HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Rules preview from Adepticon

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
HokutoAndy
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2013-05-30

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Tue Mar 28 2017, 09:32

I hope most of the changes are about getting rid of little niggling d6 rolls and minute miniatures movement. Like xd6 movement, xd6 charts, trying to remember who's on soulfire, etc.

I'm not a fan of AoS style "hit 4+ wound 3+" that give everything larger than a guardsmen multiple wounds. I like strength/toughness comparison charts and would rather see multiwound models like ogryns be t6 w1 than t4 w3. Cuts down on token tracking and speeds up gameplay. Also increases the value of 'always wound on X' sniper weaponry. An ogryn shrugging off shurikens but then getting popped through the eye by a ranger is evocative imagery.

@Count Adhemar wrote:
Getting rid of save mods made the game simpler but I don't really feel it made it better. Given the prevalence of 3+ save armies, a binary system where you either get your full save or none at all means that any weapon that breaches that magical AP3 value becomes exponentially more valuable. I'm sure it's no coincidence that AP3 ranged weaponry is so rare.

If I could decide how 8e turns out I'd keep the AP system but add in "If the armor save is only better than the weapon's AP by 1, it's reduced by 1"

So an ap4 autocannon reduces 3+ power armor to a 4+, an ap3 krak missile blows through the power armor and reduces the terminator's 2+ to a good-but-manageable 3+.

You wind up with some granularity where anti-aircraft cannons can scratch power armor better than a boltgun does, but no puny lasguns reducing power armor to a mere 4+. This also opens up room for some weapons getting a downgrade in AP (and points value), say ap3 plasma guns that will vaporize power armor marines but still resisted somewhat by terminators. This could have a domino effect of not mandating every terminator carries a 3++ storm shield because they still get a 3+ sv against most heavy weaponry.

But there could be a few select exotic weapons that just have a straight modifier, like haemonculi acid sprays and flashy ork mekboy gadgets.

-------

Going full wishlist mode, would love to see vehicle AV done away with and everything uses toughness/wounds/save. Big slow vehicles and monsters can have variable saves based on facing.

Some units would be...
Trukk: t6 w3 4+/4+/5+, ramshackle represented by high wounds, no need for a special rule
Venom: t6 w2 3+/3+/4+, compared to the orks better saves but lower wounds
Chimera: t7 w3 3+/4+/4+
Leman Russ: t8 w3 2+/3+/4+, shrugs off krak missiles from the front but a side hit can hurt
Land Raider: t9 w4  2+/2+/2+, need lascannon weapons to take it down
Monolith: t10! w4 2+/2+/2+, no need for special rules when it just has huge stats

And you either have a vehicle/monster damage chart that wraithlords and dreadnoughts both use, or no such chart and leman russ's can fire until they die like a wraithknight. Perhaps tags differentiating vehicles from monsters so hexrifles aren't glassing landraiders and haywire weapons aren't short circuiting carnifex's
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Tue Mar 28 2017, 10:08

if they go to any sort of armour modifier reminiscent of 2nd ed - then you need to reapply the hit modifiers for range and cover...

when a shuriken catapult fires twice at 18" and has a -2 save modifier, you need to balance this with penalties to hit

As an example, with no modifiers to the hit roll but with the 2nd ed save mod, 10 avengers deletes a unit of marines so easily its not funny and cover still does nothing for the marines.

If you put the -1 to hit at long range on them (like they used to have) - and long range might be over half range - and then chuck back in the -1 to hit for soft cover and -2 for hard cover, all of a sudden... yes those marines still only save on 5+ but the avengers are hitting on 4+ or worse, and cover has significant value again.

armour mods have to go hand in hand with making things harder to hit or the whole thing becomes a quick draw - with the player shooting first likely to win any exchange

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
|Meavar
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1041
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Tue Mar 28 2017, 11:24

"There are so many things that HAS to change for EACH unit by removing unit types. This alone is a huge game changer. So big that all the units need a rewrite before 8th ed lands."
Jeah, which is what I really hope for.

It seemed like they have to often been bolstering the latest book to have a few new units that are slightly more powerful. It would be nice to all start on a level playing field again.

