[40k] 4th edition Wish List
_incrdbil_
different than 3rd edition.
With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
system needs?
Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
Model Range?
Remember, it looks like they wan't to do a minor overhaul, not a
system revamp.
Once enough olks responsd, we can tabulate wishes, and pass it along
to the Power that Be. They might ignore us, but it's something to do
anyway.
Have at it.
incrdbil
"Oh Baracus, who was in 'Nam, Mr. T be thy name.
Thy van will come with Face and Hannibal,
on Earth as it is on TV-Land.
Give us this day, our daily milk,
and pity us fools, as we pity the fools
who cross us. Lead us not into airplanes,
and deliver us from Murdock.
For thine is the Mohawk and the Van,
and the Gold Chains, forever,
or at least until the mid-80's
Amen
shamelessly copied from r.g.f.s-h
r0b b3 pO
> Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> different than 3rd edition.
*alledgedly*
> With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> system needs?
>
1. a move from a HtH based system to a total combat based system, I
would hate to think in 38000 years time mankind would always use Hth as
the main way to win comabat.
2. an increased roles for psychers, allowing for the influence of
precognition but not vortex powers
3. A move away from the linear shoot charge system into a more tactical
system
4. SQUATS!!!
5. ZOATS
6. Mercenaries, ie, zoats, jokero etyc, maybe 1 squad per 1500 points
7. less low AP weapons
8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
1. Imperial guard psychers
2. no overcharged engines
3. underpowered starcannons
4. add more cost to rhino accessories
5. add more cost to wraithlords
6. improve CHAOS
> Model Range?
Increased character models, more variation in basic trooper range, not
50p each for a crappy codex shoulder pad.
Tanja
>would hate to think in 38000 years time mankind would always use Hth as
>the main way to win comabat.
That would be nice, but difficult without a major overhaul.
>2. an increased roles for psychers, allowing for the influence of
>precognition but not vortex powers
Nope, I do fine without psykers, thanks.
>3. A move away from the linear shoot charge system into a more tactical
>system
Perhaps, but again difficult without a major overhaul.
>4. SQUATS!!!
Nope. We all do fine without them. Well, most of us do, anyway... (hello
ranter!)
>5. ZOATS
You CAN field them in 3rd edition, with Pete Haines creature rules in WD!
>6. Mercenaries, ie, zoats, jokero etyc, maybe 1 squad per 1500 points
C'mon!
>7. less low AP weapons
Yeah, and better saves?
>8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
>characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
Hmm... but we still pay a lot for them in 3rd ed, don't we?
>9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
>> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>1. Imperial guard psychers
No, skip them, but give the Inquisitors and Astropaths some more nasties.
>2. no overcharged engines
I agree, for once.
>3. underpowered starcannons
Yep. Jolly nice, it'd be.
>4. add more cost to rhino accessories
Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
>5. add more cost to wraithlords
Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did they
change that in the first place?
>6. improve CHAOS
Yeah? Improve <whatever army I use at the moment>!
>> Model Range?
>
>Increased character models, more variation in basic trooper range, not
>50p each for a crappy codex shoulder pad.
Increase BITZ to create characters with, perhaps.
Oh, and release plastic valhallans, of course!
- Jer
Insane Ranter
_incrdbil_ wrote in message <3b475b00...@usenet.flinthills.com>...
>Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
>different than 3rd edition.
>
>With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
>system needs?
1) Squats
2) more Squats
3) myriad of Squats
4) profuse Squats
5) numerous Squats
6) multiudinous Squats
7) Swarms of Squats
8)Even more Squats
9)Throng of Squats
10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>
>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
1) Squats
2) more Squats
3) myriad of Squats
4) profuse Squats
5) numerous Squats
6) multiudinous Squats
7) Swarms of Squats
8)Even more Squats
9)Throng of Squats
10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>Model Range?
1) Squats
2) more Squats
3) myriad of Squats
4) profuse Squats
5) numerous Squats
6) multiudinous Squats
7) Swarms of Squats
8)Even more Squats
9)Throng of Squats
10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
Tanja
>2) more Squats
>3) myriad of Squats
>4) profuse Squats
>5) numerous Squats
>6) multiudinous Squats
>7) Swarms of Squats
>8)Even more Squats
>9)Throng of Squats
>10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
OK, but what's a "Sqaut"? My thoughts wander to the Boy-Scouts so eagerly
discussed elsewhere...
You want those, really, in infinite amounts? :)
- Jer
Jim M
"Insane Ranter" <nos...@me.net> wrote in message
news:dHK17.80606$HJ1.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> _incrdbil_ wrote in message <3b475b00...@usenet.flinthills.com>...
> >Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> >different than 3rd edition.
> >
> >With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> >system needs?
>
>
> 1) Squats
> 2) more Squats
> 3) myriad of Squats
> 4) profuse Squats
> 5) numerous Squats
> 6) multiudinous Squats
> 7) Swarms of Squats
> 8)Even more Squats
> 9)Throng of Squats
> 10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>
>
rules for Squat Berzerkers?
> >
> >Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
>
> 1) Squats
> 2) more Squats
> 3) myriad of Squats
> 4) profuse Squats
> 5) numerous Squats
> 6) multiudinous Squats
> 7) Swarms of Squats
> 8)Even more Squats
> 9)Throng of Squats
> 10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>
>
You left out Codex: Squats, Codex: Squat cultests, and Codex: Chaos Squats
and what about Squaticus Tacticus?
> >Model Range?
>
>
> 1) Squats
> 2) more Squats
> 3) myriad of Squats
> 4) profuse Squats
> 5) numerous Squats
> 6) multiudinous Squats
> 7) Swarms of Squats
> 8)Even more Squats
> 9)Throng of Squats
> 10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>
Um just exactly what are you trying to say here Ranter, stop beating around
the bush and spit it out...
--
Jim
j...@hnjcomics.com
http://www.hnjcomics.com
remove the " hat." if you want to e-mail me
Recently Ordained Regular and Bearer of Green Hat #23.
Spirit of the Game --- To play and have fun, with the least amount of
bickering! Kaos - 11/12/00
The password is warhamster
The eternal catalogue project:
http://members.nbci.com/hnjcomics/cats/1988/index.htm
Be sure to check out the special sales located in the RGMW only section of
my web-site!
r0b b3 pO
Tanja wrote:
>
Hi, where in sweden are you? me and the misses are over about 4 times a
year.
>
> >3. A move away from the linear shoot charge system into a more tactical
> >system
>
> Perhaps, but again difficult without a major overhaul.
I know my group are working on a new system as we speak.
> >5. ZOATS
>
> You CAN field them in 3rd edition, with Pete Haines creature rules in WD!
Never thought about doing it that way, cheers.
> >6. Mercenaries, ie, zoats, jokero etyc, maybe 1 squad per 1500 points
>
> C'mon!
>
> >7. less low AP weapons
>
Nope, just less of them.
> Yeah, and better saves?
kindoff the termie invulnerable one was just a patch.
> >8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
> >characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
>
> Hmm... but we still pay a lot for them in 3rd ed, don't we?
Yup, but if they are one of the best weapons available for Hth I doubt
they would be that common, either that or other races would develop
armour to beat them
> >9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
>
Ie being able to shoot over heads if you are on a hill.
> >> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
> >1. Imperial guard psychers
>
> No, sp them, but give the Inquisitors and Astropaths some more nasties.
better idea.
>
> >4. add more cost to rhino accessories
>
> Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
New model yes, but a lot of the features of the rhino are undercosted
> >5. add more cost to wraithlords
>
> Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did they
> change that in the first place?
jumppacks?
> >6. improve CHAOS
>
> Yeah? Improve <whatever army I use at the moment>!
No I dont play chaos I play SM, necrons and nids, CHAOS are massivel
unbalanced at th min
>
> Increase BITZ to create characters with, perhaps.
thay have done that in the UK, but hopefull the rest of europe will
follow
> Oh, and release plastic valhallans, of course!
>
give it a few months
r0b b3 pO wrote:
Arhes
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but underpowered starcannons? If you asked me
they aren't powerful enough. The starcannon is said to be a more advance
version of the Imperial plasma cannon. If so why does the plasma cannon have
a strength of 7 while the starcannon only 6? Sure the starcannon can fire 3
shots, but it's only useful against infantry and light vehicles. When it
comes right down to it the best anti tank weapon the Eldar have is the
bright lance. Even the falcon tank's pulse laser or the fire prism has a
hard time putting a scratch on something the likes of a land raider.
Arhes
called rattlings at one point.
What sound do Squats make when Eldar Wraithlords step on them?
SQUAT!!!!!
I'm probably going to get flamed for that 1.
"Tanja" <Tanja....@student.uu.se> wrote in message
news:3b47...@newsfeed.uu.se...
DellCry
<r...@b3p0.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> > different than 3rd edition.
>
> *alledgedly*
>
> > With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> > system needs?
> >
>
> 1. a move from a HtH based system to a total combat based system, I
> would hate to think in 38000 years time mankind would always use Hth as
> the main way to win comabat.
Agree 100%. It's a scifi game, most of the action should come from
shooting not melee.
> 4. SQUATS!!!
Maybe as dogs of war, as in your point in #6?
> 5. ZOATS
Yes! I have all four of the originals painted and haven't been able to use
them in ages. Hate having painted figs gathering dust. Plus they were
really nice models.
> 6. Mercenaries, ie, zoats, jokero etyc, maybe 1 squad per 1500 points
Or others, ala fantasy's Dogs of War. Given the fact that 40K races don't
cooperate much, each race should be able to draw from separate groups of
mercs created to fit in with their background.
And an addition of my own, increase the ranges of most weapons. All basic
weapons (not pistols or specials like flamers) should have at least a 24"
range, even when moving.
David Gausebeck
>would hate to think in 38000 years time mankind would always use Hth as
>the main way to win comabat.
>
>
>8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
>characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
>
lemme guess... you play some version of shooty marines? :)
-Dave
_incrdbil_
>> 3. underpowered starcannons
>
>Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but underpowered starcannons? If you asked me
>they aren't powerful enough. The starcannon is said to be a more advance
>version of the Imperial plasma cannon. If so why does the plasma cannon have
>a strength of 7 while the starcannon only 6?
the starcannon doesn't tend to melt down. It's rate of heavy 3 isn't
anything to sneeze at either.
