If you don't see what you think is the number one issue with the game, let us know what it is and why.
~Poll, left column, you know the drill!
p.s. A special note to any new visitors stopping by after reading about us in Firebase...Welcome!
Battle For Salvation Tournament Results
1 hour ago
41 comments:
I went for reemphasis on playing over construction of army lists, as I feel that to help this out, some of the the other problems will be worked out.
A small issue to do with fun. Warhammer 40,000 needs better scenarios and connecting narrative. An emphasis on scenario gaming and expanding the universe (or your) narrative would make the game more interesting in fantastic ways.
*I think Black Library teaming up with the Games Development crew for an article on campaign play would be fantastic. I happen to think you guys do a fantastic job of it.
I agree with both virdeus and his commet about fixing the play vs list concept being able to fix some other problems, and I also agree with ANON1 about more scenarios based combat being a necessity.
I would also add that I would like to see that combat resolution stuff come in to play as well.
All of the issues in the poll are big ones and need to be addressed.
The most annoying one for me has always been the rules disparity between ICs and squad leaders. As an Ork player it really bothers me that it's so easy for an opponent to take my power klaw warboss out of the combat through casualty removal.
With the wild rumors regarding Area Terrain not blocking LOS, I'm now very concerned about first turn balance. If there's no place to hide at the start of the game, the board will become a shooting gallery.
As someone who plays with and against Tau, my biggest problem is the first turn advantage - in games without escalation it's possible for me to lose a good chunk of my army before I get a chance to move when I'm against Tau.
Im all for shifting the emphasis back onto play rather then army construction. Construction should be important but winning or losing should be dictated by the luck and skill of the player - not the fact that he can squeeze a few more points out of some unit. Barring that there is always the dreadnought in a sock approach to tame the powergamers...
No more area terrain is going to lead to more arguments then game play. with area terrain there are no arguments.
What do people mean by hidden squad leaders? Just upgraded unit members who cannot be singled out in combat correct, not that people are not properly modeling the wargear.
I understand the problem of independent characters getting killed in close combat by the directed high int attacks ie my fex will attack your captain this round instead of the 10 other guys because he is the only one with a powerfist that can hurt me.
I went with #4- mainly because I think that fixing the Play vs. Construction problems will take care of the others.
Specifically, I think that having scenario driven games become the standard is the key to achieving #4.
If the basic game incorporated ideas that they have put forward in Cities of Death and Apoc., I think that things like vehicles vs. infantry, hidden characters, etc... will have a reduced impact, since they will be chosen before the scenario is revealed and might end up being not such a deciding factor.
The end of the fiddly sub-unit "sniping" during the shooting phase (only the nob and 1 other ork are within range, so those must be the casualties) and close combat casualty removal mini games (I'll take this guy, now your PK nob does not get to go/you get no sweeping advance)will do a lot for the game. It will be a lot easier to teach effective tactics to new players when these fiddly game mechanics are history.
A simple solution to the 1st turn problem is to allow both sides to shoot each turn and have casualties be simultaneous. 40k is supposed to be futuristic after all and maneuvering and shooting should be key to winning, not close combat.
I never found the army selection vs game play to be a problem. Once you have played an army long enough you know what it is good at and what it isn't. There are some armies that are not able to deal with other armies. Space Wolves are not good against MEQ but Imperial Guard are. If your taking a well balanced force there is a chance of winning every game. The first turn is a simple solution, plan on not having it. Then when/if you get it, its a bonus not a gamble. Vehicles vs Infantry was my suggestion. Vehicles are normally quite good at defending from ranged attacks but very susceptible to close quarters attacks. Likewise, infantry are normally on the short end of the stick when going against vehicles, unless they can close the distance.
I'd make a rule that would allow infantry without high strength guns or grenadess to have a chance to cripple tanks. A tactical squad of marines should be able to figure out a way to immobilize a tank if they can get on it, even if they don't have las/plas/or melta guns. Possibly even prevent it from shooting....the old potato in the exhaust gag or something. Maybe something that would allow all damage below "vehicle destroyed" level. Or similar to the gauss special rule while in close combat. I think it should apply to any infantry unit.
