|
Moola posted:Firstly, nice OP, very well structured and thought out. I'm gonna add some spitball ideas to the brainstorm doc. I think that because of their similarities, we can make it compatible with both. But it will "require" a 6 or 7th edition rulebook.
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
What fundamental 7th Edition changes make it less desirable as a foundation than 6th? Just the Psychic Phase? Even there, I like (on paper) its improvements to all of the old disciplines. Consensus does not yet seem to exist that an extended FAQ is what we're going for rather than a full mod. As Panzeh said, I think that's why we need to talk about it before we elect people. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other (although I am definitely less capable of contributing to one than the other).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
I think aiming for a full mod, at this point, is aiming too high. We're two pages in and were still spitballing ideas. If we pick at the low hanging fruit first and concentrate on fixing the gsame we already have, we will also be able to more closely identify what can and should be revised for a full mod. Jumping straight into the latter, which is an exponentially larger task, seems a little too ambitious for a first swing. A consolidated set of house rules between 6th and 7th should be the primary goal for the time being. It's less daunting, easier to identify problems and tackle them, and more community friendly. A ground up game will be met with resistance from people who want to bring a set of house rules to their gaming group, rather than convince their friends to play a brand new game.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
I personally think these group house rules should be modifications to the most current GW rules document, for ease of introducing it to other players if nothing else. You can say: "Our rules are largely similar to 7th, but they have these following caveats that we've altered to make gameplay more enjoyable" and outline the handful of important changes we come up with here.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:I personally think these group house rules should be modifications to the most current GW rules document, for ease of introducing it to other players if nothing else. You can say: "Our rules are largely similar to 7th, but they have these following caveats that we've altered to make gameplay more enjoyable" and outline the handful of important changes we come up with here. Yeah, going backwards an edition is pointless if we're going to be making alterations. The only truly new thing is the Psychic Phase, and I think it's a much, much better system than just throwing powers into every phase with no chance to DtW for many of the best powers. Also, it's not like 6th was the genesis for this thread, so why not stick with fixing 7th?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Well personally I think 6th is a better base because it is was widley agreed to be pretty balanced, with only a few inherent problems that needed fixing. Where as 7th seems to have some steps backwards (terrain rules, FMC rules) that would need adjusting, on top of the problems inherent with 6th. That's just a personal opinion though I guess. v  vTuxedo Jack posted:I think that because of their similarities, we can make it compatible with both. But it will "require" a 6 or 7th edition rulebook. I think this could work too, considering the versions are so similar. The only downside is that making any changes to actually casting psychic powers would get really complex, as you would have to reference 6th and 7th different ways of dealing with powers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Not if one of the changes was a completely new way of casting powers that overrode both 6th and 7th! 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
I think basing it on 7th works, because it's inclusive of the other expansions, and the core changes from 6th to 7th aren't all that drastic.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Moola posted:Well personally I think 6th is a better base because it is was widley agreed to be pretty balanced, with only a few inherent problems that needed fixing. Like, 90%, of the old thread was people complaining ab anout how unbalanced the game was regarding Flyers and Assault being mostly useless. FMC's got better this edition overall because grounding tests were bullshit before, terrain is an easy fix for 7th, and the new psychic phase is miles better it seems. Possibly limiting the number of warp charge similarly to power dice in Fantasy to prevent the crazy summon spam lists. Tl;dr: 6th wasn't really very balanced either, everyone kinda seemed to hate it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone has bashed up a "The differences between 6th and 7th" document yet? Reddit was normally pretty good for stuff like that. There was a 3 page rules summary for 6th that included every table and applicable rule for every phase. I'll link it when I get home.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Ok if you guys think 7th is a better base I'm not gonna argue. I'm just gonna post who I think should be ~*in charge*~ of this idea because I can't work out that link thing you posted. (Because I am dumb.) Tuxedo Jack JerryLee
