|
xtothez posted:Overwatch at normal BS seems like the fairest way to handle assaults from reserves. Disagree. The random table edge and not knowing if they'll arrive when you need them is lovely enough without being unable to assault/ getting full BSed overwatched. The counter to this is to keep dudes away from the table edge when they know they have dudes who can hit from reserve.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
Saalkin posted:Disagree. The random table edge and not knowing if they'll arrive when you need them is lovely enough without being unable to assault/ getting full BSed overwatched. I agree. Using chaff units to guard the flanks also works, although not as well if you could consolidate into a new combat. I like the X+D6 for charging. What do you guys think about a normal Unit having D6+4 charge, fleet D6+6, Slow & Purposeful D6+2, with rolls of a 6 giving a bonus of some sort, +1 to Strength perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Would it be worth considering having a no consolidation into combat from a unit that assaulted from reserves? Or is that just making everything needlessly complicated? Would the consolidation limit of one per turn be acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Overwatch snap shots on assault from reserves. Those assaults are disorganized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I'm just pissed that 6th ed neutered the maximum threat range of my Hormagaunts by 6" and the minimum by 11". All we really need to do is put 5th edition assault rules back in, leaving Overwatch as it is (because Tau players would have a fit if you took away their free shooting phase). The current assault mechanics only benefit models wearing Power Armour or better anyway, as only a single chapter had access to Fleet, on average their 2d6 charge distance is longer than what they used to have, and they're sturdy enough to weather a few rounds of shooting/overwatch before they hit the enemy lines, so they lose less models (therefore are more effective) on the way in. 6th ed assault mechanics which are almost entirely unchanged in 7th did nothing but nerf the threat range of everything that wasn't a MEq, in addition to making it harder for fragile assault units (Orks, Tyranids) to get into melee via Rapid Fire buff, casualties from the front, and Overwatch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
In addition to what I said before, one real disadvantage of any balancing solution that involves buffing overwatch is that it disproportionately favors huge shooting blobs when it comes to defending against the assault buffs. Those are by and large the sort of army that needs the least help against assault armies (on the table in general, I mean). Not that I am innocent of this myself, but this thread is still mired in a bunch of people all trying to present their own ideas of how exactly the balance should be tuned, and it's all taking place in a relative information vacuum. Once again, I think some authority should decide on a small handful of ideas that can then be playtested before we keep adding ingredients to the stew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Last night several friends of mine and I sat down and we went through some changes for 40k. Basically what we're doing here. It was me and two others. Not that we have huge qualifications, but both have done very well in grand tournaments. One has even taken day 1 best overall in the champions tournament at Adepticon. We didn't want to make too many changes. Mostly our goal was making assault viable again, while also doing some minor changes to a few other rules we thought needed balancing. Yeah, kind of flying in the face of what we're trying to do in this thread here, but seeing as there haven't been any posts in here for a while, I figured this group effort was pretty much dead. So I decided to take charge, ask for the help of people I thought were good sources of help, then post the rules myself. I guess I just ask that you check it out and playtest it, then get back to me with some feedback. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw_Y6iZYFrbNbmFUbkVaVnJvZjg/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
I have no problem letting people who are actually defining sets of rules, and going ahead and playtesting them, take the lead in this sort of effort. I was sort of looking for Indolent Bastard, and/or whoever else, to finish articulating the "official" (so to speak) version for a first round of playtesting, but that seems to have lost interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
What is the at-a-glance effect of modifying the attack chart? Other than that, looks good to me. Hope people get playtests in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:What is the at-a-glance effect of modifying the attack chart? Basically, if your weapon skill is more than double your opponents, you hit on a 2. Makes having weapon skills at 7 or higher actually mean something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Basically, if your weapon skill is more than double your opponents, you hit on a 2. Makes having weapon skills at 7 or higher actually mean something. This seems like the most obvious way to do it, good call. Ideally every stat should be useful up to 10, either directly or by being penalized less harshly by modifiers - sort of like how in WHFB, Empire knights technically have 1+ armor saves, which generally means they practically have a 2+ armor save EXCEPT it's not modified to 3+ until they get hit by a S5 weapon; a true 2+ armor save would become 3+ against S4 weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