Quite so. A bolter jammed into a viewport and let rip would be quite dramatic. Or even jamming rocks/tree branches/etc into the treads would certainly immobilize a tank.
If you make it so that any unit can negate a tank, then what's the point of taking tanks? They are high cost units with devastating firepower and are hard to kill. What do you know, that's what tanks are really like! I suggest that in large infantry/tank interactions are left as they are.
First off let me say I really like 4th as compared to previous editions, but of course it can improve.
We need story driven, balanced scenarios.
I say they should get rid of the alpha, omega or gamma thing and just have a basic game, then include lots of different but balanced scenarios that have special rules.
Mission rules such as escalation (that rewards players with lots of basic infantry) night fighting (which slows down the game and rewards close-combat armies) sound good on paper but can be annoying or unbalanced to play out. I've even seen a mission that practically hands an all-infiltrating army the win since they can setup everything. Reserves are messed up since they add too much randomness to the game, and result in too many situations where one side is outnumbered in points the whole game. Apocalypse reserves are much better since up to half of your reserves come in turn 2, and the rest come in on turn 3.
Winning the scenario should depend on mission objectives and not counting up points. It should matter way more if you capture something then whether or not a sqaud is just below or just above half their starting number. You could still reward VPs for things like killing HQs, or a few specific units you nominate.
I also want to see terrain get a quick rewrite. They should throw out the Size 1-3 thing and go back to LOS. You can still keep area terrain, but I hate rolling a 1 or 2 and all your squad in the open barely moves, not even reaching the terrain. 3rd edition was better for that issue where at least you ended up in the border of the terrain if your roll was low and you were still within 6". Just have several entries (intact buildings, ruined buildings, bunkers, jungle/woods, swamp, barrels/ crates, ruins, fences, shallow water, lava, daemon world, roads etc.) I think this would reduce arguments to standardize these things. It would be cool if terrain features could be attacked and possibly destroyed in regular games.
Vehicle rules are okay except skimmers are too powerful, and the damage charts should be combined into one chart with some modifiers.
Lets get rid of partial hits with blast templates and just make touching the base be a hit (except it should matter with vehicles if the hole is over the hull.)
Other shooting can be simplified a bit, just say if only two models are in range / LOS then up to two members of the squad can be killed but they can be from anywhere in the squad, this can represent the squad moving up under fire.
I don't think ICs should fight seperately in CC, but I can't think of an ideal way to handle it other than to just count them as part of the squad they are joining, with the exception that they should be able to choose to stay and fight if their squad breaks. It seems cooler and more heroic if one champion continues the battle while lesser troops flee. I don't think fearless units should take so many extra wounds for being outnumbered, why would a unit that passes its leadership be less vulnerable than a fearless unit?
Sorry for the length, thanks for reading.
1st Ed movement, 3rd Ed shooting (Modified with 2nd Ed saving throws and weapon strengths) 2nd Ed close combat, 3rd Ed vehicle move/shoot rules, 1st ed scenarios, 2nd Ed army lists, 3rd Ed Morale. Toned down 2nd Ed Psychics.
If in doubt bring back dark millenium as it was far more fun - a 10 man squad is just to hide a power weapon/as cannon these days.
In 5th, I would love to see monstrous creatures toned down so when they take damage, they're less effective akin to walkers.
I would like to see some way for my infantry to deal with dreadnoughts. so many times i have fallen victim to a dreadnought managing to close the gap some how(usually sneaking up behind terrain)and then locking with my men. Suddenly, I have this behemoth just sitting there, beating up my poor guardsmen while they're defenseless unable to do anything. this is often followed up by the rest of the squad falling back in my turn, so the dreadnought can move and charge a new squad in their turn. Maybe allow me to shoot this monstrosity that is towering above my men.
"Vehicle rules are okay except skimmers are too powerful, and the damage charts should be combined into one chart with some modifiers."