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Regarding the Priorities List Add "Make Warlord Traits less likely to screw you over for a bad roll". Even if our fix is only allowing re-rolls of Traits that have no benefit for a particular army, we need something.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Regarding the Priorities List I mentioned this issue last page, but since then I thought of a really fast solution I wanted to throw out there: -Nix the "Battleforged Warlords get to reroll" rule. Instead: -The Warlord of a Battle-Forged army may choose to be either Extemporal or Deliberate. -An Extemporal Warlord may roll twice for Warlord Traits and keep both results. -A Deliberate Warlord may choose any single available Warlord Trait.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Moola posted:Ok if you guys think 7th is a better base I'm not gonna argue. If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. I will assist with organization and helping steer the discussion, but I think as a group we need to select those with more experience. Since the poll is very quiet, why don't we take those who have been nominated thus far and ask them if they're interested in participating. Indolent Bastard posted:Regarding the Priorities List Added to the spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. I have to echo this. While I'm flattered that anyone would nominate me, I've only been playing this game since Dark Vengeance came out. Also, my ability to playtest IRL (which I think would be a necessary criterion for the people actually on the 'committee' as it were) is limited. I'm happy to spitball some ideas and give feedback, but I don't think I'm nearly as qualified as others to be one of the final arbiters. Also, re: the 6/7 question: My thinking when I originally brought up this concern was that the houserules/"community FAQ" should take 7 as their inspiration and closest basis, but should include enough information so that they can be fully played with a 6E rulebook. The whole point is that the overwhelming majority of things are the same in 6E, so there's only a few things that will require some gymnastics to communicate to the 6E player without violating the copyright on 7E. JerryLee fucked around with this message at 18:37 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
On that subject I was thinking a group of reliable play testers might take some work off the committee's plate. I wouldn't be a great choice because I only play one army, live pretty far from others on the grim dark map and am, at times, an unobjective whiny little bitch. If anyone that likes to give rules a fair chance, has time and inclination for it, and ideally plays a few armies wants to volunteer just to play test rough drafts of new stuff it will probably help spread the workload.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
I would love to submit playtesting reports whenever I get the chance to, if that will be useful; I simply don't (currently) have the reliability or depth of playgroup, or depth of my own armies, to provide reams of data. (On that note, if any Kansas City area 40K goons are in this thread and would like to playtest, or just play some mans in general, let me know.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
I'd like to put together a list for Tyranid fixes. I'd leave the good units untouched, but there's a lot of units in the book and a few pieces of wargear that are just so useless. Maybe work in conjunction with Pierre the Mime since he seems to also be an expert on the subject.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:I'd like to put together a list for Tyranid fixes. I'd leave the good units untouched, but there's a lot of units in the book and a few pieces of wargear that are just so useless. Maybe work in conjunction with Pierre the Mime since he seems to also be an expert on the subject. I'd be happy to work on that as well, they're the army I'm most familiar with by far
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
I think we should work our way through from the very general fixes to the specific ones such as codices and individual unit types (like fliers and jump troops), iff such specific fixes are still needed after general balance ones have been addressed. From what I've seen, everyone seems to be in agreement that 1. shooting vs. assault armies 2. psychic powers/phase 3. dynamic objectives are the three things that for sure need looked at. Maybe focus energy and discussion on those for the time being?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
