News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?  (Read 18443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NewHeretic

  • Same Heretic, New God | Ork Boy
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: us
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #160 on: January 5, 2010, 11:24:04 AM »
My point isn't that monsters are overpowered (in fact, they are priced far closer to their worth in the newer dexes, daemons and later), so I don't really want to have that discussion.  It just seems to make more sense from a "'aint it cool" perspective to have monsters taking battle damage like vehicles.   If I can blow the arm off a dread, why can't I do the same to a carnifex?  Does being made of flesh prevent you from losing effectiveness from the wounds you take?

So I guess it's a fluff thing for me.   Now that I think about it, it should be only wounds from strength 8+ weaponry that could actually do this.

The other option is to change vehicles to have toughness and wounds. And then introduce a 'critical hit' system where every time you wound you check to see if its critical (you'd have tables for tanks, skimmers, monsters, Eldrad and so on) and your shot might do mildly more damage to inconvience them, knock an arm or gun off or even be in the face/fuel tank and its a gonna.

Actually, isn't that exactly what the Super Heavy Damage Table is?  Structure Points amount to Wounds, then you also have the potential specific damage that can be done to the tank.

NewHeretic
Good advice from Joshua:

Choose you this day
Whom you will serve...
As for me and my house,
We will serve the Lord.

NewHeretic, forum policeman.

Offline mikesusername

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #161 on: January 5, 2010, 12:19:00 PM »
i cant remember the last time i played a game of 40k... 

5th ed basically killed the game for me.


so what would i change... 


1) tlos - my # 1 beef with 5th.  most retarted thing ever.  line of sight rules in 4th were not complicated and better aproximated a real war game than 'true' line of sight bassed on static, disporportionatly featured physical models.  along with this remove stupid unit sniping... i see that one dudes hand out of that unit of 30... i kill 15....

2) victory point system.  kill points gone.  objectives worth a set number of vp.  nothing wrong with that before. remove contested objectives, points of 50% + units would determine holder.

3) remove troops only.  there are enough armies that ignor this anyways that it makes sense just to change it to what it is becoming anyways... infantry scoring only.  tactics, ie intrestign game play, is not accomplished by hords piling into a scrum.  it might be more 'realistic' maybe, but i'm not intrested in trench warefare or historical reinactment, im intrested in chess with models and dice.

4)  change cc rules.  directional charges were a good thing.  they introduced geometric tactics.  now you just move in a blob.

5)  bidding system.  only a fool would think gw makes any attempt to balance their game.  therefore a pre battle bidding system based on vp and swapping armies would be included as an optional rule.

6)  vehicles are way to tough...  especially the cheeper they are.  I'd overhaul the rules on all vehicles to move from a single hit basisi to something more like whats found in other games, with graudally degrading armor, directional armor, and vehicle charts.  no complex rules about systems ect beyond what currently exists.  accross codexes vehicels would just be harder to get asside from transports.

6b) deepstrike would become alot mroe random and dangerous without homers or equivilants.  think auto scatter first try, continued scatters till a hit is roleld, unforgiving results for hitting anything at all except freshly cut grass, comand checks to avoide pinning on landing ect.  its way to common, cheep, and easy, its a no brainer and should get bludgeond into a pulp with a nerf bad.

7) move to d10's.  although i fully recongnize this would never happen, there simply isn't enough variation in unit stats. special rules seem to fill the gaps and often these just dont work well or work too well.

8)  hit allocation.  its was a stupid change to begin with, how it was considered streemlining when it so obviolsy slows down the game, when its not forggoten about entirely, is beyond me.  return to wight of fire and forced saving throughs maybe for specific model sniping...

9) make leadership matter.  negative penalties would abound.  furthermore most actions beyond the norm would require leadership checks.  Im thinking along the lines of army wide retreat tests at 25% casualties ect.

10) link pinning with assault.  Ie pinned/gone to ground units get negatives if assaulted.

11) reintroduce crossfire.  ie un-neutor it.  this is clearly an opportunity for tactics and strategy to sway the game ratehr than rote unit strenght matching.