I think you mean Necron, Tau, and Eldar Skimmers are too powerful. I play Dark Eldar and have watched half of my army go down in flames on turn one, while I have seen Eldar Tanks literally take 17 hits before finally being destroyed.
I find the lack of armour a bit off putting. I have a large IG force with loads of tanks but tend to fight pure infantry forces.
I want RAMMING!
Obviously 4th ed has lots of problems, as will 5th ed, and so on.
Really, a lot of the problems with 40K come from the fact that GW has grown incredibly lazy/incompetent with making new rules. Instead of balancing new books to work with existing books, they just make the new stuff either incredibly over powered (Orks, Eldar) or incredibly crappy (Dark Angels, Blood Angels) and hope everything works out in the end. I know it would require a huge change in the way GW does things, but it would be a huge improvement if army rules were released with the new game rules and then just given updates over time. Codex creep ruins the game.
Pro Tip:
To Defeat tanks in close combat. Buy krak Grenades.
Vehicles need help, period. This infantry-only nonsense is fantastical whimsy from the minds of people with no concept of combined arms land war doctrine. Trapping vehicles into a state of being that hasn't existed in real world terms since 1945 and expecting players to accept it in M40 is an insult.
Amen on not bothering to check their rules as now a captain/lord can take lightning claws, a pistol and a 2 handed weapon at once. Who wants to get that model wysiwyg? The feeling of being new codexs being overpowered is only due to comparison to the disaster that proceeded it. As for my thoughts on new SM its on the last poll. The attempts to fix first turn advantage have been clumsy. Escalation either makes or breaks u and concealment only delays it. The idea of applying apoc reserves is a good one has it keeps things tidy but unpredictable. The idea of adding flanking for deep strikers and infiltrators is an elegant solution to a sticky problem of gun line hugging.
An actual defintion of how reserves enter would be nice. i.e do they count as moving, can they move? Its not defined. And the eternal question if your out of rapid fire range and measure but haven`t moved can u single shoot anyway? I say "No" but a scary man keeps putting a knife in the centre of the room so we can "finally prove who’s right". The 4 edit rules can be unwieldy by that’s only due to lack of defining. I think the rules need to be nailed down and tweaked not threaten with being overhauled every 4 years. By the way what possible benefit to the owner is tank shock? Looking forward to the new "run" rule.Finally for the SM new "Fleet Light"!
they just make the new stuff either incredibly over powered (Orks, Eldar) or incredibly crappy (Dark Angels, Blood Angels) and hope everything works out in the end
Orks and Eldar are both taking pretty big hits in 5th, and I have a hard time believing Blood Angels and Dark Angels are anywhere near as bad as you seem to think. Power creep is a problem certainly, but you're just exaggerating here.
Allow the player to choose when reserves come in.
Revise the infiltrate rules.
Do not allow troops equipped with heavy weapons the ability to fire in the first turn count as them as if they moved. This of course does not apply to vechicles ect.
Ad aditional charge distance to furious charge troops.
Remove the power fist strikes last rule.
Allow shooting into H2H where 1s hit your troops.
allow squardons of vechicles, Ie 1-3 predators for 1 Hvy choice. they must all be same type with only there allowed weapon choices being different.
@purpletrex
Yes, I agree that Dark Eldar skimmers are underpowered compared to those of other races. DE need a new codex badly since they are so fragile.
Space Marine Landspeeders are nasty too though...
@everyone
There's a lot of good ideas on this thread!
Orks and Eldar are both taking pretty big hits in 5th, and I have a hard time believing Blood Angels and Dark Angels are anywhere near as bad as you seem to think. Power creep is a problem certainly, but you're just exaggerating here.
I can see Eldar getting a big hit in 5th with the skimmers going to pot, but how are Orks going to be toned down?! Not only are they as nasty as ever, but now they get to run as well as WAAGH, so the whole army will definitely be in CC on turn 2. Not to mention the fact that they no longer get entangled with destroyed Battlewagons as well. The only thing they're losing is one power fist attack on their nobs, but they already have like 5 on a charge, so who cares.
