing else threatening nearby, it'll die quickly. Sounds like the VP system reinforcing good tactical decision making. If it's an easy target with nothing else threatening nearby, the same thing happens in KP. But I guess we're ignoring that fact for argument's sake, at this point.


Except that this is exactly what should and does happen in any conflict and good game design around capturing or denying the enemy valuable assets. No army in the history of the world has sought to destroy enemy targets based on dollar value. The main aspect of target selection in real life is threat to one's own forces, and how crippling a loss it is to the enemy. That doesn't always mean a dollar value. If you kill a death star unit, you could gain as much as 700-800 VPs (looking at you, Vulkan lists). It gets pretty bad even if you don't succeed (taking out half the terminators and breaking one weapon off the tank will yield you 300ish to start). How on earth can someone recover from that except by killing off a similar death star unit? If your answer is to turn around and kill that many points of the other guy's army...it just plain isn't that easy. I use the Guard as my primary scapegoat, but look at any horde army or army with the new "5 point model disease" -- do you know how much an opponent has to kill to equate what 4 wounds and a weapon damaged result gets you? The system is horribly skewed in favor of armies with lots of cheap trashy guys -- you can argue all day that KP is imbalanced, but VP is just as imbalanced, just for the other side. I contend it is even MORE imbalanced.


Ideally you wouldn't. In all realism however, you go after the biggest threats and what your opponent has sunk most of their eggs into to defeat them. Not smacking weeny units around that are expected to die and then claiming victory. Go after the biggest threats, yes; go after stuff the opponent has sunk all his eggs into, not so much. Basic 40k survivability


Put all your eggs in one basket, kill the easy to kill stuff, and claim victory? That's honestly what successful KP strategy boils down to, and its terrible game design, resulting in bunk game outcomes, and very unfun games. I have never played a KP game I felt like I lost because of the mechanic and not because I played and lost. Conversely, every Victory Point game I ever played, I felt cheated.


in a sense perhaps, but then your playing to the KP's rather than the spirit of the mission or what KP's are really intended to portray. Again, poor game design if that is what ends up happening because the victory objective doesn't capture what's supposed to be happening or is totally out of synch with the way armies are supposed to be balanced between each other. No one ever said the game is designed to be balanced between armies.


That's a problem with implementation, which can be fixed in a multitude of ways. Nobody is saying the current VP system is absolutely perfect, but it's a damn sight better than KP's, which factor nothing into the outcome of the value of a unit or of *any* damage inflicted on it. VP's do this and are a much more accurate and fair measure of victory as a result, and both players start from the same place as opposed to KP's where there can be widly varying numbers. I somewhat agree with this, but I still feel that modifying VPs in 6th edition



Depends on the 5 guys. If the 5 guys are valued more than the predator and you've just destroyed the combat viability of a powerful and expensive infantry unit in doing so, then yeah, it's should be worth more. "Combat viability" is subjective.


Either way, it's an implementation issue, not an issue with the core of the mechanic like on KP's. All the issues I bring up with VPs are implementation issues, but all the issues you bring up against KPs are apparently core problems? By what criteria did you reason this out? You act as if KPs couldn't be patched to be more fair, just like VPs. At the end of the day VPs will still always give you more points if you kill a guy with an expensive pair of shoes on, and KP won't.


Again, this can also honestly be a realistic and viable tactical decision. If an enemy unit is reduced to such a state as to where their combat effectiveness is negligible, then continuing to prioritize their destruction over more pressing threats makes no sense. Pretty much your standard tactical conclusion for such an affair and boils right down to class economic cost-benefit decision making. Except, in a real war, no one is going to let one guy with a pistol walk around icing guys in his unit because there are three guys in a truck a quarter mile away.


With characters it's odd because they don't lose any combat effectiveness until they are entirely dead, but again, half killing Logan Grimnar, who may cost 10-20% of an enemies army, should count for quite a bit. You've substantially harmed that asset, and should receive something comensurate to its cost for it. Wounding a character does nothing to reduce the tactical effectiveness of the model, as you yourself say. So why should you be rewarded for it at all? Because it was difficult? It isn't, always. Haven't you ever gotten a lucky shot before? Haven't you ever seen someone fail a save on the first try? Haven't you ever seen someone allocate an early hit to their character because he's a multi-wound model and doesn't want to lose another valuable model outright from one wound? It's just as hard, if not harder, to put two wounds on a couple of THSS terminators? Why are they worth 80 points (more if they are Space Wolves!) and doing the exact same stuff to Logan Grimnar (which literally requires the exact same rolls) is suddenly worth 135? It's actually HARDER to wound the THSS guys because they have a 3+ invul, but they are worth less points.


Again however, those are implementation issues that arise as a result of the awkward way things work in the game, and they still aren't as bad as the underlying core issue of KP's just inherently having no meaning and as a result being imbalanced by their very nature. So when VP is stupid it's "implementation" and when KP is stupid it's just flawed rules writing?


That said, it's also not that bad. Getting a weapon destroyed result on a Hammerhead, Leman Russ or Fire Prism means you've just destroyed the offensive firepower of that vehicle, and thus much of its purpose and value to an opponent, and should be gain VP comensurate to that. It's an issue with transports more than anything where the loss of a storm bolter gives half a rhino's VP away. Akward? Sure, but fixable if people wish to go into more detail with the system, and a minor issue at best. What is it that makes this applicable only to VPs and not KPs? Can't players opt to "go into more detail" for KPs and dance around its shortcomings too?


Armies are based around points. Points reflect (or, *should*) the powers and abilities that a unit brings to your army. Inflicting harm or destruction on a unit should be rewarded with something reflective of that value. Hence, Logan's death, with regards to his high points costs & abilities, should be worth several light vehicles or dozens of guardsmen.

Nothing wrong here. Yup, I know when a famous single guy dies, the army instantly declares failure and packs up and leaves.


Once again, implementation issues, but overall when looking at it they are still more balanced and fair than KP's See the above spiel on Logan Grimnar's death.


VP's are centered around the core balance concept of the game (points) and promote intelligent cost-benefit decision making. Something KP's do not do. As a result, they are in fact much more logical and balanced than KP's Logical maybe, but balanced, I don't think so.


So, you're countering an argument that attacks the underlying nature of a system that questions its existence with an argument about simple implementation? Not a very good response. Implementation can be changed and adjusted. It doesn't prove anything wrong with the underlying concept. Neither do the arguments that "KP are stupid" but that seems to be the majority of what I'm getting back.


That said, managing to defeat the armor on an AV14 vehicle do destroy a powerful vehicle killing weapon that can still be shot even if the vehicle would not normally be able to shoot and be shot at a different target than the other vehicles weapons isn't exactly worth nothing either ;) It's not much of an accomplishment for an ork vehicle with a deff rolla these days, heh.


Really? My experience says otherwise. But either way its subjective. The fact is, losing expensive models *should* hurt. Losing a game because the victory mechanic simply only counts units instead of value or proportion of an enemy force should not occur. Without such a mechanic, however, we must consider value and proportion in the inverse; many things in the game now would be horrifically unbalanced.


Aside from the character and vehicle things, which are relatively minor issues lets be honest, VP's will result in far less stupid outcomes than KP's will. Yup, fortunately in 5th edition there are very few vehicles and special characters... :\


Are you honestly going to say that the winner in KP games will have successfully beaten an opponents force more consistently than in VP games? I don't think one can. It's entirely possible to win with a broken and nearly tabled army in KP games against a mostly intact enemy force. I honestly can't find a situation under VP where this would be the case. Actually what I found to happen the most were DRAWS. Draws are stupid and shouldn't exist in the game at all. KPs, if it has one thing going for it, is that I rarely experience draws.