12) reintroduce effective tankshock.  squishing is important. along with this, increase the gap between infantry and transport movement values. 

13) break up turn sequence, ie nobody moves and shoots everything

14) introduce some kind of fatigue and/or command mecanic along with 13.

15) stop comming out with new edditions/ codexes and just fix the old ones via regularly scheduled pdf's. 

16) reintroduce movement values as a stat.

Offline NewHeretic

  • Same Heretic, New God | Ork Boy
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: us
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #162 on: January 5, 2010, 12:35:29 PM »
@ mikesusername:

I agree with most of your wishes.  Many of them I just don't care one way or another (e.g. KPs vs. VPs, TLOS), but a few I object to.

6)  vehicles are way to tough...  especially the cheeper they are.  I'd overhaul the rules on all vehicles to move from a single hit basisi to something more like whats found in other games, with graudally degrading armor, directional armor, and vehicle charts.  no complex rules about systems ect beyond what currently exists.  accross codexes vehicels would just be harder to get asside from transports.

No, vehicles are not too tough.  They should be much tougher than a squad of infantry.  Vehicles were much too wimpy in 4th Ed.  They are just about right now, but I think they're still erring on the side of caution in order to avoid making them over-the-top.  If you want to say that they are not points-costed fairly, then I can accept that as a valid opinion (though I'll still disagree with it ;)).

Quote
6b) deepstrike would become alot mroe random and dangerous without homers or equivilants.  think auto scatter first try, continued scatters till a hit is roleld, unforgiving results for hitting anything at all except freshly cut grass, comand checks to avoide pinning on landing ect.  its way to common, cheep, and easy, its a no brainer and should get bludgeond into a pulp with a nerf bad.

I really don't understand your problem with DS.  I avoid it as it is too random for my liking.  I know that it makes or breaks a battle many times, but the times it breaks the battle for the player using it is equal to or more often than it makes it for them.

NewHeretic
Good advice from Joshua:

Choose you this day
Whom you will serve...
As for me and my house,
We will serve the Lord.

NewHeretic, forum policeman.

Offline Guildmage Aech

  • FLAMER: Ego Bigger than his Common Sense Centre | 40KO's Care Bear of Spite | Dolphin Death Dealer | 40K Oracle
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10663
  • Country: gb
  • Personal text
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #163 on: January 5, 2010, 01:00:28 PM »
Actually, isn't that exactly what the Super Heavy Damage Table is?  Structure Points amount to Wounds, then you also have the potential specific damage that can be done to the tank.

Might be, wouldn't know (or care). I don't play Apocolypse; its like Epic except much worse in every possible way.
Rules Expert 2007 | Kijayle Commemorative Award for Acid Wit 2008 | Most Notoriously Valuable Rules Expert 2009 | Most Notorious 2014

Offline Ail-Shan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
  • The vehement supporter of Swooping Hawks.
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #164 on: January 5, 2010, 05:58:04 PM »
My problem with deep strike is that drop pods and equivilents are ignoring the down sides, where as infantry, even those that are teleported, tend to get themselves killed (how a terminator squad dies for landing on a squad of guardians, yet a drop pod just adjusts its course when it's going to land on a falcon just doesn't make sense). Also how is it that jump infantry (especially ones that actually fly such as swooping hawks or tau battle suits, land speeders as well) can't figure out that they're going to land on an enemy squad and so adjust their course?

One other thing is that hit & run tactics are near impossible. The board is too small and it takes too many turns (1 for moving the transport into position, 2 for disembarking and shooting, 3 for reembarking and driving away, 4 for positioning and disembarking again, 5 the game ends and you've killed 2 squads and spent every turn trying to position yourself. This is even worse with assault units) to kill a squad and then leave. Not sure how one would fix this though.
You have your way, and I have mine.