Arhes
"_incrdbil_" <incr...@flinthills.com> wrote in message
news:3b47c7e...@usenet.flinthills.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:29:01 -0400, "Arhes" <ar...@erie.net> wrote:
>
> >> 3. underpowered starcannons
> >
> >Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but underpowered starcannons? If you asked
me
> >they aren't powerful enough. The starcannon is said to be a more advance
> >version of the Imperial plasma cannon. If so why does the plasma cannon
have
> >a strength of 7 while the starcannon only 6?
>
> the starcannon doesn't tend to melt down. It's rate of heavy 3 isn't
> anything to sneeze at either.
>
and heavy 3 but only an AP of 5 at +35 points cheaper compared to the
starcanons same STR 6, heavy 3 with an AP of 2 for +50 points. To take out
light infantry, I'd go with the shuriken cannon every time and for vehicles
I'd use a bright lance every time. So really of what good is the starcannon?
light vehicles and Space Marines and that's about it.
David Gausebeck
>and heavy 3 but only an AP of 5 at +35 points cheaper compared to the
>starcanons same STR 6, heavy 3 with an AP of 2 for +50 points. To take out
>light infantry, I'd go with the shuriken cannon every time and for vehicles
>I'd use a bright lance every time. So really of what good is the starcannon?
>light vehicles and Space Marines and that's about it.
The shuriken cannon is also 24" range instead of 36" for starcannon.
Big difference. The starcannon is at least as good as a brightlance
against any target in the game except for AV12+ vehicles. This
includes any type of infantry or monstrous creature, as well as a lot
of common vehicle targets (rhino, landspeeder, etc.). It's also at
least as good as a shuriken cannon against ANY target, and it doesn't
cost that much more.
The starcannon is only a truly optimal weapon against heavy infanty
such as marines (which are a pretty common target), but it's extremely
flexible. Overall one of the best weapons in the game IMO.
-Dave
DellCry
> Squats were short dwarf like imperial guard troops, I think they used to be
> called rattlings at one point.
>
The ratling snipers were "space halflings", came out for Rogue Trader at
the same time as the original Squats (who were a separate force); they
were allies of the guard.
David Gausebeck
>system needs?
1) Rewording. This probably isn't going to happen ever, much less in
time for 40k4, but GW really needs to start making their rules wording
clear and ironclad. Time spent playing the game should not be time
spent figuring out what the rules were supposed to mean.
They need detailed examples of the ugly, complex situations, and their
playtesters need to stop playing "friendly" games. Once the product
is done, by all means play friendly games, but playtesters really need
to be asshole rules lawyers to make sure everything works.
That's the big one. The other thing I can think of offhand that would
be nice is a redone VDR, that really could be universally accepted. I
think the biggest flaw with the current VDR is that it reached too
far. The same, official system was supposed to cover everything from
a weapon swap on a razorback to designing titans and thunderhawks for
40k.
There should really be a toned-down version of VDR that's official
(something a lot like the design-a-species stuff in the tyranid
codex), and then maybe a permission-only system for all the funky
stuff like void shields, orbital landers, mega-blast-titan-killer
weapons, etc.
>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
I don't feel especially strongly about any of these, but:
1) ordnance vehicles should be more expensive
2) wraithlord should be recosted or re-statted (T7 would fix it I
think)
3) chaos mini-dexes
4) BA shouldn't be able to disembark after >12" movement
5) eldar jetbikes should be cheaper
6) wargear ranged weapons should be cheaper (e.g. combi-weapons)
-Dave
P Bowles
(_incrdbil_) writes:
>Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
>different than 3rd edition.
>
>With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
>system needs?
1. Morale effects which are not simply a side-effect of killing things, such as
the suppressive fire rules I suggested a while ago.
2. More detailed vehicle rules allowing the firing of multiple weapons, basic
armour values which are not vulnerable to basic small arms fire (ie, 11+), and
skimmers which are genuinely superior to ground vehicles as, technologically,
they should be.
3. Reinstating variable movement rates and the ability to run for all troops.
4. Reduction in the number of high-AP weapons; one of the problems with 2nd Ed.
which 3rd has conspicuously failed to adequately address.
5. More variety among close combat weapons, options and unit types; overall,
building on the basic army lists established in v3 rather than simply rewriting
the rules for existing units again.
6+. Nothing really; the core game elements are now sound in most areas. The
above are primarily v2 failures which were never properly addressed in v3
(movement aside). An extensive set of campaign rules might be nice, as might a
few more missions (I'm working on an Establish Beachhead mission designed to
represent Guard amphibious landing actions, for instance).
>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
Codex: Eldar -
1. ADD THE NIGHT SPINNER AND MAKE IT CHEAPER*.
2. Jetbikes - somehow, make them usable.
3. Fire Prism - ditto**.
4. Vibro-Cannon - guess.
5. Reinstate Guardian Leaders.
6. Reinstate Guardian lasgunners of some sort.
7. Reinstate Guardian Battle Squads for variety - Defenders with special rather
than heavy weapon options.
8. Reinstate Eldar Pirates.
9. Reinstate Ranger (Scout) Jetbikes.
10. Create rules for the Reaper Rangefinder.
>Model Range?
1. RELEASE THE WAVE SERPENT!
2. Release Guardian Storms.
3. Release Exarch models with options not presently represented - in
particular, Reaper with ML and Hawk with Web of Skulls.
4. Redo the Striking Scorpions or simply sell the older models.
5. Release specific Wild Rider, Pathfinder and Spiritseer models.
6. Replace the Guardian platform crewmen with a plastic Guardian accessory
sprue containing goggles, sensor probes, powerpacks and the like.
7. Create some stuff for those minor races - Guard, Chaos, Ork Kommandos and
the like. With particular emphasis on plastics and the remaining metals for the
Armageddon Steel Legion, which also needs a proper Codex. Oh, and replace the
Grotesque, Mandrake and Warp Beast models.
8. Scrap the Tau.
9. Create plastic multipose Slann.
10. Create metal Slann to accompany them...
Not that I am in any way biased towards the Eldar or Slann of course...
Philip Bowles
* Four reasons:
1. Thematic - comparing the standard Epic Warhost detachment with Codex: Eldar,
the Night Spinner is the only thing missing in the latter.
2. Versatility - The Night Spinner is capable of launching a barrage, and is
the only Eldar vehicle capable of firing indirectly. These abilities make it
tactically useful in some circumstances despite a comparatively weak weapon
system.
3. Variety - adds another specialised tank to the Eldar arsenal.
4. It's a great model.
** How about this to make it more in line with its Epic equivalent:
Prism cannon: The prism cannon uses the ordnance damage table when it scores a
penetrating hit.
Sensor array: Most of the space in the Fire Prism which is not taken up with
the power generator houses a complex array of sensors which rely on the
crystalline nature of the weapon to function. The crystal prism itself is
capable of focusing and directing its energy far more efficiently than
conventional weapons. Many of the sensors take time to lock on to a target,
however. The Prism's sensors have the following effect:
Targeting: If the Fire Prism does not move and fires no other weapons (turning
counts as movement for these purposes), place the small blast template anywhere
within its line of sight. If it is out of range, it automatically misses. Roll
for scatter as you would for an ordnance weapon - the prism has had time to
build up a massive charge, and the energy must go somewhere, so the template is
not removed if the cannon misses as normal. If a vehicle is hit, roll 2D6 and
add the highest result to the prism cannon's strength to determine armour
penetration.
Flak: The Fire Prism is less efficient at destroying flying vehicles than the
more specialised Firestorm, but is valued for its versatility. If using the
rules for flyers, the prism cannon is treated as being in an anti-aircraft
mount. This has no effect on its ability to choose ground targets.
Tanja
>year.
In Uppsala, about 100 km (40 minutes) north of Stockholm.
>> >8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
>> >characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
>>
>> Hmm... but we still pay a lot for them in 3rd ed, don't we?
>
>Yup, but if they are one of the best weapons available for Hth I doubt
>they would be that common, either that or other races would develop
>armour to beat them
Yeah, perhaps.
>> >9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
>>
>
>Ie being able to shoot over heads if you are on a hill.
I thought we had that in 40k... except for tanks and some other stuff.
That's the way we play it, anyway.
>> >4. add more cost to rhino accessories
>>
>> Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
>
>New model yes, but a lot of the features of the rhino are undercosted
What upgrades are we talking about?
>> >5. add more cost to wraithlords
>>
>> Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did they
>> change that in the first place?
>
>jumppacks?
What...? In order to ... jumppacks? Please explain!
>> >6. improve CHAOS
>>
>> Yeah? Improve <whatever army I use at the moment>!
>
>No I dont play chaos I play SM, necrons and nids, CHAOS are massivel
>unbalanced at th min
I take your word for it, because almost no one around here plays chaos
anymore. Which might be considered proof in itself, of course.
>> Oh, and release plastic valhallans, of course!
>>
>
>give it a few months
You mean, you've actually heard something?!
- Jer
Tanja
>Squats were short dwarf like imperial guard troops, I think they used to be
>called rattlings at one point.
Yeah, yeah, I know, i know, I was around in those days too. And I actually
have some Squats lying around.
The thing was Ranter spellt Squat "Sqaut" more than four times, and i rather
thought it was funny.
- Jer
comstar
r0b b3 pO wrote:
> > Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> > different than 3rd edition.
>
> *alledgedly*
>
> > With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> > system needs?
> >
An end to 1 Turn Charge Armies. A game that is dictated on turn 1, where
I have done no movement is not a game lasting 4 or more turns. (Gee, who
played aginast the Blood Angels this weekend in a defend the objective
misson? We came to the conclusion I would have better if my army had NOT
been on the table at all!).
Squats.
An Armorned Company list that works (ha ha ha you say).
P Bowles
>
>Prism cannon: The prism cannon uses the ordnance damage table when it scores
>a
>penetrating hit.