Although I do hope it does not become to much rock paper scissors. This will hopefully then also mean we will see more balanced armies instead of all the spam fest I usually see.
I want the tactics to matter a lot more then army comp and right now it often feels the other way around. (I am not saying battlefield tactics do not matter, but army building seems to be slightly more important right now).
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Tue Mar 28 2017, 21:23

@|Meavar wrote:

I want the tactics to matter a lot more then army composition and right now it often feels the other way around.

Quote edited for clarity, to prevent other people from getting confused.

I'd like both to be about equally important. I want a lot of diverse options for army building, and I want listbuilding to matter about as much as how you play your list. This is why I'm generally opposed to making army-building a simple affair.

If you simplify it TOO much, then you're left with few REAL options, which means that listbuilding CAN'T matter much, or it will lead to the much hated "netlist" that is simply the objectively "Best" way to build a list. To the contrary of what many would have you believe, the best way to eliminate the "netlist" is to have so many list options that no single website or blog could possibly address them all. Have so many available list permutations that even slight alterations to the meta could lead to a list becoming suboptimal. I feel like that is about where we are now, or at least the direction that GW decisions for the past 2 years have been leading us. I'd like to continue down that path.

I feel like some of the proposed ideas for 8th have been leading us a different direction, and I'm not so sure I like where it's headed. Between making listbuilding not matter at all, really, or making listbuilding more complex, I'll take more complex every time.
Back to top Go down
Sarkesian
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 222
Join date : 2016-01-12
Location : Utah

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Tue Mar 28 2017, 21:53

Although I don't play Infinity, one thing I do like about the rules is the hit modifiers on range. I know it would probably add more complication to the game but maybe a +1/-1 to hit depending on range would feel welcome.

Sniper Weapons get a +1 between 18-36 inches, -1 within 12 inches. Rifles get a -1 at 20-24 inches, +1 within 12 inches. Normal BS when range is between values. Give the sniper a damage boost (2 wounds per shot, always precision) and I'd be more inclined to take a hex rifle on some wracks camping on an objective in the backfield.

Again it would probably be more difficult than what its worth but it sure feels fluffy to me.
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 04:44

I think a simple ruling by weapon type... Long range being over half range

Rapid fire +1/0
Assault 0/-1
Pistol +1/-1
Heavy 0/0
Ordinance -1/0

You might add special things like sniper getting +1/+1 to reflect the optics these weapons have.

And then put soft cover -1 (trees, hedges, hills, etc) and hard cover -2 (buildings basically as well as ruins and constructed obstacles).

You do away with cover saves, make jink -2 to hit, stealth -1, shrouded -2. Ignores cover would essentially remove the penalties to hit thanks to cover. Ditch the reroll to hit for high bs as you have all these modifiers.

These are essentially modifiers to BS rather than to hit. Min BS1 always

Then having -1 or better to armour saves works as you have far less hits getting through most of the time.

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 04:49

We had old Stealth/Night fight rules work like that in 6th ed... It wasnt fun.

I dont see this being fun either. Smile

Modifiers are fun and IMO good, just not multi-measuring ones.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 07:51

I prefer this to the cover system we have now 100% 2nd ed was bloated for sure but it was not the shooting component that made it so (excluding grenades!)

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 08:25

@Massaen wrote:
I prefer this to the cover system we have now 100% 2nd ed was bloated for sure but it was not the shooting component that made it so (excluding grenades!)

You mean melee Wink

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 09:12

That and the psychic phase!

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7214
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 09:16

A few things off the top of my head that would improve the game without involving major changes:

Look out, Sir! not applying to Precision Shots (or suffering a penalty to the roll like the Vindicare Assassin rules)

Jink and other speed/movement based saves become a separate category of 'Dodge' save that is not nullified by Ignores Cover (but other rules could interact with it, like the Dark Reaper Rangefinder)

Vehicles gain a Dodge save based on distance moved in their last turn (including flat out). Jink would improve this save or allow a re-roll

To Hit rolls in melee include hitting on 2+ and 6's, rather than the extremely limited 3, 4 and 5 results that are used now. So a Bloodthirster hitting a Fire Warrior needs 2+ and the Fire Warrior hitting back needs a 6. Seems a bit more realistic to me!