And, yes, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Chaos (I forgot to mention them) are as bad as I make them out to be. Their recent books have made these armies complete jokes to fight against, especially if you're using either Orks or Eldar. They have no options, everything now is hideously overpowered and restricted beyond belief. Basically you end up with a bunch of foot-slogging bolter marines! Woo-hoo!
1. SMF needs fixing.
2. Hidden Fist
3. Composition vs. Tactics
why not just make our own set of rules. Simple easy rules that cover most of the things listed. And still allow the use of the codexs as they are. After 20 years of 40k im tierd of "major dynamic" changes.
I want a rule book that fixes the problems and clarifies things. Not a dynamic new way of play, that will takes another addition to fix. why not just take the good from all of the books fix the problems that need fixxing and make a simple easy no fluff rule set that works with the codexes.
after 20yrs of 40k gaming i've seen a lot of good and a lot of bad ie: vechicle targeting templates.
In my dreams I see at least two things:
1) Get rid of the IGOUGO-system, way to clumsy. Would be much more fun (in my opinion only) if you were able to activate units more like in Confrontation which gives another tactical level to the gameplay.
2) Being able to voluntarily break from combat, at least from monsters/units etc that you cannot harm (Guard vs Wraithlord for example)
Then I have always wondered why it's not possible to use a flamethrower for example in close combat if you are a dreadnought or something similar. If I was a dread I would do that, much more efficient than squishing them one at the time....
How big is a "crap-ton"?
Is it bigger or smaller than an "arse-load"?
Is it begger or smaller than a "shite-load"?
Inquiring minds want to know!
A crap-ton is actually neither a measurement of mass nor amount (as one might expect) but of volume.
It is the volume of space occupied by one metric ton (one thousand kilograms) of crap after it is dried and compressed.
There you go!
Basically you end up with a bunch of foot-slogging bolter marines!
Given 35-point Rhinos you end up with foot slogging marines? You're going to run the logic of that past me again, I'm not sure I follow.
I also don't quite understand how chaos marines with bolters, both grenades, and 3 attacks on the charge for the same cost as a basic marine is a bad thing. Nevermind Lash of Submission. I think you're directly equating loss of optoons with loss of effectiveness, and that's just not the same. Chaos is deadly, and from what I've seen of Blood Angles they didn't suffer too much either.
The lists have changed, but not for the worse as far as effectiveness goes.
I'm inclined to agree with Chenghiz, here, and say that the new Marine codices--certainly the Chaos codex--are not uncompetitive.
I was dubious when the Dark Angels codex came out--and I still think that they rate as the least powerful of the three--but the Blood Angels were fine, and the Chaos Marines make for a really good army.
Not only are foot-slogging bolter marines not entirely worthless, but cheaper, smoke-standard Rhinos make mechanized lists a feasible proposition. The Cult troops and Death Company are great. All three codices have a variety of options for unique and interesting armies and playstyles--several of which are more than sufficiently competitive.
I think Chenghiz is right when he says that you're erroneously equating a loss of options with a reduction in power. The two are not necessarily related. While more options can make a codex more powerful, less options won't make it worse. For the most part, the options missing from these codices are ones that weren't critical for good armies anyway.
A few armies have been gimped--gunlines and Assault Cannon spam armies, for instance--but the armies which have replaced them, though different, are basically just as competitive.
I suspect that many people's problems with the new codices is that they can't help but focus on what was lost--and some things were. There are still competitive builds for all of these armies.
If you haven't found them--if you are still convinced that the codices themselves are inherently underpowered--it is only because you have failed to look at them or think about them with sufficient care and diligence.
There is a lot about the 5th ed. that doesn't sit right with me.
First, the change making jump infantry test for dangerous terrain when they move out of it seems stupid. They are in the terrain, I would think that they could be able to see what's in front of them and avoid any obstacles.
Second, Area terrain no longer blocking line of sight is a big problem for players who's terrain collection contains a lot of AT pieces and not so much solid objects. It makes the first turn extremely bloody for the player who goes second as everything basically starts in the open.
