|
Post by gigasnail on Mar 23, 2017 22:04:03 GMT
i wouldn't hold my breath for AP5 to be a rend:2
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Mar 23, 2017 23:37:13 GMT
I'm not. I'm talking about the difference rend can make to a lower strength weapon.
Talking about ap5 is useless in this context. We can only see how they rebalance it.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Mar 23, 2017 23:40:13 GMT
for sure.
at this point, we are really just spitting into the wind anyway. we have no idea what other changes are going to be rolled out along with what's been revealed so far.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Mar 24, 2017 1:13:29 GMT
I think the movement on individual units sounds great, specifically for flyers, skimmers, jumpers, fast skimmers, ect ect the list goes on. The movement for every unit type is super convoluted and has multiple exceptions, and tons of "moves exactly like" except for. Which is awful to lookup. add in flat out, and other movement modifiers, im looking at you Dark Eldar. And it is just dumb to have unit "types". Because basically every unit is making an exception anyways. This way you look at the data sheet, boom there's the movement, done. 2 seconds, way faster no arguing. The movement for unit types is simple as heck. Infantry/MC/jump - 6". Everything else - 12", ignores terrain. (Essentially - some dangerous terrain, and FMCs). But, you essentially have 2 values to remember. There's one exception I can think of in the entire game (skitarii), and a couple of odd cases (Tau). I can look at someone's army, and usually know every unit type. If I don't know from just generally knowing their stuff, I can usually tell at a glance - if I still can't, I can just ask. With movement types - unless I've played the unit before, I'm probably not going to remember their movement value (depends on how 'standardised' it is). So, that'd result in going through basically everything to sort out movement values. If playing an army that's likely got different movement values that isn't as commonly played (like nids...) this is almost guaranteed. This might shake up fine with some standardisation - but at that point, what's really different? They'd likely still need to have unit types to handle things like skyborne, and snap shots for FMCs etc. Basically all modifiers are to run/turbo - I sure as heck hope those aren't going to be rolled into movement (with the exception of horms, which should work fine). So, then you've got 2 'movement' stats.
|
|
|
Post by Hive Bahamut on Mar 24, 2017 2:14:14 GMT
Skitarii have Dunestrider for an extra 3" everything.
Jet packs and Jetbikes have Jump shoot Jump (Warp Spiders can do 3d6,) and Swooping Hawks are 18" move. Banshees add 1 or 3".
Cavalry, jump, jet and beasts ignore terrain for movement but take dangerous if they enter or leave. 12"
MC have Move Through Cover (not different length just higher chance for 4+)
Dreadknights and Interceptors can Shunt 30" once per game.
FMC can go 0-24"
Flyers can go 0-36"
Heavy vehicles can only ever move combat (usually 6".)
Fast Vehicles can move an additional range depending upon chassis. (Flat out)
While I agree it is probably easier to just list movement it also could have a side effect of breaking said rule 6 months down the road like usual. (My bet is a fast Marine chapter like Team Edgar or Team Jacob.)
There are probably more too, that's just what I know off my head.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Mar 24, 2017 2:59:27 GMT
Jet packs and Jetbikes have Jump shoot Jump (Warp Spiders can do 3d6,) See, this is (part) of what I was referring to - this isn't taken into account at all by a movement value. The entire thing of the JSJ is that half of it happens in the assault phase i.e. not movement . Now, could they link shooting/assault phase movement to the Move characteristic? Probably. Is that really simplifying things? Not necessarily. Same thing with basically all of your examples (exception of swwoping/banshees/skitarii, the 3rd I mentioned, and the others I'd forgotten. Maybe Wulfen/World Eaters, but saying 'add 3 to Move' is basically the same as 'add 3" to movement' . Revamping everything for 3 or 4 relatively simple examples is really bad). Shunt/FMC are very variable in how they work. Vehicles is a whole different ball game - giving them a Move characteristic doesn't have any inherent way of dealing with different firing ability (i.e. fast can fire all/2, normal 1/none). MtC would be a different thing to the Move characteristic (though likely linked for less variability i.e. -2 normally, -1 with MtC or whatever), that again, would work just as well at current. Cavalry/jump/beast is just a stock standard 12" (which is incredibly easy to remember) - with extra rules that have stuff all to do with the Move characteristic. All of this could be dealt with in the core rules in one way or another - but that's not simplifying things. That's just adding an extra layer on top. Either that, or they completely revamp everything (which is...probably going to happen), which would be a completely different issue. Basically, while adding Move characteristics has the potential to be a good thing, adding variety to armies/units, I don't see it simplifying things without more sweeping simplifications elsewhere (at which point, it's not really the Move characteristic that's simplifying things...)
|
|
|
Post by Hive Bahamut on Mar 24, 2017 4:13:38 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree. I was just giving some weird examples of oddballs.