Lord of Worms
27-02-2010, 01:45
There is no "margin of victory" in war. You either win or you lose.


I realize that the mod just told us to be nice, so I'm just going to point out that real life is not a game of chess. Nobody with the slightest understanding the implications of wars and why they are fought, won , and lost could agree with the above statement.


There is no point at which people at war decide "Well we're just not getting anywhere, are we?" and shake hands and leave. Margins of victory are purely for bragging rights and mean nothing.

What fantasy world are you living in? That happens all the time, it's called a "ceasefire" or "armistice". The united states lost the war in vietnam, and Germany lost WWII, compare the outcomes of those two wars and tell me there's no such thing as a margin of victory.

To be honest, in spite of disagreeing with you I was actually paying attention to your arguments under the assumption that they were well reasoned. You just lost me.

neko
27-02-2010, 01:47
KPs ruin immersion in the game for me. I'd much rather worry about what my guys would be shooting at than having to play battlefield accountant* the way that KP pushes you towards.
VP may well not be perfect, but if it needed to be replaced it really should have been replaced with something better. KP just seems to be something that was shoehorned in so that the game is open to more kids who have trouble counting.

Also: Draws shouldn't exist in the game at all?? :wtf:


* Well, apart from maybe when playing with my Tau. Even then though KP just feels like very very poor battlefield accountancy.

Blitz001
27-02-2010, 02:21
1. nerfing of mech
2. nerfing of cover
3. nerfing of melta
4. NO MORE FING KILL POINTS

basically the compelete destruction of all lists that exsit now...just to shake it up a bit. :D

willow560
27-02-2010, 02:34
Alright, I'm an old 2nd edition player, who transitioned to 3rd for a while, skipped 4th, and restarted in 5th. I think 6th edition really needs to be an jump in evolution, not just a minor change here and there. It doesn't need a total reboot though.

A few of the the things that I think stand out pretty starkly, and most of them have already been mentioned.

#1. Cover. Modifiers need to come back into existence. We do it on damage tables already, and it makes a whole lot more sense. I understand they can be *more complicate* than a unit always hits on a certain role, but I do not think the current mechanics really work well. Smoke launchers do not make a rhino ignore 50% of hits. They should make it harder to hit. This really would not bog anything down at all. Hard cover and soft cover from 2nd edition was to me extremely easy to figure out, and it meant a -1 or a -2 to hit. Easy. Problem solved. It also allows for some fun mechanics to work a bit easier. Veil of Tears for harliquins and the similar GK ability just grants a -1 to hit all the time, that can stack with cover. This makes hard units and weak units both benefit from cover. This is the biggest problem in my mind that 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition have.

#2. Vehicles and shooting. Vehicles that move a certain speed for some reason can only shoot 1 weapon. This unfairly penalizes vehicles with more than one weapon. This is solved by adopting solution #1. Vehicles that move a certain speed, and we can adjust these to balance everything, take a penalty to hit. It makes perfect sense, and it allows for more flexiblity in the way things work. POTMS could allow 1 weapon to shoot with no penalty all the time, or reduce the penalty for everything by one category, you have more options to balance.

#3 Weapons Skill Chart. The WS10 vs WS1 needs to have bigger differences. This has been mentioned before, but bears repeating. It should not be impossible for any unit to hit another unit. Should it be a lot harder? Yes.

#4 Missions. Kill points has been maligned, so I won't dredge that up except to say, its not perfect. But the two objectives mission is also pretty crappy too. To say that the mission book is coming out soon and gives us more choices, is crap. Everyone only plays with the main rule book when you look for a pick up game, and that is what the main rulebook should be designed to support. They changed my movement value to 6s to match the dice, they should have spent the time to create 6 missions and 6 deployments. At least one of the missions should require the opponent to not know the mission the other person is performing. At least one of the missions should require one player to totally set up on the board with no reserves. At least one of the missions should affect the way scenery and cover is placed on the board, desert with nothing, city with over 50%, whatever so long as the mission directly controls terrain. I like troops only controlling objectives because it forces a calculation on your lists and your playstyle to protect those units. However, at least one of the missions should change that. Off the top of my head, maybe in a capture and control mission only an HQ can capture your opponent's base. Something like that, that completely changes the dynamic of what is important and how you protect it.

#5 Primacy of Hand to Hand. I think hand to hand is much too powerful in 5th. I think it should be brutal, but sweeping advance and fearless wounds, they just don't sit well with me. Shooting is the wave of the future. I think the last time a really successful bayonet charge on a mass scale was effective was during the Korean Conflict. In the 1950s. This is 40K. Shooting should rule supreme. I understand that the aesthetic is that units still fight in hand to hand and that this dictates the rules. I love the Assault phase. But shooting units shouldn't be defenseless. People are opposed to Overwatch coming back, and I understand your reticence, so in its place I would like to create a new USR. It is "But Sir, We have Guns!". If a unit has this rule, they may attack in hand to hand as if using grenades, but use the AP and their shooting weapons. These attacks strike at Inititive 1. What does this do? It allows some units, like guardsmen to shoot their weapon once and at least have a shot at killing something that is lightly armored. Heavy weapons can't do this. In fact, how about if only pistols can do it? This makes sense for some units that really would try to shoot someone in the head when they got close, and changes the calculus for weakly armored troops like Ork Boyz and Gants, and I think that's a good thing.

#6 Movement. We really do need different movement back in the game. However, the emphasis on charging to increase your movement is totally retarded. Why do beasts move 6" when they can't charge, and 18" when they can? It makes no sense. Run should rightly be usable by all units. Run means double movement. Because individual stats don't seem to be popular, lets make a few new types of infantry, we already have it in vehicles, so why not in infantry.

Slow. Unit moves 4" over open ground, Movement through terrain reduced by 1d3. Easy enough. Maximum 8", and 5" minimum through terrain.

Normal. Unit moves 5" over open ground, moves 1d3 less through terrain. Maximum 10" open ground, minimum 7 through terrain.

Agile. Unit Moves 5" over open ground, uneffected by terrain. Maximum 10" and doesn't care about terrain, but still has to take dangerous tests.

Quick. Unit moves 6" over open ground, moves 1d3" less if going through terrain. 12" Maximum, 9 inches minimum if through terrain.

Fleet. Unit can move an additional 1d3 instead of shooting a weapon.

Charging occurs just like running and doesn't magically make you move faster. Problem fixed. It keeps the random element for terrain that some people like, it makes it predictable over open ground like I like, and it maintains the variability in movement types that is the only way to make this game reasonable. Also, to streamline the game, running and fleeting must be declared in the movement phase. Why that happens in the shooting phase now, I'll never know. Assault weapons allow you to shoot after running and allow you break the targeting rules to allow you to shoot someone that you are in base to base contact with if you initiated a charge this round.

Those are the main 6 changes I would make. I don't think they drastically alter the game. I think they make more intuitive sense, and I think they also make the game better without making it a whole lot more complicated.

EmperorEternalXIX
27-02-2010, 02:53
@willow650: I think you raised a lot of good points. The main one I disagree with is the CC stuff, only because it's so painful to cross the board and get shot up sometimes that it must be worthwhile to have a big payoff in CC. In particular, very good points about the WS chart and the missions. I often wonder what the deal is with the missions myself. I dislike the objective mechanic only because it is too easy to nail it with a fast unit at the end of the game, but the variable turns help alleviate this. Real battles do not have time limits like a game does, so it's tough to reason out.