_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 10:13

@Count Adhemar wrote:
A few things off the top of my head that would improve the game without involving major changes:

Look out, Sir! not applying to Precision Shots (or suffering a penalty to the roll like the Vindicare Assassin rules)

Jink and other speed/movement based saves become a separate category of 'Dodge' save that is not nullified by Ignores Cover (but other rules could interact with it, like the Dark Reaper Rangefinder)

Vehicles gain a Dodge save based on distance moved in their last turn (including flat out). Jink would improve this save or allow a re-roll

To Hit rolls in melee include hitting on 2+ and 6's, rather than the extremely limited 3, 4 and 5 results that are used now. So a Bloodthirster hitting a Fire Warrior needs 2+ and the Fire Warrior hitting back needs a 6. Seems a bit more realistic to me!




Vehicles are extremely hard to balance, No one wants 5 rhinos to never take damage on the table. I mean a 35pts model that is more survival than 120pts MC's or Terminators, even Centurions etc... gets to be very frustrating.

We have such a huge difference in Vehicles that a flat rule isnt going to be good enough.

It needs to be
Tanks get "X" save after moves more than 6"
Heavy tanks "Y" save faster moves more than 6"
SH tanks get "Z" rule where it doesnt get saves b.c the size

Its hard to make them survive better when some cost 35pts and do very little and others cost 200pts and do a lot.

Imagine a Landraider with a 4++, Or Demi-company with 12 4++ Razorbacks, Or IA: SoB with 12 Immolators with a 4++ that comes back on a 4+
The scary part is this doesnt include all the Bodies inside these vehicles.

It would push the game into 5th ed style play and honestly I hated 5th ed vehicles rules. There were times i shot 7-8 S10 into a rhino and it didnt die all game... my 700pts of shooting couldnt kill 35pts.


Not saying Many of the SM/IG tanks arent in a bad spot, just saying its hard to balance.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7214
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 10:22

@amishprn86 wrote:
@Count Adhemar wrote:
A few things off the top of my head that would improve the game without involving major changes:

Look out, Sir! not applying to Precision Shots (or suffering a penalty to the roll like the Vindicare Assassin rules)

Jink and other speed/movement based saves become a separate category of 'Dodge' save that is not nullified by Ignores Cover (but other rules could interact with it, like the Dark Reaper Rangefinder)

Vehicles gain a Dodge save based on distance moved in their last turn (including flat out). Jink would improve this save or allow a re-roll

To Hit rolls in melee include hitting on 2+ and 6's, rather than the extremely limited 3, 4 and 5 results that are used now. So a Bloodthirster hitting a Fire Warrior needs 2+ and the Fire Warrior hitting back needs a 6. Seems a bit more realistic to me!




Vehicles are extremely hard to balance, No one wants 5 rhinos to never take damage on the table. I mean a 35pts model that is more survival than 120pts MC's or Terminators, even Centurions etc... gets to be very frustrating.

We have such a huge difference in Vehicles that a flat rule isnt going to be good enough.

It needs to be
Tanks get "X" save after moves more than 6"
Heavy tanks "Y" save faster moves more than 6"
SH tanks get "Z" rule where it doesnt get saves b.c the size

Its hard to make them survive better when some cost 35pts and do very little and others cost 200pts and do a lot.

Imagine a Landraider with a 4++, Or Demi-company with 12 4++ Razorbacks, Or IA: SoB with 12 Immolators with a 4++ that comes back on a 4+
The scary part is this doesnt include all the Bodies inside these vehicles.

It would push the game into 5th ed style play and honestly I hated 5th ed vehicles rules. There were times i shot 7-8 S10 into a rhino and it didnt die all game... my 700pts of shooting couldnt kill 35pts.


Not saying Many of the SM/IG tanks arent in a bad spot, just saying its hard to balance.

All of that is easily handled by the movement rates of the vehicles. A standard vehicle can move 12" normally and an additional 6" if it goes flat out. You adjust those distances based on vehicle type (Fast vehicles move faster, Heavy vehicles cannot go flat out etc) and base your saves on the actual distance moved from start to finish. You also adjust the saves so that they only become meaningful for very fast moving vehicles.

Quick example:

Distance moved (save)
0-6" (-)
6-12" (6+)
12-18" (5+)
18-24" (4+)
24-36" (3+)
36"+ (2+)

Obviously the speed you move will also affect the number of weapons you can fire (if any) and it could also replace the 'hard to hit' rule by giving flyers/FMCs an automatic save without needing to jink. Jink could offer a reroll.