>
>Sensor array: Most of the space in the Fire Prism which is not taken up with
>the power generator houses a complex array of sensors which rely on the
>crystalline nature of the weapon to function. The crystal prism itself is
>capable of focusing and directing its energy far more efficiently than
>conventional weapons. Many of the sensors take time to lock on to a target,
>however. The Prism's sensors have the following effect:
>
>Targeting: If the Fire Prism does not move and fires no other weapons
>(turning
>counts as movement for these purposes), place the small blast template
>anywhere
>within its line of sight. If it is out of range, it automatically misses.
>Roll
>for scatter as you would for an ordnance weapon - the prism has had time to
>build up a massive charge, and the energy must go somewhere, so the template
>is
>not removed if the cannon misses as normal.
However, because the beam is tightly focused, if the shot misses it will only
scatter a distance in inches equal to half the roll on the D6, rounding up.
If a vehicle is hit, roll 2D6 and
>add the highest result to the prism cannon's strength to determine armour
>penetration.
When fired this way, the prism cannon ignores the effects of firing at moving
targets (for instance, skimmers moving over 6" do not gain the benefit of their
usual rule when hit by a prism cannon).
>Flak: The Fire Prism is less efficient at destroying flying vehicles than the
>more specialised Firestorm, but is valued for its versatility. If using the
>rules for flyers, the prism cannon is treated as being in an anti-aircraft
>mount. This has no effect on its ability to choose ground targets.
Philip Bowles
r0b b3 pO
> >> >9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
> >>
> >
> >Ie being able to shoot over heads if you are on a hill.
> I thought we had that in 40k... except for tanks and some other stuff.
> That's the way we play it, anyway.
Nope LOS is only measured horizontaly in 40K.
> >> >4. add more cost to rhino accessories
> >>
> >> Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
> >
> >New model yes, but a lot of the features of the rhino are undercosted
>
> What upgrades are we talking about?
Extra armour and smoke, that transport is just 2 damn effective
> >> >5. add more cost to wraithlords
> >>
> >> Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did they
> >> change that in the first place?
> >
> >jumppacks?
>
> What...? In order to ... jumppacks? Please explain!
In rogue trader, dreadnoughts could be equipped with jumppacks.
>
> >> Oh, and release plastic valhallans, of course!
> >>
> >
> >give it a few months
>
> You mean, you've actually heard something?!
>
Well the plastic guars (3 interchangable heads) were due to be released
with codex:cityfight in august
r0b b3 pO
Arhes wrote:
>
> > 3. underpowered starcannons
>
> Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but underpowered starcannons?
Sorry, I would like starcannons to be reduced for nex edition
r0b b3 pO
was it that easy?
James Harrison
>
> 2. More detailed vehicle rules allowing the firing of multiple weapons, basic
> armour values which are not vulnerable to basic small arms fire (ie, 11+), and
> skimmers which are genuinely superior to ground vehicles as, technologically,
> they should be.
Skimmer which NEVER take a difficult terrain test...as the steps between turns are
not beginnings and ends of movements..but rather a temporary freezing in time so
the other army can catch up...if a skimmer can safely cross difficult terrain on
it's own turn, it should be able to safely cross difficult terrain between turns as
well.
Question to boot: Can skimmers cross impassible terrain if logic dictates? ie:
deep lakes, fast moving rivers, minefields, razorwire barriers, tank traps etc?
If skimmers are meters above the ground on anti-G engines, they should be able to
cross these minor difficulties. Things like dense jungle, tall buildings etc would
still be expected to trap them normally.
Kain.
>
Myrmidon
incr...@flinthills.com spouted the following words of wit...
> Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> different than 3rd edition.
>
> With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> system needs?
>
> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
> Model Range?
>
> Remember, it looks like they wan't to do a minor overhaul, not a
> system revamp.
>
> Once enough olks responsd, we can tabulate wishes, and pass it along
> to the Power that Be. They might ignore us, but it's something to do
> anyway.
>
> Have at it.
>
>
> incrdbil
>
1. GW to get some good writers (preferably from outside the current
stable of writers {ie. break Gav's fingers if he goes near a keyboard}
with some experience publishing well liked sci-fi stuff) together and
create a coherent background from the good 1st and 2nd Edition fluff -
3rd edition is so light on fluff it's practically anorexic. One of the
most appealing aspects of the older stuff was the "Dark and Depressing
Backstory" with the players acting as "Shining Heros" or "Maniacal
Villains" (depending on their armies and their perspectives - "For Hours
& Humanity!") The current "It's all grim - and everyone's gonna die."
sort of backstory now is seriously lacking. It's sort of like watching a
TV show where the plot of every episode is exactly the same "It all ends
badly and everyone dies..." By reducing the contrast between heros and
villains, nothing stands out. There are no great victories or terrible
defeats - just the usual darkness. Boring! It's sort of like - I take a
yellow highlight marker and mark one word - it stands out. If I take the
marker and highlight the whole page - nothing stands out.
2. That when GW gets the writers together they create a solid
coherent background with character and a sprinkle of mystery so that we
(the players) can come up with our own fluff for chapters, craft worlds,
etc, and still fit in with the established background.
(As an example the not to long ago thread/conversation about the
gentleman wanting to create an all female marine chapter - and the
ensuing discussion about there being 2 Soritas chapters originally, and 2
missing first founding Marine chapters in old Rogue Trader fluff was
interesting even if it wasn't conclusive.)
This sort of thing allows for the creation of distinct armies without
them automatically being candidates for inclusion in "Codex Formage" -
and individualized alternate story lines that still allow players to game
together in a common (if slightly varied) framework.
3. That GW thinks about using the 3rd Edition rules and game mechanics,
but considers seriously creating a good campaign system to go with
them that is as much story driven as points driven in contrast to the "My
block of tooled up Cheddar beat your block of tooled up Cheddar" current
point system tends to be.
The Rogue Trader 'random events table' that was part of their mission
generation system didn't make things fair and equal in every battle, but
often in the real world military commanders are force to try and overcome
a variety of unexpected problems. If the games were story driven, then
these wouldn't seem like "unfair" advantages to the opponent but rather
part of a good story or tragedy depending on how events unfolded.
The addition of a good system (or even the skeleton of one) would be a
great improvement over the current - role random mission type system
currently in place. I would have been happy had they simply tried and
included a few 'sample campaigns' in the current addition. I'm sure that
there's plenty of historical material available to use as an example of
what sort of order a series of missions might or is likely to occur in,
it would have been highly helpful for a beginning player to have some
examples. I know GW included the 'unit awards' for experienced units,
but with the lack of a good campaign system, the point is pretty much
rendered moot.
For some examples of cool alternate senarios - look at
http:\\www.batreps.com
4. With all the talk of a story driven campaign system for a miniatures
game a point system for creating characters and 'unique' critters such as
'Ole One Eye' is an absolute must. With the introduction of the VDR
rules (even if they aren't flawless) at least allows for a common basis
to begin creating your own vehicles and not just assigning them arbitrary
stats and points costs. You would have thought that GW would have
strived to create or include something similar long ago - considering the
way they encourage the creation of altered and unique minis. While I do
NOT want to see a return to the 2nd Edition "UBER Characters" I would
like to see a means presented to create your own heros with some
character and personality of their own. This would allow new craft
worlds, new chapters, new ork waaagghs, etc that weren't just "this is a
codex ultra marines chapter with a new paint scheme" sort of thing
without totally unbalancing the game.
I can't remember whether it was the "Gurps - Super Heros" or the
"Champions" game - but one of those systems had a deal where you could by
advantages for X number of points BUT you could also by disadvantages for
-X number of points. So if you wanted a character with some UBER ability
and no disadvantages, you better have a boat load of points to shell out
for it (which should equate to not having enough for a good army left
over in GW force requirement terms to prevent abuse) or you had to buy
one (or more) disadvantages to offset the cost of the advantage and keep
the points cost manageable. This would add yet another element in the
story driven system without making over the top Uber characters dominate
the scene.
5. The VDR is a step in the right direction - I just agree with the
other poster who said there ought to be a system to modifiy current stock
vehicles and a 2nd optional system to create all new vehicles, war
machines etc. so that players could control the scope and scale of games
to their liking.
6. A set of scrimish type rules would be handy for small pickup games
and for city fighting too - the new city fight codex doesn't sound that
promising from the reviews... sigh.
Well - just my feeble attempts at game design.
Later,
Myrmidon
--
Myrmidon - [Use tags or DIE!] RGMW Tag Nazi Extraordinaire
(Flamer of most things untagged - Grrr!!!)
Wearer of Green Hat #9. Coj - official keeper of the shrunken
troll heads collection.
What exactly are you trying to create here - Codex: Fromage??
- Jimi
"Conan, what is best in life?"
"To paint your miniatures, to see them driven before you on the table,
and to hear the lamentation of the cheese-mongers!"
- Del Webb
Touter of the RGMW FAQ - Learn to read or prepare to bleed!
RGMW FAQ: http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
_incrdbil_
Gausebeck) wrote:
>>With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
>>system needs?
>
>1) Rewording. This probably isn't going to happen ever, much less in
>time for 40k4, but GW really needs to start making their rules wording
>clear and ironclad. Time spent playing the game should not be time
>spent figuring out what the rules were supposed to mean.
by gosh, you nailed the first item on my list but good :)
>
>They need detailed examples of the ugly, complex situations, and their
>playtesters need to stop playing "friendly" games.
They need to pay attention to their playtesters evn when they report
things that the designers don't want to hear.
Once the product
>is done, by all means play friendly games, but playtesters really need
>to be asshole rules lawyers to make sure everything works.
Absolutely.
>
>That's the big one. The other thing I can think of offhand that would
>be nice is a redone VDR, that really could be universally accepted. I
>think the biggest flaw with the current VDR is that it reached too
>far. The same, official system was supposed to cover everything from
>a weapon swap on a razorback to designing titans and thunderhawks for
>40k.
Well, for the VD to work, they would have to make up a real points
system--you know, where points values can be compared unit by unit
across armies--somethign they don't do now. Adding elements such as a
battlecanon to a SW army they pointed up as not having access to
anythign that powerful simply does not work.
>
>1) ordnance vehicles should be more expensive
eh, we can quibble about that. they've made tanks weak enough as it is
this edition.
>2) wraithlord should be recosted or re-statted (T7 would fix it I
> think)
I think bumping it's cost up to reflect it's defensive strength would
be appropriate.