I realize that the mod just told us to be nice, so I'm just going to point out that real life is not a game of chess. Nobody with the slightest understanding the implications of wars and why they are fought, won , and lost could agree with the above statement. I understand you're reasoning, but we're not fighting a WAR. We're fighting a BATTLE. In fact, one chunk of a much larger battle, in a much larger war, in a universe where things like peace treaties do not exist.


What fantasy world are you living in? That happens all the time, it's called a "ceasefire" or "armistice". The united states lost the war in vietnam, and Germany lost WWII, compare the outcomes of those two wars and tell me there's no such thing as a margin of victory. How many ceasefires and armistice agreements do you think happen in the 41st millennium, though?
Also my point is still standing -- how many of those ceasefires and armistice agreements occurred in the middle of a battle?

To be honest, in spite of disagreeing with you I was actually paying attention to your arguments under the assumption that they were well reasoned. You just lost me. Well I thank you at least for the attention I had, while I had it. That's more than I can say for most.

willow560
27-02-2010, 03:02
@EmporerEternalXIX. I knew someone would not completely like my nerfing of Hand to Hand. Alright, so let me think this through a bit more. People should be able to perhaps use their pistols in hand to hand, but at the cost of a leadership check. Remember, not every unit would be able to do this, only units with the "But Sir, We have Guns," USR. Would that be better for you?

alextroy
27-02-2010, 03:12
What I want for 6th Edition can be handled rather simply. GW can change any of the rules, all of the rules, or none of the rules, but they need to hire a Rules Writer to concisely and unambiguously write the rules the Game Developers produce to eliminate the confusion and outright contradictions created by GWs rules-writing style. They definitely need a glossary of rules terms that they should slavishly adhere to.

Joewrightgm
27-02-2010, 03:18
I've actually never had a problem with kill points. I also play casually and never in tournaments, so that may be coloring my perception.

I was playing an objective game against an eldar player with my orks, and the kill points trade was fairly even, but because of the way the opponent structured his list, he wasn't able to contest objectives with the infantry he had left.

In my experience, I've never really had a situation where I ended up scratching my head going 'wow, kill points lost me this game big time,' Just my opinion, but I like them because for me, the speed up the after game wrap up.

But I don't think it would hurt to have the choice between kill points and victory points before game during objective set up.

Vaktathi
27-02-2010, 05:03
(I'll apologize here, if I came off as rude in my previous posts, I didn't mean too, just meant to describe certain actions as "stupid" not you or anyone else.)


From that point of view, "ignore the guys that will only kill a couple of us" is not an acceptable from of mind. "Kill the thing we're more likely to kill" is. That is where the role of commander, discipline, and the chain of command come in, and why those things exist. You kill what's more important and of greatest value to the enemy to achieve victory, not simply killing what closest or easiest to kill. You don't win wars and battles by just blowing up what's easiest.



If a truck with one pistol-armed terrorist drove up to a squad of US Soldiers, and there was an APC across the field a quarter mile away, they aren't going to go, "Well, he's only gonna kill like one or two of us, screw it" and turn their backs to him. Not entirely accurate, and depends a lot on the situation of the troops. If that APC is hosing them down with heavy weapons fire and bringing in a squad of combat engineers and they're sitting there behind a decent chunk of cover, they may very will ignore that truck. Likewise, if they are ordered to, they will prioritize the destruction of the APC over the truck.


(Yeah I know I said I'm done, but I can't resist...you guys should know that by now. The stories of the arguments I participate in on this website are hugely entertaining for my group each week, heh). I enjoy debates like this as well, and can't remove myself often when I want to. I only hope your group gets around to reading the full texts of the arguments for a full picture :p



There is no "margin of victory" in war. You either win or you lose. There is no point at which people at war decide "Well we're just not getting anywhere, are we?" and shake hands and leave. Margins of victory are purely for bragging rights and mean nothing. I'd beg to differ. That actually does happen, Korea for instance. There are countless instances of this.

And yes, there are margins of victory. Germany lost WW2, and lost it hard. Argentina lost the Falklands war, but it wasn't anywhere near as painful. The Japanese won the Russo-Japanese war but ended up not quite making the gains they had tried for.



It makes sense, but "this is a fault of implementation" right? If the Drop Pods had a rule that said they weren't worth a kill point, this wouldn't be so, would it? It would become a non-issue for drop pods, but then you still have the exact same issue with dozens of other units. 1 Crisis suit should not be valued the same as 3. A Fire Prism should be worth more than a Vyper.

It's not an implementation issue, it's a problem that KP's just inherently take no value of a unit into account, there's no way to solve that.



Not to mention the outrageous cries of hatred such a rule would bring, as now people would be envisioning impossible SM lists with 3 KP total that can never lose. Yeah, and with good reason.



I have a rather prodigious issue with the guard community at large, not the guard itself. Guard players are the current "We want the whole game changed around our meta" crowd. Well whatever, I play CSM's, Eldar and Tau as well, I'll use them in all further examples where possible.



It doesn't usually go like this, though. If you have the option to kill either vehicle chances are the Land Raider is in your face. If I have an option with which to kill the Land Raider decisively Ah, but that's just it. With VP's, if I've got 1 lascannon and it's a relatively close game, I'm gonna try to kill the land raider. If we're playing KP's I'm gonna go for the drop pod.


I will opt to kill it instead of the Drop Pod -- because it's DANGEROUS! Depends on what you've got and the circumstances of the game, but you've got a much more powerful incentive to kill the drop pod in a KP game while the VP's would reward you much more for making the more tactically sound decision of trying to kill the Land Raider.


You paint a picture of people shooting non-harmful units for the points throughout the whole game but that is seldom if ever the case in my experience; more often that happens during the clean-up, after the big things that can CAUSE KPs for the other guy have been neutralized. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but I'm saying it does happen and that the KP's promote a much, much screwier incentive than the VP's do.



But this same thing happens in KP games and you ignore it? You can win a KP game by smacking the weeny units and spending the rest of the game hiding however. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that the KP incentives, resultant victory outcomes, can still result in a victory even if you don't do this.



"Sorry, doesn't happen." At least not around here. Ignoring a land raider to pop an immobilized truck might get you one KP, but it's gonna give me a chance to get a LOT more. True, but in terms of the relative imbalance in incentives,you have to admit, the KP's have a lot more going for it there than VP's the other way around, and this case becomes progressively more true the closer one gets to the end of the game. The last couple turns see all sorts of ridiculousness all too often in KP games, where people just placate or tarpit the big scary things and pick off the drop pods, gun drones, and the like instead of trying to kill that MC or destroy an intact infantry unit.




If it's an easy target with nothing else threatening nearby, the same thing happens in KP. But I guess we're ignoring that fact for argument's sake, at this point. No, if its an easy kill in a KP mission, I'm more likely to wipe it out and take defensive measures elsewhere instead of ignoring it to aggresivley attack my foe.


No army in the history of the world has sought to destroy enemy targets based on dollar value. Nobody said anything about dollar value. "Value" has meaning beyond the financial. If I destroy an enemy supply depot, or irreplaceable equipment, or units with critical capabilities, that has a much greater value than other assets.



The main aspect of target selection in real life is threat to one's own forces, and how crippling a loss it is to the enemy. Yes, that's what I've been saying, we are agreeing on this.