mmj posted:On that subject I was thinking a group of reliable play testers might take some work off the committee's plate. I wouldn't be a great choice because I only play one army, live pretty far from others on the grim dark map and am, at times, an unobjective whiny little bitch. If anyone that likes to give rules a fair chance, has time and inclination for it, and ideally plays a few armies wants to volunteer just to play test rough drafts of new stuff it will probably help spread the workload. I'm a 6-hour drive away from one person on the Grimdark map, and about a state away from the next closest person (Being in West Australia), but I do run a weekly tabletop gaming club with a 40k playerbase of around 6-10 people who would likely be open to the suggestion of trying out houserules since a couple of them think that the new psychic phase is busted in a bad way. If playtesters are needed for stuff, once we have some basic stuff to try out, feel free to shoot me a PM with the rules to mess around with and I'll get back to you in this thread with the feedback on it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:I'm a 6-hour drive away from one person on the Grimdark map, and about a state away from the next closest person (Being in West Australia), but I do run a weekly tabletop gaming club with a 40k playerbase of around 6-10 people who would likely be open to the suggestion of trying out houserules since a couple of them think that the new psychic phase is busted in a bad way. That sounds really useful. Thanks for the offer. Even without a board of directors or whatever I think we might want to start discussing what is in the brain storm document so we don't lose all our momentum. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:That sounds really useful. Thanks for the offer. At a glance, the problem with the brainstorming document (and by problem I just mean something that needs to be refined, not a moral flaw on the part of those who entered it so far) seems to be that the "issues addressed" don't lend themselves to clear sorting into categories. There's a lot of stuff that would be more usefully tagged simply 'assault' so that one could tell at a glance that they were all somehow related to fixing assault armies. I think someone should do a pass on the brainstorming ideas and organize them into broader categories like "assault," "psychic," and so forth, and then we should pick one to mock up some playtesting rules, and do playtesting on, first. To kick things into motion, I'll make a proposition: start with assault. This isn't something I'm heavily invested in, it's just for the sake of somebody proposing something.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
In regards to the Assault ideas addressed in the brainstorming document (Indolent, it could be a good idea shifting the link to it into the OP to make it easier to get to), I think the 6" or 2d6" is a bit too strong in a system that allows premeasuring. The idea I shamelessly poached from someone in the 7th edition thread about 'powerful charges' would be a good way to patch it, since there'd be an actual bonus to rolling high as opposed to just enough to get into melee. If that does become a thing, what sort of benefit should the Powerful Charge grant? Enemy cannot Overwatch (because the unit is closing distance too fast for a reaction)? Additional Str on the charge (Because they're hitting the enemy lines with greater force)? Additional I or ignoring charging-into-cover penalty (To help Tyranids who can have offensive grenades on a whole 3 different models)? We could even change up some fundamentals, like changing offensive grenades to denying Overwatch, and have Move Through Cover ignore the charging into cover penalty. e: That might make Marine variants fairly powerful, but Orks would love it (since the only things they strike first against are Thunderhams anyway, and they take less casualties on the way in, and Tyranids would love not swinging after Necron Warriors) HiveCommander fucked around with this message at 05:08 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:I'm a 6-hour drive away from one person on the Grimdark map, and about a state away from the next closest person (Being in West Australia) Oh poo poo, you live in Boulder wow. If you do ever take your nerd soldiers into the Big City, I'm up for a game as long as you don't murder me irl or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Oh poo poo, you live in Boulder wow. If you do ever take your nerd soldiers into the Big City, I'm up for a game as long as you don't murder me irl or whatever. Sounds good, I'm actually moving to Perth for a few months in October to do an IT course so I'll make sure to pack all my wargaming stuff when I go.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:In regards to the Assault ideas addressed in the brainstorming document (Indolent, it could be a good idea shifting the link to it into the OP to make it easier to get to), I think the 6" or 2d6" is a bit too strong in a system that allows premeasuring. The idea I shamelessly poached from someone in the 7th edition thread about 'powerful charges' would be a good way to patch it, since there'd be an actual bonus to rolling high as opposed to just enough to get into melee. It could be a Hammer of Wrath thing. Get X above the charge distance you need and you get a HoW attack, maybe with exceptionally higher results being higher Strength. Or, grant the attack to lucky assaulters but only have a possible bonus to strength if the unit already has the HoW rule.