I think it is a good thing. I always thought it strange a creature designed for locomotion (extra arms on gaunt strains,) is as fast/slow as a robot that casually wanders around.
|
|
|
Post by Tyranoob on Mar 24, 2017 5:44:38 GMT
I don't have a lot of experience with AoS but pretty much all of the bloodbound units have options. Can't say a lot outside of them and a couple of sigmarite units, which also have options. It's not the same. There is no point difference and one is usually a clearly inferior choice. It's like giving someone a choice between cabbage and ice cream at the same price point. There is no real army build out. I know some people like it that way, but list building is one of my favorite parts of the hobby. It would be like people that enjoy building getting pre-built and painted minis. Uh.... we kinda already have that now. Codex tld isn't exactly the most customizable thing out there. 1- do you have flyrants? No? Delete everything for flyrants. 2- give them wings, minimal troops, e grubs and tlds. 3- repeat So, I really can't see it getting worse for us in anyway. We're already on the bottom
|
|
|
Post by fmc on Mar 24, 2017 12:04:38 GMT
Jet packs and Jetbikes have Jump shoot Jump (Warp Spiders can do 3d6,) See, this is (part) of what I was referring to - this isn't taken into account at all by a movement value. The entire thing of the JSJ is that half of it happens in the assault phase i.e. not movement . Now, could they link shooting/assault phase movement to the Move characteristic? Probably. Is that really simplifying things? Not necessarily. Same thing with basically all of your examples (exception of swwoping/banshees/skitarii, the 3rd I mentioned, and the others I'd forgotten. Maybe Wulfen/World Eaters, but saying 'add 3 to Move' is basically the same as 'add 3" to movement' . Revamping everything for 3 or 4 relatively simple examples is really bad). Shunt/FMC are very variable in how they work. Vehicles is a whole different ball game - giving them a Move characteristic doesn't have any inherent way of dealing with different firing ability (i.e. fast can fire all/2, normal 1/none). MtC would be a different thing to the Move characteristic (though likely linked for less variability i.e. -2 normally, -1 with MtC or whatever), that again, would work just as well at current. Cavalry/jump/beast is just a stock standard 12" (which is incredibly easy to remember) - with extra rules that have stuff all to do with the Move characteristic. All of this could be dealt with in the core rules in one way or another - but that's not simplifying things. That's just adding an extra layer on top. Either that, or they completely revamp everything (which is...probably going to happen), which would be a completely different issue. Basically, while adding Move characteristics has the potential to be a good thing, adding variety to armies/units, I don't see it simplifying things without more sweeping simplifications elsewhere (at which point, it's not really the Move characteristic that's simplifying things...) I think you can absolutely count on them revamping the entire movement phase if they are going to add a movement value stat. That being said Tyranid movement is super easy. My SM friend though, vehicles, fliers, fast skimmers, and it modifing # of shots and BS. Add in flat out/turbo, ect. It's a bit silly. Especially when the only way to verify the movement is in a convoluted BRB section/sections. Obviously we use a quick reference chart, which is nice. But shouldn't that just be in the BRB to begin with? At the very least they could just clear up how they have written the movement section. It's entirely too long and convoluted. It really should be as simple as. This unit can move this many inches. I know for some of you longer time players its probably ingrained in your 40k brains. But as a newer player, its just not fun to deal think about. Movement should be tactical not tedious.
|
|
|
Post by No One on Mar 24, 2017 12:55:09 GMT
I think you can absolutely count on them revamping the entire movement phase if they are going to add a movement value stat. That being said Tyranid movement is super easy. My SM friend though, vehicles, fliers, fast skimmers, and it modifing # of shots and BS. Add in flat out/turbo, ect. It's a bit silly. Especially when the only way to verify the movement is in a convoluted BRB section/sections. Obviously we use a quick reference chart, which is nice. But shouldn't that just be in the BRB to begin with? At the very least they could just clear up how they have written the movement section. It's entirely too long and convoluted. It really should be as simple as. This unit can move this many inches. I know for some of you longer time players its probably ingrained in your 40k brains. But as a newer player, its just not fun to deal think about. Movement should be tactical not tedious. Yeah, not saying that a revamp of unit/movements outside of movement phase wouldn't be in order to make things simpler. Just that Move doesn't do anything towards that other than potentially providing impetus, since it'd be too complicated without - it makes figuring out movement values easier, but it doesn't really help knowledge of movement in general (at the moment, it's 6" or 12". Done). (With basically the exception of vehicles) It is. The complications begin once you add run/turbo/flat out (which also has a nice table), all of which would again be addendums to the Move characteristic. Just lumping them into Move would be removing them as concepts, which I really hope doesn't happen (I'd hate to vs Eldar jetbikes who could move like turbo without sacrificing shooting ), and I don't think removing them entirely is necessarily a good idea either (though it would definitely simplify things). ...It is - heck, the BRB Reference section (pg 199+) is probably what the quick reference chart is .