That doesn't always mean a dollar value. Again, not going for dollar value.


If you kill a death star unit, you could gain as much as 700-800 VPs (looking at you, Vulkan lists). As you should. The enemy has invested time, money, equipment, training, transport capability, etc into that unit to bring it to battle and expects it to perform. If you destroy it, you've just destroyed a huge chunk of value of the enemy force and crippled the core of their fighting force and their capabilities as a fighting unit, that your foe may or may not be able to replace, but either way will be far more painful than if you just wiped out bog standard dudes.



How on earth can someone recover from that except by killing off a similar death star unit? If your answer is to turn around and kill that many points of the other guy's army...it just plain isn't that easy. Um, that's exactly the point. If you lose that unit, it *should* be incredibly difficult to recoup that.


I use the Guard as my primary scapegoat, Of course.


but look at any horde army or army with the new "5 point model disease" -- do you know how much an opponent has to kill to equate what 4 wounds and a weapon damaged result gets you? Quite a bit,and heavy damage to an άber should be hard to recoup, but such a unit should also be reaping quite a bit of the enemies force in return.



The system is horribly skewed in favor of armies with lots of cheap trashy guys -- you can argue all day that KP is imbalanced, but VP is just as imbalanced, just for the other side. I contend it is even MORE imbalanced. VP favors armies that don't field deathstar units. Yes. That's because it's a bad idea to put all your eggs in one basket. Pretty much every other gaming system I can think of and any realistic combat situtation or historical battle will tell you the exact same thing. German Tiger Tanks had kill ratio's of 6-1 or more quite often and were much feared, they were essentially "death star" units. Too bad that there were almost 100 shermans and T-34's for every Tiger, far outstripping their ability to recoup those losses.

That said, for reasonably built elite units, VP's aren't bad at all. It's once you start dumping large percentages of your available points into something that they become a liability in VP games, as they should be.



Go after the biggest threats, yes; go after stuff the opponent has sunk all his eggs into, not so much. Basic 40k survivability Usually whatever an opponent has sunk all their eggs into is the core of their army. At any specific point it may not be the biggest threat, but over the course of the game it probably is, and is a natural schwerpunkt. Destroying such a unit (or units) will typically break an opponents army.





I have never played a KP game I felt like I lost because of the mechanic and not because I played and lost. Conversely, every Victory Point game I ever played, I felt cheated. Well, we obviously have different experiences then, but I honestly don't see how you could have felt horrifically cheated in a VP game unless it was one of those weird vehicle issues (which probably only moved it from a draw to a minor or massacre to major or something I'm willing to venture) which is still a problem with implementation and not the core underlying principle.



No one ever said the game is designed to be balanced between armies. It can't in every detail, but it should favor one over another simply because they have more discrete maneuver elements composed of weaker units. That's a fundamental failing in game design principle if your victory condition is doing that and you've based the construction of various armies around elite vs weeny.



"Combat viability" is subjective. Oh I agree entirely, but for instance killing 5 marines in an assault squad for instance significantly reduces their ability to successfully engage and destroy enemy units or even to just get across the board in one piece. That may often be worth more than the predator. It all really boils down to the situation in the game, but ceteris paribus, if the points costs are designed correctly and those 5 guys are actually worth more than the tank, then yes, their loss should count more than the tank.



All the issues I bring up with VPs are implementation issues, but all the issues you bring up against KPs are apparently core problems? By what criteria did you reason this out? You act as if KPs couldn't be patched to be more fair, just like VPs. This is what I've been trying to get at. KP's fundamantally are flawed to their core. Because neither player starts from the same position and they take no account of unit value. That cripples the entire concept of KP's as a balanced game mechanic from the outset. There is little correlation between one players losses and anothers gains other than that simply one player has lost an entire unit.

Armies are constructed around Points. VP's work off awarding an enemy points for harm or destruction of your points. Both players start at the same place (assuming an equal points game) and everything that a player wins in terms of points from their opponent is drawn directly from it's value (the proportion of offensive/defensive & mission capability) to the enemy commander. There's a direct correlation between losses & an opponents gains. VP's also take into value not simply destruction but damage as well, something that *should* count.

Crippling a heavy battle tank and immobilizing it will mean they either have to destroy it or recover and repair it, either way a resource is expended that reduces their resources to put into harming you again. That should count for something. In VP's this does, maybe not perfectly, but something happens. With KP's it's all or nothing.

Most problems with VP's are how things are implemented, usually in the name of simplicity. Does this result in imbalances & awkwardness? Hell yes. But it's still a far cry better than KP's.


Additionally there's also the FoC slots that constrain how many units or types of units one can take. Attempting to use KP's to further restrain this makes little sense, when it would be better in almost every way to simply adjust the FoC or the unit entries if it's felt there is a problem.

Between the FoC and Points, KP's are trying to do what two other mechanics are already doing, but without any relation to capabilities or role.


At the end of the day VPs will still always give you more points if you kill a guy with an expensive pair of shoes on, and KP won't. Well, yeah, they're supposed to because those shoes matter more and losing that guy hurts your opponent more than losing the guy without shoes.



Except, in a real war, no one is going to let one guy with a pistol walk around icing guys in his unit because there are three guys in a truck a quarter mile away. Honestly, much of that is the result of not being able to split fire like one should. In a tac squad, really, the bolter guys would terminate the pistol dude while the missile launcher would fire at the truck.

However given that split fire is not allowed, if the commanding officer deems it necessary, then yes, that truck should be destroyed at the cost of potential casualties to the pistol guy if its an all or nothing thing.



Wounding a character does nothing to reduce the tactical effectiveness of the model, as you yourself say. So why should you be rewarded for it at all? Because you've reduced it's ability to continue to harm you in the future. Inflicting wounds on a character means it reduces their choice of potential opponents to engage if they want to successfully defeat them. Diving logan into a full tac squad when he's at full wounds may work great. Diving him in there when he's at 1 wound probably won't.




Because it was difficult? It isn't, always. Haven't you ever gotten a lucky shot before? Haven't you ever seen someone fail a save on the first try? Haven't you ever seen someone allocate an early hit to their character because he's a multi-wound model and doesn't want to lose another valuable model outright from one wound? It's just as hard, if not harder, to put two wounds on a couple of THSS terminators? Why are they worth 80 points (more if they are Space Wolves!) and doing the exact same stuff to Logan Grimnar (which literally requires the exact same rolls) is suddenly worth 135? It's actually HARDER to wound the THSS guys because they have a 3+ invul, but they are worth less points. Because they aren't bringing the same abilities to the army and list as a whole and don't have the same offensive power individually, so are worth much less.



So when VP is stupid it's "implementation" and when KP is stupid it's just flawed rules writing? See my explanation above.



What is it that makes this applicable only to VPs and not KPs? Can't players opt to "go into more detail" for KPs and dance around its shortcomings too? If you'd like to give some detail on that that would address any issues, I'd be more than willing to listen in all honesty. The best things I've really hard have been using KP %'s (e.g. destroying 8 of 20 KP's in an IG army would be 40% and destroying 7 of 14 KP's in a CSM army would be 50%) that usually tend to work a little better but still don't accurately address value either, they just mitigate the numbers problem so that players start off an an even footing, but you can still win by killing off crap units and losing the core of your army.



Yup, I know when a famous single guy dies, the army instantly declares failure and packs up and leaves. No, and I never claimed that. But it may be worth it to the enemy to expend dozens of lives to destroy him if his continued existence would bring even more harm.

