PDA

View Full Version : Wholesale correction ideas for 40k



Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 18:28
In a world where it takes website posters ten minutes to spot the new "broken" build, perhaps GW would do better to "post" previews to a select group of hard core tournament style players so that they may point out obvious problems.

Since we know that they'll never do something so common-sensical, here are my ideas for "fixing" the current problem areas...


Eldar: Holofield gives -1 to damage rolls. While still useful, it wouldn't be statistically improbable to bring down. Perhaps reduce Harlquins to base 1 attack.

Tyranids: eliminate +1 wound and +1 save. They are hard enough already. Perhaps even shave a wound off base Carnifexs.

Chaos(New, from reports): Lash is used once per game(perhaps at a reduced cost): Use current rules for Daemons(NO to generic Daemon Rules; but only one unit can be summoned per Icon. (so no one unit can bring in a daemon bomb)Perhaps keep the whole not taking up FOC for daemons.

Tau: Devilfish are for Required Troops only(so 2 max to limit Fish-o-Fury)

Space Marines: Combat Squads and Heavies for Full Squads ony for all Chapters. Reduce Company Master ability to Provide LD to units within 12"
Fear of the Darkness affects only units within 12" inches(no to Tigirius doubling it!) and at base LD.

Imperial Guard: NO to AC for tournament style play. Simply unfair to bring a balanced list against. Balance Doctrine system(would require new book to bring into balance)

Terrain: More terrain at tournaments! It's ridiculous that the tournament organizers aren't even following the rulebook minimums(which I think are still a little too low).

Orks: would be ok if everyone else was balanced and more terrain was in play. Still waiting to see what they have planned for them. NO to Furious Charge instead of the Waaaagghh! I'd Like to see Trukk boyz as troop choices so that a Kult of Speed army would be viable. Specialist units like tankbustas and kommandos need a higher max squad size in the 4th ed environment. Eavy Choppas get -2 initiate and reduce saves to 5+ max and are available to Elite mobs, like 'Ard boyz. Reduced cost for Nob Squads or at least built in 'eavy armor, slugga and choppa at 20 points!

Well, Warseer, what do you think? Would these ideas bring the game back in line? Do you have any ideas of your own that fix what GW has done to OUR GAME!?!!

Kegluneq
17-08-2007, 18:41
Tau: Devilfish are for Required Troops only(so 2 max to limit Fish-o-Fury)


Is it really that much of an issue? It's not as if other armies don't have their own fast-moving assault waves. If them Fire Warriors ain't mounted, they're a sitting duck anyway - especially against that sort of army.

I definitely agree on the terrain thing, even if my Tau can exploit both extremes. XD

azimaith
17-08-2007, 18:49
In a world where it takes website posters ten minutes to spot the new "broken" build, perhaps GW would do better to "post" previews to a select group of hard core tournament style players so that they may point out obvious problems.

This will not result in a balanced product as the metagame makes the biggest difference in terms of game play. Second to that terrain makes the second largest difference. Since neither are adjucated its rather pointless. 25% terrain doesn't specify where the terrain goes, put it in one spot and assault rocks, in another and shooting dominates.



Since we know that they'll never do something so common-sensical, here are my ideas for "fixing" the current problem areas...

They actually do apparently have players who do this sort of fact finding, once again metagame.



Eldar: Holofield gives -1 to damage rolls. While still useful, it wouldn't be statistically improbable to bring down. Perhaps reduce Harlquins to base 1 attack.

Holofields make what would otherwise be a pointlessly weak skimmer really really good. I would prefer they simply say: "An eldar player may elect to have any damage dice *re-rolled* but the second result must stand." Better than decoy launchers but not as totally amazing as holofields. As for harlequins, they're issue is rending and everyones dog getting rending too.



Tyranids: eliminate +1 wound and +1 save. They are hard enough already.

Sounds like you've never used tyranids. +1 wound and +1 save for the carnifex is what makes non-godzilla lists vialble. Without them you'd need more carnifex to fill in the anti-tank role which would result in godzilla lists being ever more prevalent over normal swarm lists. Its not a huge issue either way.



Chaos(New, from reports): Lash is used once per game(perhaps at a reduced cost):

If lash simply gave you a leadership test to resist *even at a penalty* it wouldn't be an issue.



Use current rules for Daemons(NO to generic Daemon Rules; but only one unit can be summoned per Icon. (so no one unit can bring in a daemon bomb)Perhaps keep the whole not taking up FOC for daemons.