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:It could be a Hammer of Wrath thing. Get X above the charge distance you need and you get a HoW attack, maybe with exceptionally higher results being higher Strength. Or, grant the attack to lucky assaulters but only have a possible bonus to strength if the unit already has the HoW rule. Yeah, HoW could be something worth looking at. I initially thought that the defender being unable to Overwatch a Powerful Charge would be good, but it makes it a bit too easy to get around Overwatch otherwise, especially if combined with my idea for assault grenade changes. Assault grenades used to work in context (where the charging into cover penalty was rationalised by the defending unit being dug in and shooting at the oncoming enemies), but in an environment where Overwatch exists, grenades countering Overwatch makes a lot more sense, but it might be too powerful. We could always FAQ grenades as a purchasable option for troublesome units, but currently the only armies that have army-wide assault grenades are Space Marines and honestly, they aren't really going to take casualties from Overwatch fire anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Other possible benefits of rolling higher than you need to on your Assault distance: -Rerollable armor saves -Armor saves become invulnerable -Opponent only hits on 5+ -Strike first (like WHFB does it) -Can consolidate into Assault if you one-round the target -Gain FNP -Force nearby enemy units to test for Pinning Thematically, all of these can be interpreted as "shock value."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
What about an initiative penalty for defenders that fire Overwatch? If you spend the time shooting at the squad that's charging you, will you be 100% prepared to defend yourself ideally when they reach combat? If a squad elects to fire overwatch, perhaps they should fight the first round of combat at initiative 1?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
WhiteWolf123 posted:What about an initiative penalty for defenders that fire Overwatch? If you spend the time shooting at the squad that's charging you, will you be 100% prepared to defend yourself ideally when they reach combat? If a squad elects to fire overwatch, perhaps they should fight the first round of combat at initiative 1? I like the spirit of that change, but given the realities of model stats I'm not sure it's much of a choice unless we're talking about Marines charging Marines. Grenades and terrain definitely add some nuance, but Fire Warriors choosing Overwatch against Assault Marines or whatever aren't losing anything. If we're making changes at all (and I think we are), I'd rather either introduce a meaningful choice or have the random binary result be an occasional buff than an occasional disaster (or not have it be binary at all), or both. I really liked the idea in the main thread of being able to forfeit shooting for Overwatch at full BS.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
How about something more like WHFB, introduce a minimum distance for overwatch fire? e.g. you can only declare overwatch against an enemy further than 6" away. Encourages the enemy to get really close before declaring the charge. I like the idea of bringing in Overrun from WHFB too, if you wipe out a unit in the turn you assault it you can consolidate into another combat. Max once per turn (in case you consolidate into an already engaged unit and run that combat second, wiping them out too).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I really liked the idea in the main thread of being able to forfeit shooting for Overwatch at full BS. Ehhhhhhhhh. That seems needlessly damaging to the assaulters, really. People are already frustrated losing models to overwatch and failing charges, how much worse would it be for Orks or Nids against full BS shooting. We want to buff assault armies, not shooting ones, remember?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I really liked the idea in the main thread of being able to forfeit shooting for Overwatch at full BS. I like this too because it encourages tactical decision making. E.g maybe some of your squads guns are out of range/los, so you take the gamble of maybe bringing all your guns to bear during the assault phase. Additionally your opponent has to make the decision between charging a full BS target, or picking another target entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
I would actually go further and maybe say you cannot shoot and over watch in the same game turn; maybe unless you have some sort of USR.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Moola posted:I would actually go further and maybe say you cannot shoot and over watch in the same game turn; maybe unless you have some sort of USR. That's 2nd Ed, and it turned games into camp-fests against melee units, where they had no good charge targets and got pounded on by long range guns.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Other possible benefits of rolling higher than you need to on your Assault distance: These seem reasonable to me. But the 5+ wouldn't be an issue for units with BS2. If anyone takes issue with the options above would this play out better? 1: Assaulting unit roll for charge, get higher than is needed. 