If you've just decapitated the enemy command apparatus as well as their battering ram, that's a pretty significant gain.




Logical maybe, but balanced, I don't think so. How so? If you're basing the victory mechanic directly around the central balance mechanic, how can it be any less balanced than something that takes no account of it whatsoever?



Neither do the arguments that "KP are stupid" but that seems to be the majority of what I'm getting back. I've tried to go through my logic explaining exactly why I think KP's are a poor game mechanic and a bunk measure of victory. Addressing implementation issues as opposed to something that strikes at the core of the concept isn't a great counter.


It's not much of an accomplishment for an ork vehicle with a deff rolla these days, heh. That's an issue with poor codex design and Orks having silly wargear. That said, I still don't think its unreasonable to derive something for removing that weapon, perhaps not to the degree the current VP rules do I'll admit, but the loss of that MM isn't entirely negligible.



Without such a mechanic, however, we must consider value and proportion in the inverse; many things in the game now would be horrifically unbalanced. How so? Aside from something being just plainly undercosted, the VP's should be a far more accurate measure, even if something is undercosted, it'd have to be totally outside the ball park for the VP mechanic to have less relevance than the KP's.

How exactly are KP's balancing the game in this regard?



Yup, fortunately in 5th edition there are very few vehicles and special characters... :\ Those are still relatively minor issues that won't have as much affect on the outcome of a game as a KP issue typically will, and can be solved much easier.



Actually what I found to happen the most were DRAWS. Draws are stupid and shouldn't exist in the game at all. Then simply state that whoever has more VP's wins, regardless of anything else.


KPs, if it has one thing going for it, is that I rarely experience draws.True I guess, but I don't mind draws. Draws are battles that result in no significant gains to either side, which are common in actual warfare, and means that less pride is on the line in a close and exciting game. Tying a game means your opponent played to match your abilities, I find these are often the most fun.

Samus_aran115
27-02-2010, 05:10
WILL YOU GUYS QUIT THIS ALREADY?? You guys have been ranting for several pages now. STFU. Talk about something relevant. Kill points aren't gonna change if you rant about it for 4 pages!

Vaktathi
27-02-2010, 05:32
WILL YOU GUYS QUIT THIS ALREADY?? You guys have been ranting for several pages now. STFU. Talk about something relevant. Kill points aren't gonna change if you rant about it for 4 pages!

We're discussing changes we'd like to see or not see in the next edition of 40k on an internet discussion board about warhammer 40k in a thread about changes we'd like to see or not see about the next edition of 40k.

Where's the problem?

put us on ignore if you don't want to see the posts (click on profile name, go to view public profile, user lists-->add to ignore list)

Samus_aran115
27-02-2010, 05:41
We're discussing changes we'd like to see or not see in the next edition of 40k on an internet discussion board about warhammer 40k in a thread about changes we'd like to see or not see about the next edition of 40k.

Where's the problem?

put us on ignore if you don't want to see the posts (click on profile name, go to view public profile, user lists-->add to ignore list)

I understand what you guys are talking about, and it doesn't bother me. The fact that you've used up 4+ pages Does, though. Although I've never had to ignore someone, that's a good trick. Thanks.

I dare not post for fear of getting lost in the void of infinite posts....

ColonalKlink
27-02-2010, 05:54
ah the kill point debate... so dear to my heart lol

seriously i could not care less, kill points have never been a problem for me or anyone i know, my 8 year old niece wiped the floor with me in a game through kill points and... i still didnt care, yes they probebly need tweeking but that is all, its not really a problem.

the bigger problem is inconsistency, through codex's, rulebooks and supplements (sp?) but again its an easy fix, just hire a guy (or 3)

on another note having read the whole thread (took days) and the last page in particuler, its getting a bit out of hand, i know you all have a passion for the game, but please tone it down a tad, tis getting out of hand

Samus_aran115
27-02-2010, 06:00
Thank you.^^ Kill points are only a problem if you play really seriously. I've played KP like twice, and they seem...Feh. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to finish the second game, so I guess I don't have the most respectable opinon.haha

Lord of Worms
27-02-2010, 06:32
I understand you're reasoning, but we're not fighting a WAR. We're fighting a BATTLE. In fact, one chunk of a much larger battle, in a much larger war, in a universe where things like peace treaties do not exist.


Here is the definition of a Pyrrhic Victory
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory)

If I lose a battle badly enough I will be unable to continue the war. Unlike Pyrrhus, who won every battle he took part in yet failed to defeat the Romans and win the war, the Mauretanians and other Iberian tribes were able to resist the Romans for 200 years in spite of never having won a battle.

EmperorEternalXIX
27-02-2010, 06:41
WILL YOU GUYS QUIT THIS ALREADY?? You guys have been ranting for several pages now. STFU. Talk about something relevant. Kill points aren't gonna change if you rant about it for 4 pages! Yes, Vaktathi is right, I would put me on ignore at the very list. I come from the newspaper business and rarely if ever write a post of reasonable length.

Vaktathi and I are so focused on the KP/VP debate, we're ignoring the real issue -- objectives. I've always found the whole "stand next to the objective at the end of the game" thing a bit off. I hope that 6th edition has more missions and that they revolve more around objectives with some kind of mechanic that is a little less prone to being weirded out by guys diving onto the objective on the last turn.


Here is the definition of a Pyrrhic Victory


If I lose a battle badly enough I will be unable to continue the war. Unlike Pyrrhus, who won every battle he took part in yet failed to defeat the Romans and win the war, the Mauretanians and other Iberian tribes were able to resist the Romans for 200 years in spite of never having won a battle. Unfortunately, as I said, we are playing battles, and in the world of a single 40k table, the result of that battle beyond winner and loser is irrelevant. Regardless, I'm not seeing what you're getting at. Maybe at the end of every game, we should just not tally up victory points or kill points or objectives at all, and just roll a die; on a 4+ you win the war, otherwise I win the war. If the battle we are fighting matters so little, anyway.

There were other guys who won a lot of their battles too (Napoleon and Alexander jump to mind). Very few of them lost their conflicts overall. I agree it's plenty possible to win a war without winning a battle and vice versa, but I don't think it is commonplace enough that it is something we should be building game mechanics around.

Lord of Worms
27-02-2010, 06:44
Vaktathi and I are so focused on the KP/VP debate, we're ignoring the real issue -- objectives. I've always found the whole "stand next to the objective at the end of the game" thing a bit off. I hope that 6th edition has more missions and that they revolve more around objectives with some kind of mechanic that is a little less prone to being weirded out by guys diving onto the objective on the last turn.

One of the Chaos specific missions in the Battle Missions book is an objective mission where you earn points for every turn you control an objective as opposed to just the end.

EmperorEternalXIX
27-02-2010, 15:49
That sounds a lot more interesting, however I could see why that is not the common rule in the main missions; missions where one side of the table has more objectives can quickly get out of hand.

I would like to see a mission that combines killing and objectives, personally. Or maybe a combined VP thing, something where units count for their VPs on objectives. Troops units could be worth full VP, other units always worth half and don't score if under half.

Hmm. Maybe I will write up a campaign scenario like this for my group.

Lord of Worms
27-02-2010, 17:31
That sounds a lot more interesting, however I could see why that is not the common rule in the main missions; missions where one side of the table has more objectives can quickly get out of hand.

I would like to see a mission that combines killing and objectives, personally.