>3) chaos mini-dexes
>4) BA shouldn't be able to disembark after >12" movement
or have supercharged engines exclusively.
>6) wargear ranged weapons should be cheaper (e.g. combi-weapons)
or more than one use at their current cost.
Myrmidon
wave.com spouted the following words of wit...
Well, my take on the whole skimmer thing is as follows - they
should be allowed to basically ignore difficult terrain - they are
assumed to be skimming over it, however they also receive no cover from
it, and it does NOT block line of sight to and from the skimmer. It would
automatically be assumed that they are flying "nape of the earth". So
for example - if a skimmer model is placed IN a wooded area on the map -
it is considered to be ABOVE the wooded area. This would mean it makes
no difficult terrain roles, it's movement is NOT slowed, etc, but also
that it has NO cover due to the wooded area and anything with LOS not
blocked by some other feature besides the woods and range to the
skimmer can take a shot at it and vice versa. If, on the other hand, a
skimmer is BEHIND a wooded area of the map then it is automatically
assumed that it is skimming along below tree top level and the woods
blocks LOS to the skimmer as normal. As for tank traps and razor wire -
skimmers should pretty much ignore those - but minefields still affect
them as normal (see the rules in the main rule book for explaination of
why skimmers are affected - pop-up ariel mines.) And as you point out -
tall vertical or very large raised areas should act as a barrier to
skimmers - Tall dense forest/jungle, tall buildings, and tall steep cliff
faces should all block skimmers completely. I have to agree completely
that the idea of skimmers covering difficult terrain in a single move
without problems, but possibly crashing if they are forced to do it in 2
or more moves is just silly.
Tanja
>> I thought we had that in 40k... except for tanks and some other stuff.
>> That's the way we play it, anyway.
>
>
>Nope LOS is only measured horizontaly in 40K.
You sure? What about the stuff that models block LODS twice their height (in
the rulebook)? Isn't that vertical?
>> >> >4. add more cost to rhino accessories
>> >>
>> >> Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
>> >
>> >New model yes, but a lot of the features of the rhino are undercosted
>>
>> What upgrades are we talking about?
>
>Extra armour and smoke, that transport is just 2 damn effective
Smoke is cheap, but extra armot isn't that good, really.
>> >> >5. add more cost to wraithlords
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did
they
>> >> change that in the first place?
>> >
>> >jumppacks?
>>
>> What...? In order to ... jumppacks? Please explain!
>
>In rogue trader, dreadnoughts could be equipped with jumppacks.
Yes, but not in 2nd edition, IIRC.
>Well the plastic guars (3 interchangable heads) were due to be released
>with codex:cityfight in august
Hasn't that been corrected on GW:S official roumors page?
- Jer
Qrab
<r...@b3p0.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
> > >>
> > >
> > >Ie being able to shoot over heads if you are on a hill.
> > I thought we had that in 40k... except for tanks and some other stuff.
> > That's the way we play it, anyway.
>
>
> Nope LOS is only measured horizontaly in 40K.
??? I don't recall ever seeing this rule. With the exception of troops blocking
double their hight, I was under the impression that LOS is "what you see is
what you can shoot."
On a related note: I'm unhappy with the current guidelines for cover and
intervening terrain as described in the back of the rulebook (ultimate secrets
section). Intervening terrain that can be seen through (tank traps, detritus,
etc) should afford some kind of cover save. It makes no sense to me that models
only gain cover saves when they are actually in the terrain, yet if you can
draw partial LOS to a squad that is not in the terrain piece, you can fire to
full effect.
Be seeing you-
Qrab
John Hwang
>that the system needs?
1. Clarity by removing assumptions and providing examples. Players should be
able to play a "Tournament" game directly from the Rulebook, without the host
of questions about what "counts" for targeting an enemy model, what "counts"
for cover, what "counts" for screenting, etc. This removes player discretion,
and is generally a good thing. Let the players vary on purpose, and
deliberately, rather than having vagueness and confusion be the start.
1a. Removal of "implied" rules restrictions or extensions. Perfect example is
HtH combat and its multiple revisions and clarificaitons required. If GW has a
particular way of doing something (e.g. measuring distances), and they it's how
they do it consistently and by convention, they should make it explicit in the
rulebook.
1b. (And this is rampant thru GW's entire line) Complex examples in addition
to simple examples. GW often clarifies the "easy" case, but gives no guidance
on what to do when things get complicated. Again, 40k3 HtH is a perfect
example.
2. Proofreading and testing of all options. Codex: Chaos and Inquisitor are
prime examples of things which were clearly rushed. For the money which they
charge for these things, you'd think they could at least bother to proofread
and check for obvious problems.
3. Finishing basic rulebooks for *all* armies before starting in on the
sub-codices, not leaving armies stranded without a Codex.
4. Separating Army Lists from the Fluff and Rules. The Army lists quickly
become obsolete, while the Rules should not become obsolete. In a sense,
Ravening Hordes is the correct approach.
5. Quality bindings with value for the money. For a $45 standalone rulebook,
I expect, no *demand* a hardcover. Similarly, I expect the cover to stay on
the book. Another problem which GW is too cheap to solve. And selling the
paperback for the same $45 is practically criminal.
6. Clear distinction between "Official" Tournament rules and optional, by
permission rules. And then consistent application thereof. None of this
stupid non-permission Special Character nonsense. And none of the "friendly"
BS which GW likes to spout.
7. Published and bound "official" errata, released annually so that the rules
evolve with some level of standardization.
8. Rebalancing so that the units have neutral values. So that Eldar Jetbikes
don't totally suck, etc. Let all units be roughly equally viable.
9. Removal of "fiddly" special rules which only serve to increase dice-rolling
or create stupid non-Fluffy exceptions. Examples: Eldar FoF, BA Black Rage,
DA Stubborn, BA disembark regardless of distance, SW Scouts in enemy DZ, etc.
This means returning to having a Movement stat.
10. Having all Minis in a line being done by a single scupltor, rather than
multiple sculptors. Let's not see the V3 Eldar mini's line travesty repeated.
I'd grant exceptions for Special Characters, but that's it. Uniformity of
style is worth far more than variety for variety's sake.
Wow, reaching 10 was trivially easy. But I guess I'll stop here.
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
Ned Leavitt
Good god, really? that's the most idiotic thing i have ever heard. I mean,
aside from vehicle screening and such, i always just worked out line of
sight by whether ther was a line of sight, a mental lazer from the shooter
to the shootee! So, if a squad is on top of a building, a squad at it's base
can shoot them?
Ned Leavitt
>hard time putting a scratch on something the likes of a land raider
uh, yeah? Land raiders have the best armour in the game! They are supposed
to be hard to kill.
Qrab
(David Gausebeck) wrote:
> >With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
> >system needs?
>
> 1) Rewording. This probably isn't going to happen ever, much less in
> time for 40k4, but GW really needs to start making their rules wording
> clear and ironclad. Time spent playing the game should not be time
> spent figuring out what the rules were supposed to mean.
>
> They need detailed examples of the ugly, complex situations, and their
> playtesters need to stop playing "friendly" games. Once the product
> is done, by all means play friendly games, but playtesters really need
> to be asshole rules lawyers to make sure everything works.
This is also my top desire for 40K 4th edition (and any future editions
of WHFB). Playtesting has two primary goals: 1) to determine if the game
is fun, and 2) to stress the rules to the point of breaking in order to
ensure that the game is balanced, thereby keeping it fun. From what I
can tell, GW spends way to much time on 1 and not nearly enough on 2.
Clear, consice rules with plenty of examples of the tricky bits
are necessary for a good miniatures game. I'm tired of GW putting the
burden of playtesting on the people who play their game and then
charging them for the privilege when it's time to release the next
edition (and often enough, not making the needed changes).
Say what you want about WoTC/Hasbro, but they take their playtesting
seriously. The miniatures R&D is the same department as the card game
R&D and the playtesting is about finding what breaks the game and then
fixing it. The RPG R&D has a somewhat less agressive attitude towards
playtesting.
> That's the big one. The other thing I can think of offhand that would
> be nice is a redone VDR, that really could be universally accepted. I
> think the biggest flaw with the current VDR is that it reached too
> far. The same, official system was supposed to cover everything from
> a weapon swap on a razorback to designing titans and thunderhawks for
> 40k.
>
> There should really be a toned-down version of VDR that's official
> (something a lot like the design-a-species stuff in the tyranid
> codex), and then maybe a permission-only system for all the funky
> stuff like void shields, orbital landers, mega-blast-titan-killer
> weapons, etc.
I like these ideas. It'd be nice if they'd bring back a little more of
the RT flavor (customized vehicles) without all the craziness.
Be seeing you-
Qrab
Ned Leavitt
they are quite effective. My oponent seems to like them just fine.
Insane Ranter
Arhes wrote in message ...
>Squats were short dwarf like imperial guard troops, I think they used to be
>called rattlings at one point.
>
>
>
>SQUAT!!!!!
Sorry that's the answer to what does a craft-world sound like when a land
train runs over it.
John Hwang
>>With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes that the
>>system needs?
>
>1) Rewording. This probably isn't going to happen ever, much less in
>time for 40k4, but GW really needs to start making their rules wording
>clear and ironclad. Time spent playing the game should not be time
>spent figuring out what the rules were supposed to mean.
Amen.
>They need detailed examples of the ugly, complex situations, and their
>playtesters need to stop playing "friendly" games. Once the product
>is done, by all means play friendly games, but playtesters really need
>to be asshole rules lawyers to make sure everything works.
Amen, again. Especially re: examples.
>That's the big one. The other thing I can think of offhand that would
>be nice is a redone VDR, that really could be universally accepted. I
>think the biggest flaw with the current VDR is that it reached too
>far. The same, official system was supposed to cover everything from
>a weapon swap on a razorback to designing titans and thunderhawks for
>40k.
>
>There should really be a toned-down version of VDR that's official
>(something a lot like the design-a-species stuff in the tyranid
>codex), and then maybe a permission-only system for all the funky
>stuff like void shields, orbital landers, mega-blast-titan-killer
>weapons, etc.
I'd be just as happy to give up on VDR entirely, but a mini-VDR isn't a bad
idea.