This is all of the top of my head but I think it's a workable system.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 12:45

@Count Adhemar wrote:
@amishprn86 wrote:
@Count Adhemar wrote:
A few things off the top of my head that would improve the game without involving major changes:

Look out, Sir! not applying to Precision Shots (or suffering a penalty to the roll like the Vindicare Assassin rules)

Jink and other speed/movement based saves become a separate category of 'Dodge' save that is not nullified by Ignores Cover (but other rules could interact with it, like the Dark Reaper Rangefinder)

Vehicles gain a Dodge save based on distance moved in their last turn (including flat out). Jink would improve this save or allow a re-roll

To Hit rolls in melee include hitting on 2+ and 6's, rather than the extremely limited 3, 4 and 5 results that are used now. So a Bloodthirster hitting a Fire Warrior needs 2+ and the Fire Warrior hitting back needs a 6. Seems a bit more realistic to me!




Vehicles are extremely hard to balance, No one wants 5 rhinos to never take damage on the table. I mean a 35pts model that is more survival than 120pts MC's or Terminators, even Centurions etc... gets to be very frustrating.

We have such a huge difference in Vehicles that a flat rule isnt going to be good enough.

It needs to be
Tanks get "X" save after moves more than 6"
Heavy tanks "Y" save faster moves more than 6"
SH tanks get "Z" rule where it doesnt get saves b.c the size

Its hard to make them survive better when some cost 35pts and do very little and others cost 200pts and do a lot.

Imagine a Landraider with a 4++, Or Demi-company with 12 4++ Razorbacks, Or IA: SoB with 12 Immolators with a 4++ that comes back on a 4+
The scary part is this doesnt include all the Bodies inside these vehicles.

It would push the game into 5th ed style play and honestly I hated 5th ed vehicles rules. There were times i shot 7-8 S10 into a rhino and it didnt die all game... my 700pts of shooting couldnt kill 35pts.


Not saying Many of the SM/IG tanks arent in a bad spot, just saying its hard to balance.

All of that is easily handled by the movement rates of the vehicles. A standard vehicle can move 12" normally and an additional 6" if it goes flat out. You adjust those distances based on vehicle type (Fast vehicles move faster, Heavy vehicles cannot go flat out etc) and base your saves on the actual distance moved from start to finish. You also adjust the saves so that they only become meaningful for very fast moving vehicles.

Quick example:

Distance moved (save)
0-6" (-)
6-12" (6+)
12-18" (5+)
18-24" (4+)
24-36" (3+)
36"+ (2+)

Obviously the speed you move will also affect the number of weapons you can fire (if any) and it could also replace the 'hard to hit' rule by giving flyers/FMCs an automatic save without needing to jink. Jink could offer a reroll.

This is all of the top of my head but I think it's a workable system.

But part of the problem is the vehicles that suffer the most from no saves because they dont move or if they do never more than 6".

Look at IG, how many players are moving 6+ inches with their vehicles? Not many. If they are being force to move just to survive they are not shooting.

Fortifications were IMO made to help static game play but sense they are normally ignore due to poor rules or armies just ignoring cover/los no one takes them, and sense Building rules are a F'ING joke no one takes them either.


Many IG and SM vehicles are just never uses b.c they are over costed and just get glanced to death in a round of shooting.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7214
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 12:51

@amishprn86 wrote:
But part of the problem is the vehicles that suffer the most from no saves because they dont move or if they do never more than 6".

Look at IG, how many players are moving 6+ inches with their vehicles? Not many. If they are being force to move just to survive they are not shooting.

Fortifications were IMO made to help static game play but sense they are normally ignore due to poor rules or armies just ignoring cover/los no one takes them, and sense Building rules are a F'ING joke no one takes them either.


Many IG and SM vehicles are just never uses b.c they are over costed and just get glanced to death in a round of shooting.

I think we're looking at addressing different problems. I was talking about representing speed and agility via a separate category of 'Dodge' save. Obviously a massively armoured, slow-moving battle tank is not going to benefit too much from that and I never intended it to do so. IG and SM vehicles should survive either by entrenching themselves in a fortification to provide cover or by simply having massively thick armour (high AV) and redundancy for vital systems (HP).