Offline NewHeretic

  • Same Heretic, New God | Ork Boy
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Country: us
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #165 on: January 5, 2010, 09:49:37 PM »
My problem with deep strike is that drop pods and equivilents are ignoring the down sides, where as infantry, even those that are teleported, tend to get themselves killed (how a terminator squad dies for landing on a squad of guardians, yet a drop pod just adjusts its course when it's going to land on a falcon just doesn't make sense).

The problem is that, realistically, the Drop Pod should simply smash into oblivion anything it lands upon.  GW has decided that they don't want to allow Drop Pods to be used as weapons during Deep Strike so they simply require them to be moved to avoid landing on other models.

NewHeretic
Good advice from Joshua:

Choose you this day
Whom you will serve...
As for me and my house,
We will serve the Lord.

NewHeretic, forum policeman.

Offline Underhand

  • Captain : Godfather of the Hivegangers
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
  • Country: 00
Re: 6th Edition: What would YOU Change?
« Reply #166 on: January 6, 2010, 05:09:11 AM »
Several people have called for a change to the cover rules to make them more closely resemble Fantasy or 2nd Ed 40k.

Basically, those posters want to abandon the current rules whereby cover grants a saving throw (normally 4+) and change it to a system where the amount of cover a model is taking advantage of detracts from the BS dice Roll of the shooter (light cover is a -1 to hit, heavy cover is a -2 to hit etc).

While I can see the attraction of such a system (it probably feels a bit more intuitively obvious a system), I think the current system wors better.  I played extensively under the second edition rules.

There was an argument raised earlier that the system should be changed because the current system makes it so that the cover rules at present make it so that models of different balistic skill are both equally likely to miss a target that is hiding in cover:

also would mean having a BS of 6 or higher actually has some point, do you really think that someone that is that good a shot will hit the trees 50% of the time or the same amount as someone who is BS 1 or 2?

With respect such an argument is wrong.  According to both sets of rules, a model with a higher BS will hit targets hiding in cover more often than a low BS model.  Here is the maths comparing a BS3 shooter with a BS4 shooter firing at a target:

In the open:
BS3 = 50% chance to hit
BS4 = 66.6* chance to hit

In 4+ save cover:
BS3 = 25% chance to hit
BS4 = 33% chance to hit

In 5+ save cover:
BS3 = 33% chance to hit
BS4 = 44% chance to hit

In old style -2BS heavy cover
BS3 = 16.5% chance to hit
BS4 = 33% chance to hit

In old style -1BS light cover
BS3 = 33% chance to hit
BS4 = 50% chance to hit

Notice how the BS4 shooter always has a higher chance of hitting the target than the BS3 shooter?

The good thing about the current system is that the cover on a map has pretty much the same effect on the shooting effectiveness of both armies.  A board that is full of 4+ cover will reduce the effectiveness of a BS4 army by 50%.  It will also reduce the effectiveness of a BS3 army by 50%. 

The bad thing about the old system was that cover impacted much worse on lower BS armies.  A board that was full of heavy cover reduced the effectiveness of a BS4 army by 34%, but reduced the shooting effectiveness of a BS3 army by 66%. 

In short, it meant that cover terrain became a feature that automatically imbalanced the game in favour of certain armies.  Now you could say that the amount of terrain on a table can grant an advantage to one army over another, and you would be right, but at least these days, 200pts worth of guardsmen Heavy Weapons Squads having a shootout with 200pts of Devestator Squads will be an even fight if they are both in the open, or both in light cover or both in heavy cover.  Under the old system, the more cover there was, the less and less effective the lower BS troops became compared to the higher BS troops even though they cost the same points.

The old style shooting system works fine in WHFB, and I even like it in Necromunda, but those are different games.  Cover isn't as commonplace and not everyone has a ranged attack in Fantasy, and the semi roleplaying nature of Necromunda makes it cooler that high BS is rewarded exponentially, to say nothing of the fact that there isn't much of a difference between the pure BS statistic between the different army types.  I wouldn't want to see either of those games adopt the current 40k cover system, but I wouldn't want to see 40k go back to that system.


 


Powered by EzPortal