>>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
>I don't feel especially strongly about any of these, but:
>
>1) ordnance vehicles should be more expensive
>2) wraithlord should be recosted or re-statted (T7 would fix it I
> think)
I'd recost to 90, maybe 100, pts base. Without a shooting advantage, WL
doesn't work with a T disadvantage. T7 and "free" re-roll of shooting would
be OK at 75 pts.
>3) chaos mini-dexes
Specifically Daemon Armies and fixing the kSons.
>4) BA shouldn't be able to disembark after >12" movement
Agree.
>5) eldar jetbikes should be cheaper
Agree, since it isn't obvious how to make them "better". Making Eldar jetbikes
and jump packs hyper-mobile might be OK, but is likely to still cause problems.
>6) wargear ranged weapons should be cheaper (e.g. combi-weapons)
It'd be OK to make them multi-shot and add even more to the cost. Simpler too,
as one doesn't have to remember whether the combi-weapon has shot.
EVIL_ROB
Tanja wrote:
>
> >> >Ie being able to shoot over heads if you are on a hill.
>
> >> I thought we had that in 40k... except for tanks and some other stuff.
> >> That's the way we play it, anyway.
> >
> >
> >Nope LOS is only measured horizontaly in 40K.
>
> You sure? What about the stuff that models block LODS twice their height (in
> the rulebook)? Isn't that vertical?
yup, I believe you are right just had a quick flick through the rule
book, I could have sworn there was something there about that, I just
checked with a friend and he said we just do that to avoid arguments on
range. me bad.
> >Extra armour and smoke, that transport is just 2 damn effective
>
> Smoke is cheap, but extra armot isn't that good, really.
>
Just about every SM army I have seen in tournies has had EA, most vets
consider it invaluable. I always forget about mine however.
> >Well the plastic guars (3 interchangable heads) were due to be released
> >with codex:cityfight in august
>
> Hasn't that been corrected on GW:S official roumors page?
http://www.games-workshop.com/news/rumours/uk/rumours_archive-uk/rumours_archive-uk.htm
IMPERIAL GUARD PLASTICS: Is GW making any more plastics for the
Imperial Guard? We have (provisional) plans for three more IG regiments,
with the favourite being Cadians. The plastic Space Marine Dreadnought
is scheduled for release arly next year.
rob.
EVIL_ROB
Qrab wrote:
> > Nope LOS is only measured horizontaly in 40K.
>
> ??? I don't recall ever seeing this rule. With the exception of troops blocking
> double their hight, I was under the impression that LOS is "what you see is
> what you can shoot."
Yeah, that is just how our group plays it.
> On a related note: I'm unhappy with the current guidelines for cover and
> intervening terrain as described in the back of the rulebook (ultimate secrets
> section). Intervening terrain that can be seen through (tank traps, detritus,
> etc) should afford some kind of cover save. It makes no sense to me that models
> only gain cover saves when they are actually in the terrain, yet if you can
> draw partial LOS to a squad that is not in the terrain piece, you can fire to
> full effect.
Yeah that happened to me, parked my whirlwind facing back in some
imperial ruins, you could just get LOS to one of the launchers, a dark
reaper exarch promptly rolled all sixes and destroyed it.
EVIL_ROB
yeah I got it wrongm we play it that way to avoid range arguments
apparently, it was always just a rule that i took for granted that there
was something in the rulebook.
rob.
Evil Jim M
news:3B489DC1...@b3p0.fsnet.co.uk...
It's RANGE that is always measured in the horizontal...
--
Jim
j...@hnjcomics.com
http://www.hnjcomics.com
remove the " hat." if you want to e-mail me
Recently Ordained Regular and Bearer of Green Hat #23.
Spirit of the Game --- To play and have fun, with the least amount of
bickering! Kaos - 11/12/00
The password is warhamster
The eternal catalogue project:
http://members.nbci.com/hnjcomics/cats/1988/index.htm
Be sure to check out the special sales located in the RGMW only section of
my web-site!
EVIL_ROB
Evil Jim M wrote:
>
> "EVIL_ROB" <r...@b3p0.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3B489DC1...@b3p0.fsnet.co.uk...
> > yeah I got it wrongm we play it that way to avoid range arguments
> > apparently, it was always just a rule that i took for granted that there
> > was something in the rulebook.
> >
> > rob.
>
> It's RANGE that is always measured in the horizontal...
>
Ahh that is it, I got well confused there.
cheers jim
must stop sunday pub lunches, beer bad for brain.
rob.
Evil Jim M
>
>
> Qrab wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Yeah that happened to me, parked my whirlwind facing back in some
> imperial ruins, you could just get LOS to one of the launchers, a dark
> reaper exarch promptly rolled all sixes and destroyed it.
We have a house rule that says you must be able to see at least one half of
the model or at least 1 square inch if it's a vehicle, it also says that you
MAY NOT target a model if only the weapon shows.
In the case of a vehicle perhaps it would be good to say that if only the
weapon shows then any result greater then Weapon destroyed would equal
weapon destroyed. I can see however a Vehicle such as a whirlwind having
all the missiles destroyed, being subject to a hit on the top armor
equivalent to the weapons strength +1d6 (since it doesn't have the velocity
I don't think it should receive an ordnance hit).
EVIL_ROB
Evil Jim M wrote:
> We have a house rule that says you must be able to see at least one half of
> the model or at least 1 square inch if it's a vehicle, it also says that you
> MAY NOT target a model if only the weapon shows.
Sounds good, we just checked a D6 for it, he rolled a six, so first
turn, one whirlwind gone, starcannons take out around 10 marines, some
psycher disembarks and throws a singing spear straight through the
landraider transporting some veterans who were promptly mowed down by
banshees the next turn, not my best game.
rob.
===
Officially resigned tag nazi, newly reformed <SNIP> nazi.
Evil regular, and member of the elite setzer kill file.
Portia_EH is *my* defeated *HO*
the FAQ, please read it.
http://www.sheppard.demon.co.uk/rgmw_faq/rgmw_faq.htm
/"\
\ /
X
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML in Usenet / \
==
Any spam directed to this account is immediately replied to with a mail
to the abuse account of your ISP, I suggest not spamming me.
P Bowles
<junk...@spamblows.woh.rr.com> writes:
>It's sort of like watching a
>TV show where the plot of every episode is exactly the same "It all ends
>badly and everyone dies..."
Lots of people like The Outer Limits...
Philip Bowles
Keith Hann
news:3b475b00...@usenet.flinthills.com...
> Ok--4th ediitonisn't that far off. We know it won't be that much
> different than 3rd edition.
>
> system needs?
Variable movement rate. A simple little change requiring no extra rules
that would add a good deal of flavour. I'm tired of dreadnoughts sprinting
about as fast as my DE warriors or my buddies' Hormaguants.
Less high AP weapons. Plasma guns at AP 3 would be nice, as just a start.
In reality, I'd like to see the save modifier system come back, but that has
a snowball's chance in hell, so...
Rules lawyer writing. I want each special term only used once, to mean one
thing, and never seen elsewhere. I want one definition for Fearless. I
want not a mention of the word 'guidelines' to appear anywhere. I want
black and white rulings. When the inevitable errors occur anyways, I want
prompt White Dwarf errata issued.
More fluff. 'nuff said.
Slightly increased psyker ability. The new psyker rules were a
disappointment: in the end psykers are still largely useless. I don't want
uber-abilities, just psykers I would want to use.
Morale effects that matter. I'm tired of everything being Fearless, or They
Shall Know No Fear, or re-rolls, or Mob tests, ignore pinning etc. It seems
only Eldar and Dark Eldar have anything to worry about on average.
Vehicles that can fire at multiple targets. Reducing the cost of bikes for
every army (except perhaps Ork bikes, which are great).
A thorough look at the existing codices. If I'm spending as much as I am on
minis, I'm not going to balk at buying a 20 or 25$ codex (Canadian) once
every 3 or 4 years. It's worth the money for more logical point costs,
proper abilities, and useable units that once were garbage. I don't know
why everyone bitches about having to buy a new codex with a new ruleset:
this is a standard, usually welcome practice in RPG's, which many 40K'ers
also play.
> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
I can only comment on the Dark Eldar:
I'm tired of my super-duper DE raiders, those dreaded speedy guys that hit
and run at will, being outpaced by bloody Space Marines in power armour, or
red-painted Ork buggies. Not every army should be able to assault on the
second turn.
Who's brainwave was it to have as two seperate Troop options: 1) guys on
vehicle, 2) same guys off vehicle? In general, the entire codex lacks unit
options throughout the list, except for Heavy Support.
There a couple of useless pieces of wargear, and a number of significant
pieces of errata (although I haven't yet seen the CA codex to see of these
have been addressed). Some things, like the "how many combat drug options
can you take?" have never been addressed.
If you gave Mandrakes a weapon upgrade and perhaps a character option, and
the possiblity of Infiltration, I might pay 12 or 13 points for them.
There's no way
I'd pay 15 for them now.
Grotesques are neat on paper, but largely useless.
Incubi Masters are overpriced.
There needs to be a non-special character that allows one to take a legal
Wych army.
The so-called fast army needs a fast attack choice that doesn't suck. Would
it have really broken the game to have made the Reaver Jetbike splinter
rifle twni-linked? And one word: Hellions. An new FA unit based on the
Scourge model and profile, but with blasters and shredders, would be nice.
Vehicle wargear I might actually use (beside the Screaming Jets and Scaling
Nets).
> Model Range?
Wych plastics. If I have to field 30, with 18 of those as special models,
I'm going to want plastics. And if I want to do a Wych army... This is the
sole reason I don't use them.
Grotesques and Mandrakes. Blechh.
------
God *was* my co-pilot, but our plane crashed in the mountains and I had to
eat him.
Keith Hann
Arhes
job of it compaired to the bright lance.
prism cannon Rng:60' S:9 to damage a land raider you must roll a 5 or
better doesn't sound like a very good anti-tank weapon to me.
bright lance downside Rng:36" S:8 but it treats any armor higher than 12 as
12. it only needs to roll a 4+ now that's an anti-tank weapon.
Arhes
Thinking about it I liked it better when cover modified the to hit roll
rather than giveing a cover save. after all what good is a bunker if it only
gives you a 4+ save true it's unmodifiable but it's only like a 50%
protection. I think a bunker should protect a little more than that like 3+
maybe.
Ned Leavitt
popping up 40 meters, shooting, and popping down. there should be a distinct
level.
Ned Leavitt
You mean ST: Voyager, don't you.
Ned Leavitt
>that would add a good deal of flavour. I'm tired of dreadnoughts sprinting
>about as fast as my DE warriors or my buddies' Hormaguants
What about a system of dice for movement? Squad gets 3 on road/flat grass,
less for terrain? Pinning penalties?
Myrmidon
pbo...@aol.com spouted the following words of wit...
comment. I'm glad it isn't just me that thinks that. And I must admit
to watching that show more than once or twice... Though I still think the
plot description is pretty damn accurate. The only reason I didn't
include the show by name was that I wasn't sure of how much of a
national/international audience it has - it's on at like 2 in the morning
here, and I simply catch it when I wander into the breakroom at work some
times.
:)
P Bowles
<junk...@spamblows.woh.rr.com> writes:
>In article <20010708144037...@nso-mo.aol.com>, P Bowles,
>pbo...@aol.com spouted the following words of wit...
>> In article <MPG.15b23f37a...@news-server.woh.rr.com>, Myrmidon
>> <junk...@spamblows.woh.rr.com> writes:
>>
>> >It's sort of like watching a
>> >TV show where the plot of every episode is exactly the same "It all ends
>> >badly and everyone dies..."
>>
>> Lots of people like The Outer Limits...
>>
>> Philip Bowles
>>
>LOL Philip - that is EXACTLY the show I was thinking of when I wrote that
>comment. I'm glad it isn't just me that thinks that. And I must admit
>to watching that show more than once or twice...
I've seen it occasionally but I'm not a great fan of the type of series which
has an all-new cast every week - I like those which give the characters time to
develop and respond to a variety of situations.
Though I still think the
>plot description is pretty damn accurate. The only reason I didn't
>include the show by name was that I wasn't sure of how much of a
>national/international audience it has - it's on at like 2 in the morning
>here, and I simply catch it when I wander into the breakroom at work some
>times.
*shrug* It's up to at least season 6 of the new series, so its audience
probably rivals, say, Voyager...
Philip Bowles
RT Maitreya
> >Extra armour and smoke, that transport is just 2 damn effective
>
> Smoke is cheap, but extra armot isn't that good, really.
What? It is on every transport vehicle, without question.
What good is a transport that can't move.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> On a related note: I'm unhappy with the current guidelines for cover and
> intervening terrain as described in the back of the rulebook (ultimate secrets
> section). Intervening terrain that can be seen through (tank traps, detritus,
We play the common sense way.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> Sounds good, we just checked a D6 for it, he rolled a six, so first
> turn, one whirlwind gone, starcannons take out around 10 marines, some
> psycher disembarks and throws a singing spear straight through the
> landraider transporting some veterans who were promptly mowed down by
> banshees the next turn, not my best game.
Bwahahaha!
Sorry, that was a great image.
RTM
RT Maitreya
>
> >With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes
> >that the system needs?
> Wow, reaching 10 was trivially easy. But I guess I'll stop here.
For the first time in my life, I agree with
John on EVERY SINGLE point he makes.
RTM
-Getting MY top ten list was easy!-
Arhes
"Arhes" <ar...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:tkhd648...@corp.supernews.com...
Something should be done with the Warp Spider's death spinner, a 12" range
and that's only if you don't move which is not likely with warp spiders.
death spinners need to be assault weapons, why? They have a S:6 but no AP
rateing and only a 6" range when moved they are listed as rapid fire
weapons. very often warp spiders become suicide troops that are just too
costly to bother using. Yes they do make cheese of the enemy what they can
kill before being gunned down not being able to kill enough of the enemy or
unable to jump far enough way.
Maybe to balance things out death spinners should have the following stats
S: 6, Rng: template, AP: -- Type: assault 1,
It's still fair because the target still gets a save no matter what their
armor is.
CPMcSwane
>system needs?
1. Bring back the old movement/march rules.
2. Bring back save modifiers for weapons, and eliminate AP rules.
3. ATSKNF rules revamp.
4. Decreased toughness of wraithlords.
5. Overwatch?
6. Design an "advanced" version of the game for those of us older than 12
years of age. If WFB can have complexity, why can't 40K?
>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
1. Dark Eldar-any improvement to make them competitive against marines (power
weapons, more survivability from destroyed raiders, etc.)
Lord Bob
<Tanja....@student.uu.se> wrote:
>>1) Squats
>>2) more Squats
>>3) myriad of Squats
>>4) profuse Squats
>>5) numerous Squats
>>6) multiudinous Squats
>>7) Swarms of Squats
>>8)Even more Squats
>>9)Throng of Squats
>>10)Infinate Sqauts!!!!!
>
>
>OK, but what's a "Sqaut"? My thoughts wander to the Boy-Scouts so eagerly
>discussed elsewhere...
>
Well, there's this guy who plays a Nurgle army here-abouts; he has a
nasty looking Demon Prince, and a pile of Nurglings that look like
they could be its squats...
>You want those, really, in infinite amounts? :)
>
Nasty stuff. And smelly, too.
Bob
John Hwang
>John Hwang wrote:
>>
>> >With that in mind, what do you think are the top ten changes
>> >that the system needs?
>
>> Wow, reaching 10 was trivially easy. But I guess I'll stop here.
>
>For the first time in my life, I agree with
>John on EVERY SINGLE point he makes.
:)
>RTM
>-Getting MY top ten list was easy!-
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
David Gausebeck
>>
>>Prism cannon: The prism cannon uses the ordnance damage table when it scores a
>>penetrating hit.
>>
>>Sensor array: Most of the space in the Fire Prism which is not taken up with
>>the power generator houses a complex array of sensors which rely on the
>>crystalline nature of the weapon to function. The crystal prism itself is
>>capable of focusing and directing its energy far more efficiently than
>>conventional weapons. Many of the sensors take time to lock on to a target,
>>however. The Prism's sensors have the following effect:
>>
>>Targeting: If the Fire Prism does not move and fires no other weapons (turning
>>counts as movement for these purposes), place the small blast template anywhere
>>within its line of sight. If it is out of range, it automatically misses. Roll
>>for scatter as you would for an ordnance weapon - the prism has had time to
>>build up a massive charge, and the energy must go somewhere, so the template is
>>not removed if the cannon misses as normal.
>
>However, because the beam is tightly focused, if the shot misses it will only
>scatter a distance in inches equal to half the roll on the D6, rounding up.
>
>If a vehicle is hit, roll 2D6 and
>>add the highest result to the prism cannon's strength to determine armour
>>penetration.
>
>When fired this way, the prism cannon ignores the effects of firing at moving
>targets (for instance, skimmers moving over 6" do not gain the benefit of their
>usual rule when hit by a prism cannon).
I remember you brought up ideas for alternate rules for the prism
cannon in the past... and as before, I think these are too complex for
the gameplay changes they implement. I think the important effects
(bigger effect if the fire prism sits still, heavier damage against
vehicles, etc.) could be covered if the prism cannon was just made
"Ordnance 1 Blast or Heavy 1 Blast" instead of "Heavy 1 Blast". That
way the fire prism can fire a much more powerful and accurate blast if
it sits still to charge up/lock on, but it can still fire on the move
if it wants to.
-Dave
John Hwang
>>>** How about this to make it more in line with its Epic equivalent:
[SNIP]
>I remember you brought up ideas for alternate rules for the prism
>cannon in the past... and as before, I think these are too complex for
>the gameplay changes they implement. I think the important effects
>(bigger effect if the fire prism sits still, heavier damage against
>vehicles, etc.) could be covered if the prism cannon was just made
>"Ordnance 1 Blast or Heavy 1 Blast" instead of "Heavy 1 Blast". That
>way the fire prism can fire a much more powerful and accurate blast if
>it sits still to charge up/lock on, but it can still fire on the move
>if it wants to.
Agree. This was the generally agreed-upon "fix" for the Fire Prism.
The only thing I'd add to the Prism Cannon would be for it to treat AV12+ as
AV12 (like the much smaller Bright Lance). This makes it ideal for hunting
heavy Imperial tanks, it's primary role (at least according to the Fluff).
Also good against the various open-topped vehicles, due to the template, but
not especially good against light, closed vehicles like Rhino and Landspeeder.
But as those can usually be handled adequately with the various Eldar S6
weapons, all is well.
P Bowles
Gausebeck) writes:
>I remember you brought up ideas for alternate rules for the prism
>cannon in the past... and as before, I think these are too complex for
>the gameplay changes they implement. I think the important effects
>(bigger effect if the fire prism sits still, heavier damage against
>vehicles, etc.) could be covered if the prism cannon was just made
>"Ordnance 1 Blast or Heavy 1 Blast" instead of "Heavy 1 Blast". That
>way the fire prism can fire a much more powerful and accurate blast if
>it sits still to charge up/lock on, but it can still fire on the move
>if it wants to.
It's not especially complex - when stationary it effectively fires like an
ordnance weapon, but with a smaller template and slightly increased effect vs.
vehicles to represent its specialised nature. When mobile it still allows you
to fire a potent heavy weapon. I also think that now v3 has stripped the game
down to its basics there is room for some increase in complexity in 4th and
later editions.
Philip Bowles
P Bowles
writes:
>Just had some more add-ons to my list
>Something should be done with the Warp Spider's death spinner, a 12" range
>and that's only if you don't move which is not likely with warp spiders.
>death spinners need to be assault weapons, why? They have a S:6 but no AP
>rateing and only a 6" range when moved they are listed as rapid fire
>weapons.
No, rapid fire weapons always fire 12" when moved, whatever their normal
maximum range. This means that you get one shot at 12" if you move, two shots
at 12" if you don't - undeniably better than the alternative, which is an
Assault 1 version.
very often warp spiders become suicide troops that are just too
>costly to bother using.
Not in my experience, but if you just use them to shoot and pop back into cover
you aren't making the most of them.
>Maybe to balance things out death spinners should have the following stats
>S: 6, Rng: template, AP: -- Type: assault 1,
>
>It's still fair because the target still gets a save no matter what their
>armor is.