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 13:00

@Count Adhemar wrote:
@amishprn86 wrote:
But part of the problem is the vehicles that suffer the most from no saves because they dont move or if they do never more than 6".

Look at IG, how many players are moving 6+ inches with their vehicles? Not many. If they are being force to move just to survive they are not shooting.

Fortifications were IMO made to help static game play but sense they are normally ignore due to poor rules or armies just ignoring cover/los no one takes them, and sense Building rules are a F'ING joke no one takes them either.


Many IG and SM vehicles are just never uses b.c they are over costed and just get glanced to death in a round of shooting.

I think we're looking at addressing different problems. I was talking about representing speed and agility via a separate category of 'Dodge' save. Obviously a massively armoured, slow-moving battle tank is not going to benefit too much from that and I never intended it to do so. IG and SM vehicles should survive either by entrenching themselves in a fortification to provide cover or by simply having massively thick armour (high AV) and redundancy for vital systems (HP).

Another Idea is

Glances only does a HP on a 4+, so for every glance you get, you get a 4+ to take 0 Hull points, So this acts as a save for Glances only

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
WildCandy
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 152
Join date : 2016-11-06

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 13:58

@amishprn86 wrote:
@Count Adhemar wrote:
@amishprn86 wrote:
But part of the problem is the vehicles that suffer the most from no saves because they dont move or if they do never more than 6".

Look at IG, how many players are moving 6+ inches with their vehicles? Not many. If they are being force to move just to survive they are not shooting.

Fortifications were IMO made to help static game play but sense they are normally ignore due to poor rules or armies just ignoring cover/los no one takes them, and sense Building rules are a F'ING joke no one takes them either.


Many IG and SM vehicles are just never uses b.c they are over costed and just get glanced to death in a round of shooting.

I think we're looking at addressing different problems. I was talking about representing speed and agility via a separate category of 'Dodge' save. Obviously a massively armoured, slow-moving battle tank is not going to benefit too much from that and I never intended it to do so. IG and SM vehicles should survive either by entrenching themselves in a fortification to provide cover or by simply having massively thick armour (high AV) and redundancy for vital systems (HP).

Another Idea is

Glances only does a HP on a 4+, so for every glance you get, you get a 4+ to take 0 Hull points, So this acts as a save for Glances only

Wave Serpents to rule them all!
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Wed Mar 29 2017, 22:52

@amishprn86 wrote:


Glances only does a HP on a 4+, so for every glance you get, you get a 4+ to take 0 Hull points, So this acts as a save for Glances only

I think you're still missing the point. The point is to give transports that cost 2-3 times as much as a rhino a defensive buff without buffing the rhino. Your suggestion would buff a 35 point unit(the rhino) while not particularly buffing DE transports that cost twice as much(since it's easier to penetrate DE vehicles).

The save based on distance moved thing is a workable idea. I'd probably tone it down a notch from where the Count has it, basically lowering the save at each level by 1.

Alternatively, instead of providing a save, moving extremely fast could simply provide a penalty to hit when shooting at them. It would cause many units to essentially have to snap fire at things moving 36+ inches in a round, which I think is appropriate. Vehicles moving that fast are basically moving just as fast as a zooming flyer, so should probably be treated that way. Speeds in between could be represented with lower penalties to hit. Also, using penalties to hit would make models with high BS more valuable.
Back to top Go down
Massaen
Klaivex
avatar

Posts : 2268
Join date : 2011-07-05
Location : Western Australia

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 03:54

Hit penalties for speed are also a 2nd ed thing - things like the reaper range finder ignored the penalties to hit for targets speed.

I would have to dig out the rule book but I don't recall it being worse than -3 to hit for speed

_________________
Objective Secured - Western Australia's Premier 40k Event Organisers and Website
OBJECTIVE SECURED
Back to top Go down
http://objectivesecured.com.au/
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 04:21

@Massaen wrote:
Hit penalties for speed are also a 2nd ed thing - things like the reaper range finder ignored the penalties to hit for targets speed.