Theres nothing wrong with generic daemons, old ones were horrendously overpowered (for certain daemons who I think everyone already can identify) because of their inviolability on the way in.



Tau: Devilfish are for Required Troops only(so 2 max to limit Fish-o-Fury)

Do you really have an issue with people jumping out and shooting you? Thats what devilfish are for. Theres nothing wrong with fish of fury as long as they don't exploit the 1" rule for stupid forcefields.



Space Marines: Combat Squads and Heavies for Full Squads ony for all Chapters.

Already coming down the line.



Reduce Company Master ability to Provide LD to units within 12"
Fear of the Darkness affects only units within 12" inches(no to Tigirius doubling it!) and at base LD.

I think players have pretty much given up on affecting SMs with any leadership based test so long as they aren't suffering from hefty modifiers. FTD is fine with basic leadership, the -2 was unecessary to begin with.



Imperial Guard: NO to AC for tournament style play. Simply unfair to bring a balanced list against. Balance Doctrine system(would require new book to bring into balance)

AC in tournament play tends to be disallowed or at least looked down upon, I wouldn't worry about it too much, AC's aren't that hard to beat with most lists. Doctrines are pretty balanced and many are horrendously overpriced. Drop troops and the like should remain free, its a character trait and its benefit is rather limited considering the vagaries of deep strike.



Terrain: More terrain at tournaments! It's ridiculous that the tournament organizers aren't even following the rulebook minimums(which I think are still a little too low).

You can have 3/4's terrain and still not make a lick of difference. Whats important is where terrain is placed. Most places make the stupid mistake (that tells light armor assault armies to go shove it) of placing all the terrain on the table edges and leaving the center empty. This is stupid, 90% of the terrain plays no part in the rest of the battle once the assaulters leave their deployment while shooting armies benefit the entire game. A mix of central and edge terrain is more important than more terrain.



Orks: would be ok if everyone else was balanced and more terrain was in play. Still waiting to see what they have planned for them. NO to Furious Charge instead of the Waaaagghh! I'd Like to see Trukk boyz as troop choices so that a Kult of Speed army would be viable.

Orks are ok now. They suffer from the same problems with mechanized armies as any other assault light armor army, but thats just a part of the gamescape right now. Furious charge instead of Waaagh! isn't necessarily bad as long as basic ork initiative increases by one.



Well, Warseer, what do you think? Would these ideas bring the game back in line? Do you have any ideas of your own that fix what GW has done to OUR GAME!?!!
The game is pretty solid as it is. Besides, its GW's game, we just buy it and we can stop doing it too.

Most of this is a sledgehammer for stuff that requires a scalpel.

the1stpip
17-08-2007, 18:52
Apparently, GW stopped all external playtesting a while back. About the last thing they playtested externally was the Ogre kingdoms...

The_Outsider
17-08-2007, 18:58
In before ways to "improve" Necrons (read: warseer nerfs them into oblivion for "game balance").

Mostly the way I see a lot of things balanced is the stats of units, i.e dark eldar lords and tryanids are the only ones that should get I6+.

You could quite easily balance things out that way which would leave troops (and select elites) as jack of all trades.

Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 19:13
Some good points there. Subtlety isn't really in my daily vocabulary, I admit. I agree that terrain positioning being as important as amount, but for position to matter there has to "Be" some terrain on the board to be positioned. Also I hate to see "mirror" tables as well. It simply isn't fun.

This whole attitude of "the game solid as it is" and "we can stop doing it too" sounds like you work for GW and your telling me that I can get lost. I hope you didn't mean it as such. There are some pretty obvious no brainer army selections that need to be toned down so that everybody can play in a tournament environment and still have a good, close game.

I'm not just ranting here. I'm making suggestions for improvement and soliciting more. Perhaps I'm even hoping that game designers are trolling here and are looking for constructive feedback instead of being defensive about their work. You are right. There's nothing wrong with the game and if I don't like it I can leave it. But I DON'T WANT TO! What I want is to correct the loopholes so that people don't have the option abuse the game without sacrificing the originality, personality and variety of choice that made this game fun in the first place! Is that too much to ask for?

BrainFireBob
17-08-2007, 19:19
The problem is, of course, that this is all armchair rules-writing.