You mean like the Gamma level missions in 4th Ed?;)

jt.glass
27-02-2010, 21:14
I think you're the only one I've ever heard, either online or in the store, claim this.You can add me to the list!


Well, considering there's no margin of victory, there's only "win" or "lose" with KP's, it's hard to judge this.No margin of vitory? So a 12-nil victory is the same as a 12-11 victory? :confused:

Um, more so than KP missions? The KP missions promotes this to a*FAR* greater extent. Don't kill the Land Raider, it's too hard to kill, shoot the drop pod instead!Not trying to kill a Land Raider because you have a fairly small chance of hurting it seems like a perfectly reasonably decision to me in certain circumstances, KP or not notwithstanding.


A Fire Prism should be worth more than a Vyper.But the loss of a Fire Prism is worse than a loss of a Vyper because of what it costs you in play. That is punishment enought, there is no need to punish someone twice for the same loss.


WILL YOU GUYS QUIT THIS ALREADY?? You guys have been ranting for several pages now. STFU. Talk about something relevant. Kill points aren't gonna change if you rant about it for 4 pages!Come the next edition, Kill Points are quite likely to change. Some of us hopr that they won't change too much.


One of the Chaos specific missions in the Battle Missions book is an objective mission where you earn points for every turn you control an objective as opposed to just the end.Apocalypse Reloaded suggests something similar as an option for the Apocalypse mission.


jt.

Balerion
27-02-2010, 22:16
1a. Death of TLoS
1b. Death of "terrain features" in area terrain

2. Victory Points should be the default rule, with an optional sidebar for people who'd prefer to use Kill Points for the sake of speeding up the game.

3. Something to counter mech/pillboxes. Perhaps no/a penalty for shooting from a moving vehicle, or a pinning test for units in a vehicle that suffers Weapon Destroyed/Immobilized. No claiming objectives from within a tank!!!

4. Fix No Retreat.

5. For GW to embrace the internet/social media age, provide regular FAQs, maintain a dialogue with their fans, and demonstrate greater transparency. Sadly I feel most of the older GW kingpins will have to retire/die before this will ever happen.

Vaktathi
27-02-2010, 22:37
No margin of vitory? So a 12-nil victory is the same as a 12-11 victory? :confused: A victory is a victory a loss is a loss. Winning 12-11 as opposed to 12-0 makes no difference. Previously there was "draw, minor, major, massacre", and thus different gradients. Now it's "win/lose/draw" no matter the margin.



Not trying to kill a Land Raider because you have a fairly small chance of hurting it seems like a perfectly reasonably decision to me in certain circumstances, KP or not notwithstanding. Except that it's a far greater threat. The cost-benefit analysis there should be "chance of accomplishment x worth/threat" and in that regard the LR should take precedence over the drop pod in almost every situation unless the drop pod is sitting on an objective or in the way of an assault or something or the like.



But the loss of a Fire Prism is worse than a loss of a Vyper because of what it costs you in play. That is punishment enought, there is no need to punish someone twice for the same loss. it's not punishing them twice, at least not in the way you are thinking. Even if you are looking at it like they, yes they should be punished twice. They have lost a significant piece of equipment & troops, and that should (and does in every other instance that I can think of) count more towards your defeat and more towards your enemies victory than a much less capable/important unit.

neko
28-02-2010, 01:11
It should be remembered that Kill Points is just a type of victory points with just one difference from most VP implementations: the actual worth of the unit in question is completely ignored.
Even if the worth of a unit isn't directly linked to the cost of a unit, I'm yet to see any valid reason why all units should be worth the same.

Occulto
28-02-2010, 01:32
A victory is a victory a loss is a loss. Winning 12-11 as opposed to 12-0 makes no difference. Previously there was "draw, minor, major, massacre", and thus different gradients. Now it's "win/lose/draw" no matter the margin.

People don't seem to need official categories to be able to distinguish the difference between: "whoa that was close" and "I got seven shades of snot smacked out of me."

The only time something like that really matters is if there's some kind of bigger picture (eg league or tournament points) - and it's easy enough for the organiser to draw up some kind of extra rule to distinguish the outcome.

hummus
28-02-2010, 05:41
Dunno if this has been brought up already but how about universal weapons rules so all storm shields have the same entry. So if you update the weapon stats all the armies benefit from it. you could keep army specific weapons like frost blades as you like. But would make codex creep less prominent

jt.glass
28-02-2010, 12:06
What do you mean by this?

[QUOTE=Balerion;4437048]2. Victory Points should be the default rule, with an optional sidebar for people who'd prefer to use Kill Points for the sake of speeding up the game.What does speeding up the game have to do with anything? The game is over either way. When it comes to KP over VP, speed is way down the list behind avoiding weird metagame pressures and not punishing expensive units.


A victory is a victory a loss is a loss. Winning 12-11 as opposed to 12-0 makes no difference. Previously there was "draw, minor, major, massacre", and thus different gradients. Now it's "win/lose/draw" no matter the margin.Really? Well I gues we're all different, but having been on the receiving end of close fought defeats and routs, and there was definitely a difference for me!


Except that it's a far greater threat. The cost-benefit analysis there should be "chance of accomplishment x worth/threat" and in that regard the LR should take precedence over the drop pod in almost every situation unless the drop pod is sitting on an objective or in the way of an assault or something or the like.Exactly so, but a LR with no HK missile and a LR which has fired its HK missile are exactly the same level of threat, but under VP the latter is worth more. Both systems have their oddities, but KP can be improved to reduce them. VP are inherently flawed.


it's not punishing them twice.Well, no, to be fair it is more like three times...


They have lost a significant piece of equipment & troops, and that should (and does in every other instance that I can think of) count more towards your defeat and more towards your enemies victory than a much less capable/important unit.And due to being inherently more capable, there loss will count more towards defeat, even if they are worth the same number of kill points. Hence, punished twice.


jt.

carl
28-02-2010, 12:11
And due to being inherently more capable, there loss will count more towards defeat, even if they are worth the same number of kill points. Hence, punished twice.

The ting is there are times when a unit does NOT contribute towards a defeat. this is a game with a finite number of turns, units destroyed in the last few turns rarely cost you as much in terms of in game effect as those taken out early on. Yet both are equally damaging to the army overall.

neko
28-02-2010, 12:20
New plan:
What's often important in life is not what you've lost, but what you still have available. As such, you should get a Kill Point (Tactical Point?) for every unit you have remaining rather than every enemy unit you've killed.
Cue whining from the marine brigade in 3, 2, 1...

borithan
28-02-2010, 12:23
#1. Cover... This makes hard units and weak units both benefit from coverAs much as I agree with you, and it makes sense, part of the intention behind cover saves was so that heavily armoured units didn't benefit from cover nearly as much.



Smoke launchers do not make a rhino ignore 50% of hits. They should make it harder to hit.Mechanically being harder to hit can be represented by giving something a save. Now, it is less... intuitive, but they are basically different ways of achieving the same thing.



#2. Vehicles and shooting. Vehicles that move a certain speed for some reason can only shoot 1 weapon. This unfairly penalizes vehicles with more than one weapon.I think this is partly a hang over from 2nd and before. More recent vehicles tend to either have one main weapon, or at least can be given a load out which will allow them to fire most or all on the move (or have a load out where the use of two main weapons will not add much, say an anti-tank weapon and an anti-infantry weapon). Of course, 2nd edition vehicles were designed with a different design philosophy in mind and so suffer, having to pay for multiple heavy weapons which they can only fire by staying still.