But since they're also always being wounded on 2+, it's still more effective
than a flamer - and with ten in the squad. There was a very good reason GW
decided to do away with squads in which everyone had a flamer template weapon.
Philip Bowles
David Gausebeck
>able to play a "Tournament" game directly from the Rulebook, without the host
>of questions about what "counts" for targeting an enemy model, what "counts"
>for cover, what "counts" for screenting, etc. This removes player discretion,
>and is generally a good thing. Let the players vary on purpose, and
>deliberately, rather than having vagueness and confusion be the start.
>
>1a. Removal of "implied" rules restrictions or extensions. Perfect example is
>HtH combat and its multiple revisions and clarificaitons required. If GW has a
>particular way of doing something (e.g. measuring distances), and they it's how
>they do it consistently and by convention, they should make it explicit in the
>rulebook.
>
>1b. (And this is rampant thru GW's entire line) Complex examples in addition
>to simple examples. GW often clarifies the "easy" case, but gives no guidance
>on what to do when things get complicated. Again, 40k3 HtH is a perfect
>example.
>
>2. Proofreading and testing of all options. Codex: Chaos and Inquisitor are
>prime examples of things which were clearly rushed. For the money which they
>charge for these things, you'd think they could at least bother to proofread
>and check for obvious problems.
One thing I just thought of... regardless of the quality of the game,
I was really impressed when reading a recent version of the M:tG
rules. I think the rulebook that ships with the decks is simpler and
easier to read, but the official "comprehensive rules" are beautiful.
They read almost like pseudocode. I would love to see something like
that for 40k, and I'm sure that just in the process of writing it, GW
would find and be forced to fix lots of holes.
If you're interested, the M:tG rules can be found at
http://www.wizards.com/magic/MTG_Rules.asp
-Dave
John Hwang
>>1. Clarity by removing assumptions and providing examples. Players
>> should be able to play a "Tournament" game directly from the Rulebook,
>> without the host of questions about what "counts" for targeting an enemy
>> model, what "counts" for cover, what "counts" for screenting, etc. This
>> removes player discretion, and is generally a good thing. Let the players
>> vary on purpose, and deliberately, rather than having vagueness and
>> confusion be the start.
>>
>>1a. Removal of "implied" rules restrictions or extensions. Perfect example
>>is HtH combat and its multiple revisions and clarificaitons required. If GW
>> has a particular way of doing something (e.g. measuring distances), and
explicit
>> in the rulebook.
>>
>>1b. (And this is rampant thru GW's entire line) Complex examples in
>>addition to simple examples. GW often clarifies the "easy" case, but gives
>> no guidance on what to do when things get complicated. Again, 40k3 HtH
>> is a perfect example.
>>
>>2. Proofreading and testing of all options. Codex: Chaos and Inquisitor
>>are prime examples of things which were clearly rushed. For the money
>> which they charge for these things, you'd think they could at least bother
to
>> proofread and check for obvious problems.
>
>One thing I just thought of... regardless of the quality of the game,
>I was really impressed when reading a recent version of the M:tG
>rules. I think the rulebook that ships with the decks is simpler and
>easier to read, but the official "comprehensive rules" are beautiful.
This is true. 6th/7th edition rules with the unified stack and timing cleaned
up about 90% of the problems in the game. However, as a side effect, something
like 90% of the older cards received errata and/or work differently in some
subtle (or not so subtle) way. For the master list of card-by-card errata:
"http://www.crystalkeep.com/magic/rules/index.html"
However, the current "Type 2" game was written entirely with the new 6th/7th
edition rules and wordings in mind, so there's a lot less confusion and errata
than before. In addition, WotC has gotten much better at wording things, while
simultaneously gotten less ambitious at what cards can/should do, so there are
a lot fewer "mystifiers" than there used to be.
>They read almost like pseudocode. I would love to see something like
>that for 40k, and I'm sure that just in the process of writing it, GW
>would find and be forced to fix lots of holes.
If GW were to standardize definitions (e.g. Fearless, Special Character,
Monstrous Creature) , then a lot of the questions and problems would go away.
But I agree that, in theory, GW's penchant for special rules can be accomodated
by a MtG-like system for resolving special rules. After all, MtG is 90%
special rules and special rules interactions.
Tho I do believe that GW has a tougher task than WotC does, simply because
minis games are inherently concrete while MtG is an inherently abstract game.
There are aspects of measuring, etc. which need to be clarified.
>If you're interested, the M:tG rules can be found at
>http://www.wizards.com/magic/MTG_Rules.asp
Just gottem. As above, by default, I pull from Crystal Keep, which is more
frequently updated as a card and rules reference.
But I also note that the MtG Comprehensive Rulebook is 46 pages in PDF. And
it's the short form. There are a lot of rulings subtleties in the Crystal Keep
"rules" version which considerably expand it.
Jae
>system needs?
(most of my beef has to do with presentation)
1. HIRE A *REAL* EDITOR who actually knows what the hell they are doing.
2. Better Segregation of Rules, Fluff and Optional Rules. Layout is key here
and should be logical and easy to follow. That was one of the strengths of Role
Playing Games like Dungeons & Dragons, they were VERY well laid out.
3. Clarify Assaults. This is easily a dissertation unto itself, so I will leave
it at that.
4. Instead of being overly repetitive in attributes of models, units and
objects, come up with nomenclature to describe characteristics. For example,
FEARLESS models. Have ONE area of the rule manual that defines what FEARLESS
means, and simply place the FEARLESS tag with the unit it applies to. This will
save redundancy and accidental typographical errors. Plus it means that someone
who is learning the rules for the first time will know what the attributes mean,
even if he/she doesn't play that type of army.
5. Better treatment of "realism" issues. Tanks can be used to great effect to
CRUSH the opponent literally. This is only covered with special vehicle
wargear.
6. Stronger definitions on what is Tournament Legal, and what is House Rule.
Also, merits to playing with house rules and tournament only rules. (IMHO,
people should only play by strict rules as it makes it easier to conform to new
groups as you travel and play).
7. Better presentation. I'd like a hardcover with ribbon page marks (like a
fancy bible). But I guess I am special that way.
8. LESS discussion on painting and collecting techniques in the rulebook save
this information for codexes so that you can get specialized information on how
to paint, model and collect your specific army. I would say information on
terrain modelling would be okay, but I'd prefer that info to be in the
Battlefield codexes.
9. better definition of what rules supercede other rules (stating if NEVER
always supercedes ALWAYS etc, and whether newest rules win out, or if specific
wording is required).
10. Commitment to either a) not create rules that break prior rules in horrible,
gruesome ways, or b) maintain errata to be included whenever the rules are
broken so that they become "features" instead of rifts.
>Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
Make them more like the Ultramarines CODEX.
While it is nice to have a reiteration of the statlines and datafaxes of the
core units, I would prefer to have specific changes to the armylist, in addition
to:
- Painting/Modelling tips (what should different units look like? how do you
model a master crafted las cannon? How do you convert a Wave Serpent at home?
What does a mark of Slaneesh/Tzeentch/Nurgle look like?). The trim painting
schemes described in the Ultramarines codex is pure brilliance. I wish they had
gone into that much depth with all the new codexes. It really feels like GW is
getting lazy.
- Chapter Specific fluff (I don't really like this, but I know others do, and
there should be more of it...I think we are getting GROSSLY overcharged for what
we get now.)
- Sprue Inventories (an image of the sprues available, what each bit on the
sprues are, and basic assembly instructions for every model currently in the
line)...I found this to be the MOST useful part of the ultramarines codex. I
REALLY wish they had done this with the tyrannid codex (and the eldar codex, the
war walkers are a pain in the butt to figure out how to assemble).
- Tactical uses of individual units and how they work with other units to good
effect. Perhaps sample combos from experienced players.
>Model Range?
I personally prefer metal.
But plastics are cheaper(?), yet are only worth it if the savings are passed
down to the consumer (consider SM Dreadnaught).
The biggest issue I really have is the lack of availability of things like the
Wave Serpent, and no rules for existing models like the Forgeworld models.
There are rules for battlewagons, but none (aside from Imperial armor which is
NOT tournament approved) for other forge world creations such as Titans,
Baneblades, etc. Not that it makes a difference to me as a necron player, but
if I ever got a Titan, I would really like the ability to "legally" field it at
leagues and tournaments which have strict rules. So what if I get nicked on
composition scores to do it ;)
David Gausebeck
>CRUSH the opponent literally. This is only covered with special vehicle
>wargear.
hahaha... been playing too much command and conquer recently?
When was the last time you heard about a tank running over infantry as
a combat maneuver in real warfare?
-Dave
Tanja
Well, I almost never have it on my Chimeras. First, they cost some points
needed elsewhere. Second, my transports aren't really for transporting...
- Jer
Tanja
Yeah, we all do, I think. The problem is that you can't define common sense.
- Jer
TDR 7M
Dark Eldar Archon 1 Greater Daemons 0
Farseer 1 Bloodthirster 0
John Hwang
>You forgot a plethora of squats
*I* didn't.
But I'll be more than happy to petition for adding "Squat Slaves" as an open
choice for any Imperial Army...
John Hwang
OTOH, if one keeps in mind that 40k is really "The Great War" (WW1), so these
sorts of tanktics are valid.
Really. It explains a lot. :)
TDR 7M
>2. Bring back save modifiers for weapons, and eliminate AP rules.
>3. ATSKNF rules revamp.
>4. Decreased toughness of wraithlords.
>5. Overwatch?
2 words fuck overwatch but then thats just my opinion.
RT Maitreya
> Well, I almost never have it on my Chimeras. First, they cost some points
> needed elsewhere. Second, my transports aren't really for transporting...
With IG, it's at least an option, since you REALLY
don't want to get your boys into a scrap. The
exception is the meltagun filled vet/com squad,
or the ogryns.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> >We play the common sense way.
>
> Yeah, we all do, I think. The problem is that you can't define common sense.
That which is more life related than scripture related.
If you have to read the rule to figure out which way
it is to be treated, then you aren't playing the
common sense way.
RTM
RT Maitreya
> *I* didn't.
>
> But I'll be more than happy to petition for adding "Squat Slaves" as an open
> choice for any Imperial Army...
Die heretic.