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Mar 24, 2017 13:14:59 GMT
1- do you have flyrants? No? Delete everything for flyrants. 2- give them wings, minimal troops, e grubs and tlds. 3- repeat So, I really can't see it getting worse for us in anyway. We're already on the bottom I realize that. Imagine if all GSC metamorphs cost the same though. No one would ever take the talon then. If plasma guns cost the same as a flamer what are people going to take? Again, it's not a huge deal for 'nids cuz most of our army stinks, but having real options is something I really like. They need to fix our codex. However, there are many viable ways to play Eldar, Dark Eldar, Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc. Making your own unique list is what is really cool. Does anyone take the flying Sigmarines with hammers? I don't think so because the javelines are better in nearly every way. I want a more streamlined ruleset but I don't want a dumbed down game. Say what you want for AoS, but it is certainly a dumbed down version of fantasy. Combat is a mess in AoS. You can shoot into and out of combat with no penalty whatsoever. You even get cover saves for being in combat. Some people really like that, I just don't happen to be one of them. A lot of tournament play comes down to going second and trying to seize the initiative to go first in the second turn. This way you get 2 turns to your opponents one turn. This decides the game more often than not. Most AoS games are over by turn 3. Please don't read this as a dump on AoS. I like it. It's ok for me. I don't want that ported over to 40K. If people love AoS then play AoS. I've liked it since it released, just not enough to make it a regular staple of my game play.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Mar 24, 2017 13:22:46 GMT
(With basically the exception of vehicles) It is. The complications begin once you add run/turbo/flat out (which also has a nice table), all of which would again be addendums to the Move characteristic. Just lumping them into Move would be removing them as concepts, which I really hope doesn't happen (I'd hate to vs Eldar jetbikes who could move like turbo without sacrificing shooting ), and I don't think removing them entirely is necessarily a good idea either (though it would definitely simplify things). Obviously we use a quick reference chart, which is nice. But shouldn't that just be in the BRB to begin with? ..It is - heck, the BRB Reference section (pg 199+) is probably what the quick reference chart is I agree with a lot of what you say here. Is anyone really bothered by the movement phase of current game? I don't remember anyone ever complaining that the game took too long because the movement phase was just too complicated. The movement phase is most simple phase of 40K. Psychic phase is a mess. Shooting phase is pain because of the all the deathstars where your opponent is rolling, rerolling, look out sir, feel no pain, etc for each wound to distribute wounds so that they don't lose effectiveness. The assault phase is even wonkier with assaults, challenges, hammer of wrath, initiatives, over-watch, consolidations, morale checks, and pile ins. So what is GW fixing? movement phase. And even there they are "working on it". Change is coming and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that the house is burning and GW is talking about repainting the front porch to give it more curb appeal: hey fellas I don't think you are focusing on the actual problem. What gives me hope is that they are working with tournament organizers to write the rules. I remain cautiously optimistic they will get it right this time, or at the very least create a dynamic system that allows tweaks to fix things that don't work smoothly instead of "Here you go guys, next change will be in XX years."
|
|
|
Post by almostmercury on Mar 24, 2017 14:50:19 GMT
See, this is (part) of what I was referring to - this isn't taken into account at all by a movement value. The entire thing of the JSJ is that half of it happens in the assault phase i.e. not movement . Now, could they link shooting/assault phase movement to the Move characteristic? Probably. Is that really simplifying things? Not necessarily. Same thing with basically all of your examples (exception of swwoping/banshees/skitarii, the 3rd I mentioned, and the others I'd forgotten. Maybe Wulfen/World Eaters, but saying 'add 3 to Move' is basically the same as 'add 3" to movement' . Revamping everything for 3 or 4 relatively simple examples is really bad). Shunt/FMC are very variable in how they work. Vehicles is a whole different ball game - giving them a Move characteristic doesn't have any inherent way of dealing with different firing ability (i.e. fast can fire all/2, normal 1/none). MtC would be a different thing to the Move characteristic (though likely linked for less variability i.e. -2 normally, -1 with MtC or whatever), that again, would work just as well at current. Cavalry/jump/beast is just a stock standard 12" (which is incredibly easy to remember) - with extra rules that have stuff all to do with the Move characteristic. All of this could be dealt with in the core rules in one way or another - but that's not simplifying things. That's just adding an extra layer on top. Either that, or they completely revamp everything (which is...probably going to happen), which would be a completely different issue. Basically, while adding Move characteristics has the potential to be a good thing, adding variety to armies/units, I don't see it simplifying things without more sweeping simplifications elsewhere (at which point, it's not really the Move characteristic that's simplifying things...) I think you can absolutely count on them revamping the entire movement phase if they are going to add a movement value stat. That being said Tyranid movement is super easy. My SM friend though, vehicles, fliers, fast skimmers, and it modifing # of shots and BS. Add in flat out/turbo, ect. It's a bit silly. Especially when the only way to verify the movement is in a convoluted BRB section/sections. Obviously we use a quick reference chart, which is nice. But shouldn't that just be in the BRB to begin with? At the very least they could just clear up how they have written the movement section. It's entirely too long and convoluted. It really should be as simple as. This unit can move this many inches. I know for some of you longer time players its probably ingrained in your 40k brains. But as a newer player, its just not fun to deal think about. Movement should be tactical not tedious. There is a movement chart in the back of the BRB. It may not cover all situations, but most of them for sure.
|
|
|
Post by neinball on Mar 24, 2017 15:38:07 GMT
The movement for unit types is simple as heck. Infantry/MC/jump - 6". Everything else - 12", ignores terrain. (Essentially - some dangerous terrain, and FMCs). But, you essentially have 2 values to remember. There's one exception I can think of in the entire game (skitarii), and a couple of odd cases (Tau). Just to make a point here. Jet is 6" and Jump is 12". GMC are 12" but don't ignore terrain. Having the movement stat on the unit entry itself is a lot better as it's simple and clear and doesn't lead to issues like figuring out exactly how Plague Drones move. Moving away from default unit types also will lead to clearer understanding of what different units do, like you have no idea how many times I've had to argue that Jetpack doesn't get Hammer of Wrath or that beasts drop to Int 1 if they don't have gernades when charging through cover. Removing default unit types isnt just for fixing movement values, it's a much needed step towards reducing the overall rules bloat of the game. I play a lot of AoS and I honestly like the system better than 40k for the most part. Switching back and forth between players with which unit to attack with adds a lot more depth and strategy to your decision making. Rend (or armor modifiers) is so much better than flat AP values. Now weapons will have better scaling in effectiveness vs all targets instead of, say, bolters mowing down guardsmen until someone is wearing carapace armor and the bolt goes from full effectiveness to half, instantly. I just hope they keep str vs toughness instead of flat to wound modifiers and no shooting into/out of melee, those are some of the few things I do miss in AoS.
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Mar 24, 2017 16:28:12 GMT
The movement for unit types is simple as heck. Infantry/MC/jump - 6". Everything else - 12", ignores terrain. (Essentially - some dangerous terrain, and FMCs). But, you essentially have 2 values to remember. There's one exception I can think of in the entire game (skitarii), and a couple of odd cases (Tau). Just to make a point here. Jet is 6" and Jump is 12". GMC are 12" but don't ignore terrain. Having the movement stat on the unit entry itself is a lot better as it's simple and clear and doesn't lead to issues like figuring out exactly how Plague Drones move. Moving away from default unit types also will lead to clearer understanding of what different units do, like you have no idea how many times I've had to argue that Jetpack doesn't get Hammer of Wrath or that beasts drop to Int 1 if they don't have gernades when charging through cover. Removing default unit types isnt just for fixing movement values, it's a much needed step towards reducing the overall rules bloat of the game. I play a lot of AoS and I honestly like the system better than 40k for the most part. Switching back and forth between players with which unit to attack with adds a lot more depth and strategy to your decision making. Rend (or armor modifiers) is so much better than flat AP values. Now weapons will have better scaling in effectiveness vs all targets instead of, say, bolters mowing down guardsmen until someone is wearing carapace armor and the bolt goes from full effectiveness to half, instantly. I just hope they keep str vs toughness instead of flat to wound modifiers and no shooting into/out of melee, those are some of the few things I do miss in AoS. Again, 40K has its faults. The movement phase isn't one of them. For all intents and purposes terrain makes little to no difference to AoS. That's not a simplification I want or think the games needs. Cover, movement through, and saves from are something that seperates the average from the good players in 40K. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't want to see that change. There's a reason you don't see as much cool terrain in AoS as you do 40K, it doesn't have much of a game impact.
|
|