#6 Movement. We really do need different movement back in the game. However, the emphasis on charging to increase your movement is totally retarded. Why do beasts move 6" when they can't charge, and 18" when they can? It makes no sense.Well... actually it makes a degree of sense. Cavalry didn't spend their entire time running around at full pelt. Wasteful of energy. They only did that when on the charge (12" charge range), or if really needing to get somewhere quickly (Run rule). Cavalry at normal pace don't really outpace infantry, they just tend to be able to go further before having to rest. Now, they should be able to go further than infantry when they run (Maybe add an extra d6 to total movement if they are not going to charge. If the controlling player wants to charge he can only roll 1), but other than that it fits fine. The same applies to other units that move like beasts. They tend to be fairly wild animals, and again they don't waste energy running about when there is no point (and I wouldn't give them the run bonus given to cavalry, as that is due to the rider directing them to run in a controlled manner, which a wild animal doesn't have).



Because individual stats don't seem to be popular, lets make a few new types of infantry, we already have it in vehicles, so why not in infantry.Because the ranges of weapons and the movement speeds are very clearly arranged around each other. Most things are in multiples of 6 for that very reason.



Charging occurs just like running and doesn't magically make you move faster.It doesn't... unless you are fleet. The kind of extra movement represented by the charge bonus is the same kind of extra speed represented by the run move (and as you can't charge after running you get no bonus speed). Those units that are faster than most others get fleet. Also, they clearly want to allow units to shoot before they charge (if equipped for the job). OK, your rule of allowing assault weapons to allow you to shoot as you charge in deals with it, but it complicates the turn phases (they clearly want actions that replace certain abilities to occur in the phase that the replaced action occur).



Why that happens in the shooting phase now, I'll never know.Because it occurs instead of shooting. There is no need to remember which units have run. Now, that's not too difficult normally, but there is always a chance, particularly with large armies, that you will forget and a unit will both run and shoot.

I have to say that when playing with VPs I did find odd things where what looked like a fairly good win for myself actually came out less impressive than I thought, and many games where it certainly felt like a defeat to me ending with a draw. Now, I don't have enough experience with KP to comment what it ends up with but VP were, at least on occasion, rather odd.

Frankly, when playing the game I don't tend to pay any attention to VP or KP... I just play the game trying to destroy the enemy or achieve my objective. Accounting during games just doesn't occur with myself.

jt.glass
28-02-2010, 12:33
New plan:
What's often important in life is not what you've lost, but what you still have available. As such, you should get a Kill Point (Tactical Point?) for every unit you have remaining rather than every enemy unit you've killed.
Cue whining from the marine brigade in 3, 2, 1...Sounds good to me!

I've been helping Cheeslord come up with new generic mission tables to replace the ones in the BRB and add a bit more variety, and one of my suggestions was points for surviving units. Not sure if it made the final cut of not, now.


jt.

PS I am a marine player!

njfed
28-02-2010, 14:42
GW needs to stop messing around and just do it already...remove all troop choices. This game should be about vehicles and MC blowing each other to bits. Right?

Bunnahabhain
28-02-2010, 15:28
Because it occurs instead of shooting. There is no need to remember which units have run. Now, that's not too difficult normally, but there is always a chance, particularly with large armies, that you will forget and a unit will both run and shoot.



With large armies, it's hard enough remembering all the units that have shot, to avoid missing or doubling any. And you've still got the problem of who moved, so can fire heavies, and how fast did the vehicle move, and, such like.

I can see that run was probably put in the shooting phase to try and minimise this problem, but really, given how big it is due to the other factors, the extra effort of moving models twice is not worth it. Run and fleet should be movement phase.
If you really can't remember who has done what, use markers.

borithan
28-02-2010, 18:12
I guess there is also the fact that where units are can easily affect LoS. Of course the same can occur if you happen to move those units that are going to run before you shoot with all your shooting units.

Balerion
28-02-2010, 18:31
What do you mean by this?

What does speeding up the game have to do with anything? The game is over either way. When it comes to KP over VP, speed is way down the list behind avoiding weird metagame pressures and not punishing expensive units.

GW seldom demonstrates any sort of awareness of or interest in consciously changing the various "metagames" that crop up over editions/rulesets.

And as other people have pointed out, the KP rules compromise armybuilding and exert weird metagame pressures just as much as VPs did. They're just different pressures.

It's likely that the KP system was installed to streamline and speed up the post-game phase. It takes much more time and effort to figure out which units are all-dead, half-dead-or-below, or not-dead-enough and add up the varying amounts of VPs each award than it does to simply scan the board for entirely eradicated units and take one point for each of them.

KPs were GW throwing a bone to lazy gamers and kids who didn't want to do math after games. I'm not saying everybody who prefers KPs fits into those groups; there are obviously people who prefer them for other, more valid reasons. But I don't think they were the people (or the reasons) that the rule was intended for.

alextroy
28-02-2010, 18:47
KPs were GW throwing a bone to lazy gamers and kids who didn't want to do math after games. I'm not saying everybody who prefers KPs fits into those groups; there are obviously people who prefer them for other, more valid reasons. But I don't think they were the people (or the reasons) that the rule was intended for.

I doubt that. Kill Points where probably a way to quickly determine the winner of a game who's objective is to destroy the enemy and to be able to easily determine who's winning at any point of the game.

It takes all of 30 seconds to determine who won a Annihilation game and all of 10 seconds to determine who won Capture Ground or Seize and Control games.

Now compare that to a Victory Point game that takes five minutes and a calculator and you can see why they put Kill Points into the core rules and put Victory Points at the very back of the book.

Bunnahabhain
28-02-2010, 18:53
I totally disagree with the above two posts.

If you have half a brain, and know your army at all, let alone have a legible army list, then it takes about 30 seconds to figure out VPs.

I know this as it is what you do in fantasy. I'm assuming I can add up a few two or three digits equally well in both...

Balerion
28-02-2010, 18:58
I totally disagree with the above two posts.

If you have half a brain, and know your army at all, let alone have a legible army list, then it takes about 30 seconds to figure out VPs.

I know this as it is what you do in fantasy. I'm assuming I can add up a few two or three digits equally well in both...
This is just not true.

Or are you able to glance at a squad of Gaunts that started out with 30 models at the beginning of the game and instantly tell whether they are at 14 models or 15 models on the last turn?

It's not the addition that is trouble to anybody. It's the process of going through your list, top-to-bottom, and figuring out which units are worth what. Whether or not you think the process takes "a long time" would be a subjective judgment; all that matters is if you think it takes longer than KPs do. And I don't think you can honestly argue that it doesn't.

Also, @ alextroy, I think you must have misread something in my post, because you say you doubt me but then go on to agree with exactly what I was saying.

borithan
28-02-2010, 19:04
Well... if you have some sort of pre-game preparation (say work out half costs before the game and record them on your army list), then yes, it wouldn't take too long. I would say longer than 30 seconds, but well short of 5 minutes. Still requires carrying out arithmetic after the game, rather than simple counting, usually involving bits of paper or a calculator (only necessary if you have forgotten/have no access to your pieces of paper/daftly forgotten to include overall unit costs on your army list).

Draconian77
28-02-2010, 19:07
If I had the power to change a few things, these would probably be the highest priorities on my list:

~Squads that are in a Transport when it's destroyed are automatically Pinned until the end of their next turn.

~Make vehicle Defensive Weapons S6.

~Remove KPs.

~Remove True Line of Sight, go back to abstract sizes and area terrain.