Third, The way all blast weapons scatter and the fact that they now scatter so far. In my mind, a guided weapon like a missile launcher or an energy weapon like a Plasma Cannon are not going to scatter. The round/bolt impacts where the weapon is aimed in real life so why make it scatter in the game. With the new method for determining scatter distance, unless your opponent is careless and packs all his units into one small area, you probably won't hit anything. It just makes no sense to me. Weapons using the small blast template are basically useless now.
Fourth, consolidating units are no longer able to lock another in close combat. What sense does that make? All that happens now is your victorious unit gets wiped out by your opponent's shooting in the next turn. They fought bravely and won the day only to get blasted straight to hell because you have no way to protect them. This is just going to have the effect that players will avoid CC in most situations.
Fifth, You now need two Power Fists or two ThunderHammers to get the bonus attack for two CCW's. How unwieldy are those weapons in the 4th ed.? Enough so that they always strike last. How much slower/cumbersome would a character trying to use two of them be? I think it made more sense for a model to have an extra attack when his second CCW was a bit more nimble like a pistol or chainsword.
Sixth, The new method of determining the leadership of a unit that has lost a CC. It seems to me that armies with a lower average leadership are going to be penalized unfairly considering that armies with a lower basic leadership tend to have troops that don't perform so well at close combat. They are bound to fail the test in almost any circumstance.
Seventh, I know this keeps going but please bear with me, Defensive weapons for vehicles being STR 4 or lower. I'm sorry but the heavy bolter sponsons on a Predator or Leman Russ are the definition of defensive weapons. Some vehicles which where designed to be mobile fire support for advancing infantry can no longer do the job which slows everything down.
8th, Vehicles getting cover saves like troops. Ok, a vehicle tends to be quite larger than an infantryman and thus cannot hide like a troop can. I think the obscured target rules from the 4th ed. more acurately reflect reality.
9th, Troops always attack the rear armor of a vehicle in close combat. This one just boggles me. If a model is in base contact with the front of a vehicle, that's where his attacks should be directed. Allowing them to always attack the rear is like giving the opponent a free 6" move after his assault move just to make it easier to destroy your tank. I know it's supposed to represent the troops trying to find a weak spot in the tank's defenses but, isn't that the purpose of having different AV on each of the tanks facings? This rule just seems illogical to me. In the forth edition it was a challenge for infantry to destroy a tank, just as it is in reality, now it's just given to them.
10th, skimmers don't get the glancing hits only special rule for going fast unless they move too fast to fire their weapons. Basically, this makes any light skimmers a waste of points. Their whole survivabilty relied on the ability to move fast while firing, it was their "claim to fame" if you will. Not anymore. You are basically guaranteed to lose your landspeeder if it tries to fire it's weapons in a turn.
Finally (I know huh?), The new damage tables. Now don't get me wrong, in the main I think it's better than the old system with one exception. Flyers. The way that flyers take damage (only glancing hits because of their speed) means that now on a 4+ they are going to be destroyed whereas before it was 5+. This is because of where the "Immobilized" result is placed on the chart at number 4. I just don't think a vehicle moving that fast and that high realistically should be brought down quite so easily. It says something when your Thunderhawk or Manta gets brought down by a Chaos Marine with a Heavy Bolter. It shouldn't be possible, or at least not as easy as it is in my opinion.
Well, there is more (the new Space Marine codex for example, UUGGHHH...) but I'm getting tired of complaining. All in all I have to say that I think GW really screwed the pooch when they designed the new rules. By trying to dumb-down the game to make it accessible to younger players (i.e. They want even more money), they ruined the majority of the game's realism and instead of making it only less complex, in my opinion they made it less fun.
Personally, I'm not going to be buying anything from Games Workshoop anymore. It's clear to me that this new system in the 5th ed. and the new codexes being/been released was primarily designed to line their pockets by forcing players to buy more products so that they could comply with how the new rules are written.
3rd party retail is where it's at for me and as far as I'm concerned, GW dissapeared after the 4th ed.
Post a Comment