I would have to dig out the rule book but I don't recall it being worse than -3 to hit for speed

I think that would be reasonable. It's a question of whether it's a penalty to HIT, or a penalty to BS. If the latter, I don't see a problem going higher than -3. That would further differentiate between models with average BS, and models with superhuman BS, which I'd like more than simply seeing a BS10 dude have to start hitting on 5s because something moves fast.

To be clear, I think I'd like either one, but I'd probably like BS penalty better than a direct "To hit" penalty.
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1041
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 07:08

Should the rhino not just cost more then the 35 points?
Make those rhino's cost somewhere close to 60 points and suddenly the problem is a lot smaller.

I am not really sure what everything has exactly but I think av 11/12?
Considering it is effectively a 3 wound t7 or 8 monster with a storm bolter it should already cost more?
Since a tyranid warrior costs the same (or was it only 30 and you paid 5 points for a gun?) has a similar gun only has t4 a lower move and no ability to transport anything.

Back to top Go down
amishprn86
Dracon
avatar

Posts : 3152
Join date : 2014-10-04
Location : Ohio

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 08:09

@BetrayTheWorld wrote:
@amishprn86 wrote:


Glances only does a HP on a 4+, so for every glance you get, you get a 4+ to take 0 Hull points, So this acts as a save for Glances only

I think you're still missing the point. The point is to give transports that cost 2-3 times as much as a rhino a defensive buff without buffing the rhino. Your suggestion would buff a 35 point unit(the rhino) while not particularly buffing DE transports that cost twice as much(since it's easier to penetrate DE vehicles).

The save based on distance moved thing is a workable idea. I'd probably tone it down a notch from where the Count has it, basically lowering the save at each level by 1.

Alternatively, instead of providing a save, moving extremely fast could simply provide a penalty to hit when shooting at them. It would cause many units to essentially have to snap fire at things moving 36+ inches in a round, which I think is appropriate. Vehicles moving that fast are basically moving just as fast as a zooming flyer, so should probably be treated that way. Speeds in between could be represented with lower penalties to hit. Also, using penalties to hit would make models with high BS more valuable.


This is what Ive been saying the whole time.

Rhinos are EASY to Pin, S6 can do it, Pens wont get saves, so this wouldnt effect the rhino.

Part of 7th problems is Mass S6 that can glance everything down, Rhinos and other cheap/low AV would still be able to be Pinned and Glanced with this rule But AV12 would now take 2x the amount of glances.

_________________
New to Blogging, just starting https://maddpaint.blogspot.com/

Harlequins 3k+
Dark Eldar 10k+
Tyranids 10k+
SOB 3k+
Painted 4k points
Back to top Go down
BetrayTheWorld
In Exile


Posts : 2665
Join date : 2013-04-04

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 19:24

Right, except that no one else here is looking to increase the durability of AV12+ vehicles. So you're attempting to solve a problem no one here has. People here are generally concerned with DE/CWE vehicles, which are all AV10/11 for the most part.

The suggestion of a movement mechanic to add durability to fast units via a save based on distance moved was meant directly as a buff to expensive, fast skimmers that currently cost a lot compared to tanks but are easy to kill with low AV and open-topped. They weren't trying to buff AV12+ tanks.

Unless I'm mistaken, in which case the Count is free to correct me.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7214
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Thu Mar 30 2017, 21:48

Nope, that's pretty much exactly what I said and meant.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1041
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   Fri Mar 31 2017, 08:10

The question for me is do we want vehicles to be though with light vehicles to need lots of shooting to kill, but it matters less what type of shooting. (By introducing special saves etc)
And heavy vehicles need special weapons to die (remember if you fire a s10 shot at us or at a av12 vehicle and we have the 4+ save we actually have a higher chance to survive.

Maybe I am mistaken and I would like to buff our vehicles to become thougher, but is the main problem that our vehicles are not durable enough or that high armour values are undercosted? On most expensive though vehicles there seems to be little problem, but expecially the cheapest though vehicles are to cheap considering what they give in board control even if their guns suck.

I think our vehicles are supposed to be paper mache boats and should die to any effort, on the other hand those heavy vehicles are supposed to be though but should not have a board full of them.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Rules preview from Adepticon   

Back to top Go down
 
Rules preview from Adepticon
Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DRUKHARI DISCUSSION

 :: News & Rumours
-
Jump to: