Some hate

There are quite a few broken mechanics in the rules. Overwatch, snapshots, assault range with way too high randomness, parts of shooting itself, to some degree saves and more.

I was really tempted for a time to start some kind of initiative to create rules that would be more comprehensive and balanced. Including dexes. However I understand that it would be a Sysiphean task. There will always be people who would not like the system, call parts of it unbalanced or broken. And it would probably never spread to more than few hundred or thousands players, it will probably never be accepted in flgss or on tournament scene, making it all an excercise in futility and wither and die in a short time. I did extensive changes to ADnD and DnD rules when I was younger, creating a complex and realistic system. But in the end it was just easier to play the original games even with its flaws.

There are many systems out there for minis, rpgs and strategy games, yet none of the major ones exists as a players' initiative. At least none I know of. The succesful ones are based around a corporate devil everyone can blame for system faults but still keep playing it.

Am I wrong in thinking that players will choose the easier, comprehensive, widespread but unbalanced system over realistic, balanced system they cant find players for anytime they wish to have a game? Or TOs doing tournaments around a system with 5-10 local gamers?

Maybe there's just something about the official seal that lends GW books far more credibility than homebrew ones (despite their reputation for awful writing and terrible balance).

Possibly it's a bit like how most people will obey someone in a High-vis jacket (without asking for ID or such), even though anyone can just go and buy such a jacket themselves.


Also, got another thing to hate on - a unit that stops to shoot and then stops again to fight can move abut twice as fast as a unit that spends its entire turn running.

Aurynn- I can only think of one homebrewed rule set to gain any traction, and it's not even a mini game. So I feel your pain.

It's also very subjective. (I think 40k without Overwatch was way more broken than with, f'rex.)

Jimsolo wrote:

It's also very subjective.  (I think 40k without Overwatch was way more broken than with, f'rex.)

In what way?

I guess he means that some of the former editions favoured assault to shooting. I kinda dislike the idea that an unit is permitted an action during enemy phase. In my POV everything happens simultaneously on the battlefield so unit that shot in its shooting phase should not be able to shoot overwatch.

In the 'assault used to be too powerful' sort of way. I understand it's a mechanic that's not as beneficial to us, but I think it's a much needed balancing force in the game.

I still gave therapy bills from the nightmarish days of being able to consolidate into a new combat. When they took that and assaulting from Reserves away, the melee armies wept and gnashed their teeth and claimed the game was over for them. In reality, of course, all power weapons were still AP 2, and CC was still an impervious force field against bullets.

6th finally put the melee vs ranged balance where it needed to be: melee still viable, but slightly in favor of ranged. (You can build a good army with no CC these days, but probably not with no shooting, which is what 40k should be.)

Jimsolo wrote:

In the 'assault used to be too powerful' sort of way.  I understand it's a mechanic that's not as beneficial to us, but I think it's a much needed balancing force in the game.

I still gave therapy bills from the nightmarish days of being able to consolidate into a new combat.  When they took that and assaulting from Reserves away, the melee armies wept and gnashed their teeth and claimed the game was over for them.  In reality, of course, all power weapons were still AP 2, and CC was still an impervious force field against bullets.

6th finally put the melee vs ranged balance where it needed to be: melee still viable, but slightly in favor of ranged.  (You can build a good army with no CC these days, but probably not with no shooting, which is what 40k should be.)

I disagree - 5th put the shooting vs assault balance where it needed to be. Shooting had the advantage, but assault was still powerful. 6th killed most assault units dead.

Anyway, the issue I have with overwatch is that it punishes the wrong units. Were wyches or hellions breaking the game with super-powerful assaults? No? then why are they punished the *most* by overwatch?

If it's supposed to be balancing assault, surely the mechanic should be one aimed at hurting stuff like necron Wraiths, WKs, TWC - i.e. the OP assault units? Instead, overwatch only hurts units that are already struggling to compete. That's really not a good addition to a game.

All this is kinda tied towards the sorta' broken shooting. If a model shooting overwatch was permitted only 1 shot if it crap in its shooting phase, it would solve a lot. If a size modifier was applicable for to-hit rolls it would balance out even better. Although I believe points reduction of large and bigger models should be applicable. Heavy weapons should have some limitation to fire overwatch unless the unit has relentless.

As for wyches - I still think they should have shrouded against overwatch, longer charge or disembark but they should cost a little bit more. They are still very good if you pick right targets, but too niche for a troop.

My main bugbear is inconsistency. The rules writing teams simply cannot pick a direction and stick to it, and that irritates me to no end. I was disappointed with the slightly bland codex for DE, removing a lot of options and fluff, but I was ok with it because that was the general trend of the army books around the time, and this continued with the next few books (BA, Harlequins, and early AdMech). Then, they just decided to about-fact and massively amp up the power of the next 3 codices, and that just makes no sense at all. I also feel that units that feature in multiple codices should be the same across those - things like SM scouts being WS/BS4 and their Dreadnoughts having 4 base attacks, whereas BA get WS/BS3 and 2 attack Dreads for the same cost. (Hell, even the BA COMBAT SPECIALIST Dreadnought has fewer attacks than a shooty marine dread). It's like when Storm Shields went from 4++ in combat to 3++ everywhere, and everyone else had to wait for their change. It's something that could be fixed in less than 2 minutes with an Errata update, and I'm not sure if the decision not to is incompetence, bloody mindedness or laziness.

It's also something that could be fixed by not having the power creep in the first place.


With regard to the change in design mid-way through 7th, do you think it has anything to do with a poor reception to the first 7th edition books?

I mean, I know a lot of DE, BA, GK and Ork players were disappointed with their bland, content-stripped books. And, whilst GW doesn't do market research, it might at least have noticed poor sales.

This is all theory of course, I have no proof of this. I'm just wondering if GW changed design because their current design wasn't selling.

Well I dont think they noticed drop in sales but increase in sales of the cookie cutters.

As for updates and errata - that bugs me too and makes me wish for community rules. Something in line of 9th edition of WFB made by the Swedish Comp and ETC combined. Anyway such thing would require efforts of roughly 60 people working in concert for W40K in my estimation plus many playtesters. And the real willingness to try such a system.

The lack of frequent, relevant, and consistent FAQs is my biggest gripe with 40k (followed by not being able to shoot into melee).

I do agree that wyches are excessively punished by Overwatch, but submit the fault lies not with the Overwatch rules, but with the rules for wyches.

Jimsolo wrote:

The lack of frequent, relevant, and consistent FAQs is my biggest gripe with 40k (followed by not being able to shoot into melee).

I think the whole 'locked in melee' thing should have been dropped when they started making Wraithknight-sized models.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

Jimsolo wrote:

I do agree that wyches are excessively punished by Overwatch, but submit the fault lies not with the Overwatch rules, but with the rules for wyches.

No, it lies with the overwatch rules - because their design means they're only a threat to fragile units - not to the super-resilient units that dominate assault.

To put it another way, the more help you need from overwatch against an assaulting unit, the less you get.

The Shredder wrote:

No, it lies with the overwatch rules - because their design means they're only a threat to fragile units - not to the super-resilient units that dominate assault.

To put it another way, the more help you need from overwatch against an assaulting unit, the less you get.

Thats why I suggested limiting the amount of overwatch fire. Combined with clever charging through cover it would make wyches more than viable.

Charging outside of cover one should expect casualties.

The Shredder wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

The lack of frequent, relevant, and consistent FAQs is my biggest gripe with 40k (followed by not being able to shoot into melee).

I think the whole 'locked in melee' thing should have been dropped when they started making Wraithknight-sized models.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

Jimsolo wrote:

I do agree that wyches are excessively punished by Overwatch, but submit the fault lies not with the Overwatch rules, but with the rules for wyches.

No, it lies with the overwatch rules - because their design means they're only a threat to fragile units - not to the super-resilient units that dominate assault.

To put it another way, the more help you need from overwatch against an assaulting unit, the less you get.

maybe they only want the powerful units in combat. it kindof keeps the more fragile and/or units not meant for cc out. maybe they were sick of people throwing their less powerful units into melee to stall or something. but maybe they just don't care

[quote="doriii"]

The Shredder wrote:

maybe they only want the powerful units in combat. it kindof keeps the more fragile and/or units not meant for cc out. maybe they were sick of people throwing their less powerful units into melee to stall or something. but maybe they just don't care

Entirely possible.

They'll probably also wonder why Wyches, Hellions, Raptors etc. don't sell.

aurynn wrote:

Thats why I suggested limiting the amount of overwatch fire. Combined with clever charging through cover it would make wyches more than viable.

No, it really wouldn't. They still have terrible survivability outside of combat (and even in combat it's nothing special), and their offence is absolutely atrocious.

If wyches are going to be viable, then they need to make up for their fragility by hitting like a truck, not like a damp cloth.

aurynn wrote:

Charging outside of cover one should expect casualties.

Unless you're a DK, WK, Imperial Knight, TWC, Necron Wraith, or one of the other assault units that are actually worth a damn.

But I dont think wyches should hit like a truck. I use them as tarpits and to kill off TEQ and such. I never expected them to be good in all aspects for 10 pts and 4++ in cc IS very good. In my eyes they have a flaw but they certainly have their use. And for 10 pts each they can work wonders. But I dont want to start a debate over this. :-)

As for OW - I suggested that large models should be easier to hit by overwatch which would result in creating at least potentially dangerous targets. A WK can charge lascannon devs with no fear now. If large units (cavalry, necron wraiths, eldar wraiths) were +1 to hit, +2 MC, +3 GC, WKs would be much easier to wound and take down in general and even snapshots on overwatch would hit them and wound them. Ofc without adjusting all relevant mechanics it wouldnt work well. It was just brainstorming.

I'd have thought large models would be easier to hit with regular shooting too.

Ofc they would. Which would need an increase of their wounds to the point of proper balance. What I mean to achieve is that larger models should be tougher but they should not feel comfortably nigh invulnerable. Charging a WK with 2 wounds left into an unit with 4 meltaguns should be dangerous.

Anyway do you guys think that the vehicle profile and different damage mechanic is good or should it be one profile.

The Shredder wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

The lack of frequent, relevant, and consistent FAQs is my biggest gripe with 40k (followed by not being able to shoot into melee).

I think the whole 'locked in melee' thing should have been dropped when they started making Wraithknight-sized models.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

I have lost more than one game (several, actually) because one single model was still locked in combat with a dozen plus enemies. Totally ridiculous.

"Soldier, open fire on that horde of genestealers!"
"No can do sir. There's still a single guardsman fighting them off."
"..."
"He might pull it off, sir."

Quote :

Jimsolo wrote:

I do agree that wyches are excessively punished by Overwatch, but submit the fault lies not with the Overwatch rules, but with the rules for wyches.

No, it lies with the overwatch rules - because their design means they're only a threat to fragile units - not to the super-resilient units that dominate assault.

To put it another way, the more help you need from overwatch against an assaulting unit, the less you get.

I disagree. I think that Overwatch, like all shooting attacks, is a minimal threat to super-resilient units (like all attacks, really). It's still a credible threat to swarms of bugs, ork boyz, and other units that rely on weight of numbers to win their battles, where just a couple of casualties can often knock the enemy out of assault range. Against tarpit units, while it may not present a credible threat to prevent assault, it can definitely mitigate the results of that assault, by allowing the victim unit to soften up the aggressor before they get stuck in.

(Although if I remember from another thread, you face Grey Knights almost every game, yeah? Do you think that might be coloring your perception? It'd be understandable.)

Limiting Overwatch fire to a single shot seems like a silly fix. I'd definitely be open to some fine tuning. (No Overwatch for units that moved? Unless they're Relentless? Or maybe make a new USR that lets you Overwatch after moving?) Bottom line is that while reality sometimes has to take a backseat to gameplay, in no wargame ever should you be able to charge a machine gun nest without taking heavy fire.

The problem lies with timing. Machinegun nest fires onto some unit while another unit charges at it. It needs to choose between defending itself and shooting their primary target. Whole 40k battle would last minutes.

Anyone played a system with alternating sides after each unit action? Like dystopian legions?

Jimsolo wrote:

I have lost more than one game (several, actually) because one single model was still locked in combat with a dozen plus enemies.  Totally ridiculous.  

"Soldier, open fire on that horde of genestealers!"
"No can do sir.  There's still a single guardsman fighting them off."
"..."
"He might pull it off, sir."

The other aspect, of course, is that a lot of races would probably have no qualms whatsoever about shooting into their own men. Commissars do it all the time, gaunts are literally bred to soak bullets, a lot of DE would probably see it as a way to eliminate competition or fast-track their promotions (Dracon - "Dear me, it seems our leader is locked in quite the bloody combat over there. Why, I believe it's our duty to help him out. Mind your aim though, it would be so tragic if a stray shot were to hit him.) etc.

Jimsolo wrote:

I disagree.  I think that Overwatch, like all shooting attacks, is a minimal threat to super-resilient units (like all attacks, really).  It's still a credible threat to swarms of bugs, ork boyz, and other units that rely on weight of numbers to win their battles, where just a couple of casualties can often knock the enemy out of assault range.  Against tarpit units, while it may not present a credible threat to prevent assault, it can definitely mitigate the results of that assault, by allowing the victim unit to soften up the aggressor before they get stuck in.

(Although if I remember from another thread, you face Grey Knights almost every game, yeah?  Do you think that might be coloring your perception?  It'd be understandable.)

Not just GKs. I face a lot of melee units, and I can recall exactly one game where overwatch mattered (a Maulerfiend lost its last hull point to overwatching Necron warriors). Other than that, it either misses, bounces off, or kills a random ork boy that makes no difference whatsoever in the ensuing combat.

Other than that one incident, I've never seen it make a difference to the results of any combat. Also, I'm not just referring to my own overwatch - I've never seen my ally's overwatch do anything meaningful. Nor the overwatch of my opponents.

I guess you could make an argument for it affecting the game, but I'm still dubious. I certainly can't ever recall someone saying "if only I hadn't lost that one ork to overwatch, this game would have gone very differently."

So, honest question here - does overwatch really tip the balance of combat for you on a regular basis? If so, could you give some examples because I really am very curious.

Also, do you think it's at all strange that units only get to fire these extra shots when charged?

Well it can seriously tip the balance with Tau shooting OW. :-) I once faced 60 OW shots on BS2 on charge with my 5 warriors. But then again I did sacrifice said warriors just to soak that. My wyches and grots made short work of those units right after. :-)

@Shredder - thats my problem too. Why should a charged unit get an extra action?

Even with Tau, I haven't seen their overwatch do anything impressive since 6th (though I haven't had many games against them, so perhaps that's partially to blame).

But, I'll always remember the game just after the new tau book came out. It was a 2v2 with one side using double-Tau. one of the opponents was a Khorne daemon army. Not a single unit reached combat. The only ones that got close were promptly turned into red mist by many, many overwatch shots.

It's not often I feel sympathy for daemons.

The Shredder wrote:

Jimsolo wrote:

The lack of frequent, relevant, and consistent FAQs is my biggest gripe with 40k (followed by not being able to shoot into melee).

I think the whole 'locked in melee' thing should have been dropped when they started making Wraithknight-sized models.

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"

Jimsolo wrote:

I do agree that wyches are excessively punished by Overwatch, but submit the fault lies not with the Overwatch rules, but with the rules for wyches.

No, it lies with the overwatch rules - because their design means they're only a threat to fragile units - not to the super-resilient units that dominate assault.

To put it another way, the more help you need from overwatch against an assaulting unit, the less you get.

Oh, this reminded me of another one... vehicle has all vulnerable parts (engines, vision slits etc. hidden), but it's only 24% obscured? No cover saves! That Riptide/Wraithknight/Hive Tyrant/You Get The Gist is 100% visible but 1mm of its base is on a piece of area terrain? 4+ cover save!