Those things aside...release all the army lists as PDF's. Update quarterly.

Bunnahabhain
28-02-2010, 19:10
Virtually all the time, you are able to tell at a glance if a unit is above or below half strength. Yes, there will be the occasional time with 14/15 gaunts, but it's not a common happening.

It is also assuming an implementation of VPs that gives you points for half strength.
Even a very simple one of full VPs for killing it, none for anything else, would beconsiderably better that KPs as they are.

Balerion
28-02-2010, 21:08
Virtually all the time, you are able to tell at a glance if a unit is above or below half strength. Yes, there will be the occasional time with 14/15 gaunts, but it's not a common happening.

It is also assuming an implementation of VPs that gives you points for half strength.
Even a very simple one of full VPs for killing it, none for anything else, would beconsiderably better that KPs as they are.
Let me get one thing straight -- I'm 100% in favour of VPs over KPs. My gaming group uses the old VP system, actually.

I'm not saying that the extra time involved in VPs warrants is a bad thing. In my opinion, the slight bit of extra time is totally worthwhile for producing an accurate determination of the victor/margin of victory. What I'm saying is that GW reacted to the perception of many gamers that VPs was too involved, and dumbed it down in favour of a simpler (and stupider) system.

So you don't need to convince me that the minor hassle of VPs is outweighed by the benefits; I'm right there with you. But it can't be denied that there's a significant gap in the simplicity/effort required between VPs vs. KPs.

Arodan
28-02-2010, 21:29
Rethink KillPoints same KP value for all units is not fair across the board. Just give victory points instead of KP you have your armylist so it does not take much longer than current KP and is deffinatly quicker than 4th ed VPs.

Remove True Line of Sight. Put in a defined height for different bases like in WARMACHINE speeds up the flow of game and encourages big conversions (and does not punish me for using a Forgeworld Avatar)

And of course please let our current codexes still work under 6th ed with GW's speed it would take ages before all army's would be supported to their fullest again.

hellspawn1
03-03-2010, 02:11
Wonder if GW would start to listen if we summarized the most commonly occuring suggestions from a thread like this, and mailed it in the form of a letter to their headquarters.

Lord of Worms
03-03-2010, 02:17
So you don't need to convince me that the minor hassle of VPs is outweighed by the benefits; I'm right there with you. But it can't be denied that there's a significant gap in the simplicity/effort required between VPs vs. KPs.

If you can`t do VPs, you can`t make an army list either. If that is in fact the reason why they did it, then they must have been extremely drunk when they wrote it.

Pink Horror
03-03-2010, 11:56
I can't believe I'm doing this, because I disagree with practically all of EmperorEternalXIX's logic, but I have to support KP.

The other two missions add artificial value to a location on the table in order to give you something to defend and attack. The kill point mission adds value to your weakest units to give you something to defend and attack. Bringing in the drop pods behind your lines could make sense if you put half a thought into roleplaying it. They are carrying delivering artifacts and you now have to defend them. Each army, with the skew caused by kill points, has a pre-written story to go with it, if you are willing to be creative and go with the flow. All three missions skew the game towards something other than just target the toughest unit. Maybe it is realistic, but unfortunately, a perfectly fair system results in the most boring game. It's the unfairness that changes things up. I'd also be curious to try a system that skews things in the other direction, so that the best squads in your army are worth even more than they should be fairly be worth.

Bunnahabhain
03-03-2010, 12:28
I can't believe I'm doing this, because I disagree with practically all of EmperorEternalXIX's logic, but I have to support KP.
I know the feeling! Once in a while there is a flash of genius amongst the strong opinions:rolleyes:. Not in this case though...


The other two missions add artificial value to a location on the table in order to give you something to defend and attack....snip

Missions, however, are at least weighed fairly equally for all armies- there is a slight issue with very small armies and 5 objectives, but only a small one.

Real battles are fought for missions - destroy that Bunker, capture that bridge etc, etc.

if you roll missions, place them in sensible locations on the table, and rejig the terrain slightly if needed, and they will make much more sense.



The easiest fix for KPs is you get a KP for everything you kill, and one for each of your units that survives. They're still ot a great way of balancing the drop pod vs the terminators inside, but at least it put both armies on a level playing field, in about 10 words...

sliganian
03-03-2010, 14:16
Wonder if GW would start to listen if we summarized the most commonly occuring suggestions from a thread like this, and mailed it in the form of a letter to their headquarters.

No. They seldomed listened to their playtesters, why would they listen to random internet people?

shaso_iceborn
03-03-2010, 15:27
Rethink KillPoints same KP value for all units is not fair across the board. Just give victory points instead of KP you have your armylist so it does not take much longer than current KP and is deffinatly quicker than 4th ed VPs.

Remove True Line of Sight. Put in a defined height for different bases like in WARMACHINE speeds up the flow of game and encourages big conversions (and does not punish me for using a Forgeworld Avatar)

And of course please let our current codexes still work under 6th ed with GW's speed it would take ages before all army's would be supported to their fullest again.

This is actually smart. Just give the VP for fully destroyed unit. If the unit is not fully destroyed NO VP. This would make it basically the same as KP that you get no KP/VP unless the unit is fully destroyed but, it would make the cost of units more fair.

Lord of Worms
03-03-2010, 17:50
I can't believe I'm doing this, because I disagree with practically all of EmperorEternalXIX's logic, but I have to support KP.

The other two missions add artificial value to a location on the table in order to give you something to defend and attack. The kill point mission adds value to your weakest units to give you something to defend and attack....

Good point, but one of the major issues I have with KP is that people end up ignoring single model units because it`s "giving away Kill Points", and directly affecting composition. With VP, there`s no modifying how many points you can potentially give away to the opponent, it`s entirely dependant on the size of the game.

CoolKidRoc
03-03-2010, 17:58
The easiest fix for KPs is you get a KP for everything you kill, and one for each of your units that survives. They're still ot a great way of balancing the drop pod vs the terminators inside, but at least it put both armies on a level playing field, in about 10 words...

I could almost support this... as it would allow both armies to come with the same amount of KPs to a side.

SandQueen
03-03-2010, 18:47
I ram quite often. My wave serpents can pack quite a ramming punch from 21+" away.

I rammed a Falcon of mine into a Carnifex, blew up, and annihilated it. I thought it was pretty cool.

My husband plays guard and he rams stuff all the time. It isnt cool though when he sends two chimeras to gangbang my Wave Serpents. Ramming from both sides is not fun. Effective though.

eggmarine
03-03-2010, 19:55
Overwatch (fairly easy to patch in from 2nd ed- give it a try)

Rules for crossfire, similar to the epic crossfire rules, ie a reduction in save, or a morale penalty (knowing the enemy are to your side or rear takes your mind off the guys in front)

Suppression, as well as the pinning rules getting shot at makes you a worse shot (you keep your head down if stuff flies at you) Ld test or lose -1 BS in your next turn. Some troops could be immune or less affected because they have elite training or good armour- space marines, monsters, necrons etc. This makes longer firefights but stops armies behaving suicidally as they can tend to do in 3rd- 5th ed. (Overwatch also stops a lot of this behaviour)

These would lengthen the game but make it more realsitic, well as realistic as power armoured monks killing space elves gets anyways.

I love the 40k universe but play less and less since RT, because I think the game is pretty lame as far as the rules are concerned- they reward more army list picking and riding probabilities rather than combined arms tactics.

But thats just my few cents from an old fart who prefers to paint nowadays.