It's actually a bit weird trying to fit stats that go to ten next to an RNG that's only six numbers wide to begin with, but yes. GW seemed to just sort of give up on it eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Our next task is to alter the psychic powers. We considered rolling it out in the initial one, but getting a good balance of the disciplines is tough. We want to make it so that your choice of discipline depends on how you want to run your list rather than, "if you have access to Divination you will always take Divination." We'd really like to see Pyromancy see some massive improvements. Divination is a tough challenge as it still needs to be good, but not an auto-take. Our best idea right now is simply switching out Presciences as the primaris power with Forewarning or Foreboding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I have no problem letting people who are actually defining sets of rules, and going ahead and playtesting them, take the lead in this sort of effort. I was sort of looking for Indolent Bastard, and/or whoever else, to finish articulating the "official" (so to speak) version for a first round of playtesting, but that seems to have lost interest. I have been travelling, so haven't had much time for thinking about rules, and I hoped the discussion could sustain itself a little. I'm happy to have the thread continue in whatever way best serves the players.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I have been travelling, so haven't had much time for thinking about rules, and I hoped the discussion could sustain itself a little. I'm happy to have the thread continue in whatever way best serves the players. Fair point to the first, but I think that expecting this to "sustain itself" (at least in a productive sense) isn't the greatest idea, since without any externally imposed direction it seems as though it degenerates into theorycrafters talking past each other to the extent that people keep posting at all. Maybe we should just be more patient, but given the usual fate of ~goon projects~ I'd rather not risk letting the fire under the thread go out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
That's pretty much why I did what I did. I saw a situation that was dying and I took charge of the situation. At least we have something we can test. And to be fair, I did use this thread as a launching point and several of the rules I put in were suggestions made by goons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Fair point to the first, but I think that expecting this to "sustain itself" (at least in a productive sense) isn't the greatest idea, since without any externally imposed direction it seems as though it degenerates into theorycrafters talking past each other to the extent that people keep posting at all. I wasn't expecting it to be self sustaining, but I also hoped it wouldn't fall down dead. I will give the process some care and attention this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Man this is pretty much how design starts, don't worry about it overmuch. We've got a document now and everything!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Remember when I said I'd do something with this thread this weekend? I was mistaken because the porch took longer than expected to install. Updates will occur sometime this week. Any specific areas of request?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
A clarification for whether we want to accept Master Twig's houserules as the basis for the first round of playtesting would be nice. If we don't, then I think the thread's official "alpha version" should itself be established ASAP. Also, we might want to start thinking about some actual guidelines for playtesting. While we don't need to be anal about it, I think at least some sort of rigor is necessary for any attempt to usefully discuss and revise based on reported results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:36
|
|
|
I really like all the assault changes. Great start!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Hey Master Twig, did you make any progress on psychic updates?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
drgnvale posted:Hey Master Twig, did you make any progress on psychic updates? Nope. Pretty sure this project is dead. Even though we could definitely do it better than GW, the 40k community is just too large and people aren't receptive to altered rules. Especially since there's a strong local tournament scene, and they'll always use GW rules. It was a fun idea, but it was doomed to fail from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Nope. Pretty sure this project is dead. Even though we could definitely do it better than GW, the 40k community is just too large and people aren't receptive to altered rules. Especially since there's a strong local tournament scene, and they'll always use GW rules. It was a fun idea, but it was doomed to fail from the get go. I think this thread ground to a halt long before the people who were (theoretically) supposed to agree on an alpha set of rules, and methodology for testing, even produced anything. We didn't even really hit resistance from the broader community. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Goon projects vOv
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:53 |
|
|
drgnvale posted:Goon projects vOv I think I could have made it work if there was a goon I could actually playtest with. I think I'm the only goon that lives in Minnesota that plays warhammer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 02:58
|
|