I've seen quite a few posters claim they've developed better "alternate" rules to 40K. Bull, I say, unless those rules have been scrutinized by hundreds of thousands of players all over the world looking for loopholes, instead of a friendly gaming group that knows how to "read them as intended," you've proved diddly-squat about how you've written a tighter rules-set.

Same with critiquing GW's rules and their "lack of common sense." We say "obviously they didn't playtest this." Maybe they did, but not in that particular combo- their mistake. Will flat-out changing them make them better?

Saying "oh, all they needed to do was this" is very, very ignorant at best unless you've playtested that change thoroughly, had, again, hundreds of thousands of people scrutinize it, and found out that, yes indeed, it's balanced and works.

Marinox
17-08-2007, 19:25
that's all just sillyness...

SILLYNESS I SAY !!

you can't limit/abolish something as soon as someone develops a tactic with the rule/model.

rise and overcome

Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 19:27
In before ways to "improve" Necrons (read: warseer nerfs them into oblivion for "game balance").

Mostly the way I see a lot of things balanced is the stats of units, i.e dark eldar lords and tryanids are the only ones that should get I6+.

You could quite easily balance things out that way which would leave troops (and select elites) as jack of all trades.

As far as necrons go: let them keep the WBB roll, just reduce it to 5+ and eliminate the phase out thing in game. They can still disappear after the game!
Of course this could lead to abusive number of Monoliths, and a Star god to boot, but I've long been a supporter of adjusting the FOC situation. I'd like to see a 1 troop choice requirement for every 500 points! This would make 40k battles between ARMIES instead of collections of toys.

Before Imperial Guard players jump on me, I'd say that grenadiers should be available to all types of guard armies as compensation.

Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 19:39
Granted I've not the post count that you guys have amounted, but I've been playing for the last ten years or so, and I think I have a pretty good idea of the ramifications of said changes. I do have experience playing against Shooty nids and they are very powerful, as is noted on this website and Dakka and many others.

I don't claim to have any rule writing experience, but I do troll many boards, play many games against competitive opponents, and where else are you going to type from but an (computer) arm-chair? Don't jump on me because I think changes some changes are necessary, while others are arbitrary and limiting because they are! Repetition of complaints doesn't necessarily prove that there is a problem, but it does suggest that it should be looked into!

These are suggestions about correcting the most complained about and statistically unfair problems that we face. If you don't like my ideas suggest some of your own instead of denying the problem's existence!

Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 19:53
There is a huge difference between tactics and game breaking. Tactics can be countered with counter-tactics mid-game. If you need another army list or have to play rock-paper-scissors with which army you bring, then what is occurring is an attempt to break the game.

If you can just press the easy-win button against most armies, then you are not proving anything other than that you got lucky in your choice of opponents. If you do that, then you deserve the rock-paper-scissors that crushes your army. I'd like to see choices that make for interesting play styles, and characterful armies that are still effective. If we could tone down the obvious "Easy win" buttons, then we could play with different army compositions rather than having to prepare our armies for the latest army's game breaking mechanism.

Voltaire01
17-08-2007, 20:46
The idea of Traits/Doctrines and such is very cool. It's the execution that was the problem. Now they are on a trend of eliminating such and STILL not dealing with the game breaking mechanics as demonstrated by the new Chaos codex; though I think the direction of BA/DA is a good one, they still lack somewhat in originality as armies; the only distinctions (other than special characters) is that BA gets Assault Marines as troop choices and Better Vet Assault, and DA gets to split they're Dev squads.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-08-2007, 04:20
In before ways to "improve" Necrons (read: warseer nerfs them into oblivion for "game balance").
In that situation, a lot of non-necron players definitely skewed the suggestions with "NERF EM ALL" suggestions. That could be a phenomenon in open post playtesting too.



Mostly the way I see a lot of things balanced is the stats of units, i.e dark eldar lords and tryanids are the only ones that should get I6+.

What, so Eldar Autarchs/Harlies should not have at least I6? Why can't the good(or at least more ethical) eldar be fast in cc too?

The_Outsider
18-08-2007, 13:59
In that situation, a lot of non-necron players definitely skewed the suggestions with "NERF EM ALL" suggestions. That could be a phenomenon in open post playtesting too.

Warseer has routinely voted Necrons its most hated race so apart from those few who actually know what they are on about the majority of Warseer doesn't know jack about necrons.



What, so Eldar Autarchs/Harlies should not have at least I6? Why can't the good(or at least more ethical) eldar be fast in cc too?

It was just an example to get across my point, not an actual "these guys I6 only".