2: Defending unit roll for leadership. Succeed, no penalty; fail get a penalty to shoot or opponent gets strike first. I'm not sure this is needed, but it might be a good control to stop whatever we choose to buff Assault with from becoming OP. Borrowing from the main thread (which I wish would post this kind of stuff here). Panzeh posted:Overwatch would be a lot more interesting if it were a bit more limited but could be affected in normal game terms(not by psyker powers). They borrow half of the defensive fire mechanic from Flames of War but then forget everything that makes the mechanic interesting. Power Player posted:Yeah, regarding Overwatch, it was sort of just "here, whoever is getting assaulted gets a buff, flat-out." There's no choice there. They couldn't have made a rule like the new Jink rule that has a tradeoff for Overwatching? Like you then strike at Initiative 1 in that same combat or something Cataphract posted:2nd ed over watch was great in this regard. You forwent shooting in your turn in order to shoot during your opponents turn. Panzeh posted:2nd ed overwatch is the kind of mechanic that makes more sense in the smaller scale that 2nd ed had. Unfortunately when GW increased the model count with 3rd ed, you kinda had to ditch rules like that. I think in theory a "defensive fire" model of overwatch is a good idea, it's just really badly implemented. Flames of War does it a lot better. TheChirurgeon posted:What's the flames of war implementation? The Gate posted:It's team-by-team (model) for FoW. Everyone shoots normally, friendly teams close enough can fire even if they're not being directly charged. Means a very spread unit can be hit piecemeal, or several densely packed ones can provide extra fire. Trick is, if the defending unit is "pinned down" (took 5 or more hits that shooting phase; note hits, not wounds/failed saves), then their rate of fire is cut in half. Drops most guns to 1 shot. If the defenders score 5 hits on the enemy infantry then they are driven back, if not then the assault proceeds and combat is fought sort of similarly to 40k. Losing an assault tends to be decisive, and it's one of the only ways to easily shift dug in infantry. Cataphract posted:Oh sure, it wouldn't port well at all. The Gate posted:Losing a shitload of models when you declare the charge seems punishing to assaulters. Like, losing them in the shooting phase when you're probably in cover and can then move closer/at a different angle to get close is one thing, you have your turn to react. Losing a shitload when you declare the assault, when you can no longer change your plan or set up a combo charge or deal with the unit taking excessive casualties is bad. People already bitch about losing models to overwatc and failing charges, Orks and Nids would suffer a lot from this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:These seem reasonable to me. But the 5+ wouldn't be an issue for units with BS2. Sorry, I mean that the defending unit's responding melee attacks would only hit on 5+ the turn they were charged, instead of 4+ or 3+ or whatever. And to be clear (I think you caught this but I'm not sure I expressed it perfectly), I absolutely don't think that the whole list should apply, it's just some other potential buff options that we could think about depending on how we want Assault to look. The ones you bolded could work together, though. Edit: I think my favorite of my suggested options might be "if you roll higher than distance to target, and you one-round them, you can consolidate into a new assault." It deals with the perverse incentive that otherwise exists where you don't want to be too successful on your first round, it encourages assault armies to jam really hard, and it prevents chain consolidation (since it can only happen on that initial turn). Sulecrist fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
The Gate posted:That's 2nd Ed, and it turned games into camp-fests against melee units, where they had no good charge targets and got pounded on by long range guns. That doesn't mean that would happen this edition. Camping your ranged units and letting assault units run wild isn't really a great idea atm, especially now that everything scores.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Sulecrist posted:Sorry, I mean that the defending unit's responding melee attacks would only hit on 5+ the turn they were charged, instead of 4+ or 3+ or whatever. Yeah I got that it wasn't an "all these" list, but rather a pick and choose. Regarding consolidating into a new assault, I'm still concerned that there won't be enough models left after being shot at for 2-3 turns as they cross the board, then shot by overwatch, and then after getting punched by the defending unit. If anyone is left, you might only have a handful of models left to consolidate with. (Maybe I'm too worried about that though). My concern is that while I want assault improved, I don't want the pendulum to swing too far and make Assault an unstoppable powerhouse. Is this stupidly OP? When rolling an assault charge if you exceed the minimum distance required to successfully complete the charge by 3 or more, the charging unit gains the following bonuses. -If the unit being charged is on overwatch they may only hit on a roll of 5+ when shooting -The charging unit gains the ability to strike first for the first round of combat If you finish the phase by either causing a unit to retreat or a sweeping advance and your consolidation would put you into base contact with another enemy unit, you may make a disordered charge into the enemy unit. Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 16:03 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 15:55
|
|