RTM
Arhes
"P Bowles" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010709043545...@nso-cr.aol.com...
> In article <tkhoonc...@corp.supernews.com>, "Arhes" <ar...@erie.net>
> writes:
>
> >Just had some more add-ons to my list
> >Something should be done with the Warp Spider's death spinner, a 12"
range
> >and that's only if you don't move which is not likely with warp spiders.
> >death spinners need to be assault weapons, why? They have a S:6 but no AP
> >rateing and only a 6" range when moved they are listed as rapid fire
> >weapons.
>
> No, rapid fire weapons always fire 12" when moved, whatever their normal
> maximum range. This means that you get one shot at 12" if you move, two
shots
> at 12" if you don't - undeniably better than the alternative, which is an
> Assault 1 version.
12"maximum range. Bolt Guns are also listed as rapid fire and have a
24"maximum range. So as rapid fire weapons if they move they can only fire
their weapons at halk range, for a death spinner that would be 6".
>
> very often warp spiders become suicide troops that are just too
> >costly to bother using.
>
> Not in my experience, but if you just use them to shoot and pop back into
cover
> you aren't making the most of them.
Useing them for assault after wards works fine against Imerial guard, Space
Marines are a different story. It never turns out pretty.
>
> >Maybe to balance things out death spinners should have the following
stats
> >S: 6, Rng: template, AP: -- Type: assault 1,
> >
> >It's still fair because the target still gets a save no matter what their
> >armor is.
>
> But since they're also always being wounded on 2+, it's still more
effective
> than a flamer - and with ten in the squad. There was a very good reason GW
> decided to do away with squads in which everyone had a flamer template
weapon.
It wouldn't be so bad if they'd have kept the smaller flamer templates.
The best use I got out of my Warp Spiders was the Exarch. 2nd edit rule took
out a Bloodthirster in single combat rolled 6's and the Bloodthirster failed
it's save, instant death. It'll never happen again.
>
> Philip Bowles
Kevin Clark
Arhes wrote in message ...
>
>"P Bowles" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010709043545...@nso-cr.aol.com...
>> In article <tkhoonc...@corp.supernews.com>, "Arhes" <ar...@erie.net>
>> writes:
>>
>> >Just had some more add-ons to my list
>> >Something should be done with the Warp Spider's death spinner, a 12"
>range
>> >and that's only if you don't move which is not likely with warp spiders.
>> >death spinners need to be assault weapons, why? They have a S:6 but no
AP
>> >rateing and only a 6" range when moved they are listed as rapid fire
>> >weapons.
>>
>> No, rapid fire weapons always fire 12" when moved, whatever their normal
>> maximum range. This means that you get one shot at 12" if you move, two
>shots
>> at 12" if you don't - undeniably better than the alternative, which is an
>> Assault 1 version.
>Check your rule books. Death Spinner is listed as rapid fire and have a
>12"maximum range. Bolt Guns are also listed as rapid fire and have a
>24"maximum range. So as rapid fire weapons if they move they can only fire
>their weapons at halk range, for a death spinner that would be 6".
>
>>
Just buting in to say that you should read your rule book a bit more, Arhes.
Rapid fire weapons shoot twice up to 12 inches and once up to it's max
range. (if not moving of course.)
page 57 top half in diagram box.
Now if you have a 30 inch rapid fire weapon, like say a Tau rifle...
You would get one shot up to 30 inches and two shots up to 12 inches, not 15
inches.
<snip rest of post>
RT Maitreya
> Check your rule books. Death Spinner is listed as rapid fire and have a
> 12"maximum range. Bolt Guns are also listed as rapid fire and have a
> 24"maximum range. So as rapid fire weapons if they move they can only fire
> their weapons at halk range, for a death spinner that would be 6".
False. Rapid fire weapons fire twice at 12" regardless
of their maximum range. The making of spinnners rapid
fire is reasonable, since the webs have a short range
anyway, and firing twice if standing still should in
no way reduce this short range further.
RTM
Qrab
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) wrote:
> gaus...@paypal.com (David Gausebeck) wrote:
> >They read almost like pseudocode. I would love to see something like
> >that for 40k, and I'm sure that just in the process of writing it, GW
> >would find and be forced to fix lots of holes.
>
> If GW were to standardize definitions (e.g. Fearless, Special Character,
> Monstrous Creature) , then a lot of the questions and problems would go away.
>
> But I agree that, in theory, GW's penchant for special rules can be accomodated
> by a MtG-like system for resolving special rules. After all, MtG is 90%
> special rules and special rules interactions.
>
> Tho I do believe that GW has a tougher task than WotC does, simply because
> minis games are inherently concrete while MtG is an inherently abstract game.
> There are aspects of measuring, etc. which need to be clarified.
M:tG and most CCGs are 'exception based' games. IE, "this is how you play the
game, except when you play card X, use ability Y, etc." The majority of the
action is based on these exceptions and that is reason for the explicit and
lengthy rules. 40K and WHFB have some exceptions, but I wouldn't necessarily
call them 'exception based.' It should be possible for GW to write comprehensive
rules that cover most (if not all) of the eventualities that come up in a game,
or some general rules (other than 'roll a d6') for these occasions. The fact
that they can't/won't is irritating. As noted elsewhere, GW fans would be better
served if the main rulebook focused less on collecting/painting an army and
more on explaining the way the game is played.
Be seeing you-
Qrab (who hasn't seriously mucked around with any CCGs in a looong time)
John Hwang
>"P Bowles" <pbo...@aol.com> wrote
>> >Something should be done with the Warp Spider's death spinner,
>> > a 12" range and that's only if you don't move which is not likely with
>> > warp spiders. death spinners need to be assault weapons, why?
>> >They have a S:6 but no AP rateing and only a 6" range when
>> >moved they are listed as rapid fire weapons.
>>
>> No, rapid fire weapons always fire 12" when moved, whatever their
>> normal maximum range. This means that you get one shot at 12" if
>> you move, two shots at 12" if you don't - undeniably better than the
>> alternative, which is an Assault 1 version.
Tho not necessarily as good as a Pistol. :)
Actually, to fix the Death Spinner, I'd make it 9" S6 AP6 Assault 3; Assault 6
for the Exarch with 2 Spinners. With Assault 3 and only 9" range you get
something which is close to the the effect of the flamer template without
having things get out of control when a good opportunity occurs. The extremely
short range provides excellent contrast with the Swooping Hawks with their 24"
Assault 2 weapons and even the basic 12" Assault 2 Shuriken Catapult. I'd also
have it treat AV12+ as AV12, which should be a *standard* (Dark) Eldar weapons
effect, allowing it to glance any vehicle as before.
>Check your rule books. Death Spinner is listed as rapid fire and have a
>12"maximum range. Bolt Guns are also listed as rapid fire and have a
>24"maximum range. So as rapid fire weapons if they move they can only
>fire their weapons at halk range, for a death spinner that would be 6".
Ahem. Check *your* rule books.
"If a unit armed with rapid fire weapons moves, each model can shoot once at
targets up to 12" away." [40k3 rulebook, p.57].
Also, P. Bowles very rarely makes a rules mistake. Particularly WRT basic
rules, and especially WRT Eldar. In the future, you would do well to
double-check before challenging him on such things.
>It wouldn't be so bad if they'd have kept the smaller flamer templates.
Tho in V2, the Spiders used the (largest) heavy flamer template, so the smaller
template wouldn't really be appropriate.
David Gausebeck
>>When was the last time you heard about a tank running over infantry as
>>a combat maneuver in real warfare?
>
>OTOH, if one keeps in mind that 40k is really "The Great War" (WW1), so these
>sorts of tanktics are valid.
>
>Really. It explains a lot. :)
I know, and I was even thinking about that, but in WWI you could
out-walk the tanks. Maybe if you were stuck in the mud or
something...
-Dave
John Hwang
Heretic? Choose your words carefully. It has been Millennia since the last
Squat homeworld was conquered by the righteous forces of our beloved Emperor.
They are our slaves, our fodder, and nothing more.
Dan Hyman
> Heretic? Choose your words carefully. It has been Millennia since the last
> Squat homeworld was conquered by the righteous forces of our beloved Emperor.
> They are our slaves, our fodder, and nothing more.
Lest not ye brewmasters hear thy words!
RTM
John Hwang
Eldar (and 'nids) with good Fleet of Foot (Claw) will do just that. But
considering that 40k tanks which only twice as fast as infantry full out, the
speed differential isn't that different. Perhaps 1930s tank-tech is more apt?
Arhes
Now that just sounds stupid, how can the death spinner be classified as
rapid fire weapon with such a short range? It can never fire over 12" and if
you stand still with it you get to shoot twice at 12" which no Eldar player
is likely to get the chance to use the weapon in such a way.
AHHH, I've been playing battletech too long. too many games and too many
rules to remember.
Evil_incrdbil_
wrote:
>
>With IG, it's at least an option, since you REALLY
>don't want to get your boys into a scrap. The
>exception is the meltagun filled vet/com squad,
>or the ogryns.
I make room for it just to help insure by objective.quarter claiming
last turn guys have a better chance of fufilling their only purpose in
life--since shooting out of a Chimera is an invitation for painful
death these days..
incrdbil
"Oh Baracus, who was in 'Nam, Mr. T be thy name.
Thy van will come with Face and Hannibal,
on Earth as it is on TV-Land.
Give us this day, our daily milk,
and pity us fools, as we pity the fools
who cross us. Lead us not into airplanes,
and deliver us from Murdock.
For thine is the Mohawk and the Van,
and the Gold Chains, forever,
or at least until the mid-80's
Amen
shamelessly copied from r.g.f.s-h
Evil_incrdbil_
wrote:
>Eldar (and 'nids) with good Fleet of Foot (Claw) will do just that. But
>considering that 40k tanks which only twice as fast as infantry full out, the
>speed differential isn't that different. Perhaps 1930s tank-tech is more apt?
>
don't forget, infantry moving and assaulting have a chance of
outracing the APc's that brought them to the battlefield.. If they are
blood angles, they can get lucky and outpace skimmers.
Paul Krenske
During the Gulf war dozer blade equipped M1's overran trenches and
bunkers burying the occupants. I believe there was some comments at
the time about inhuman treatment.
Tanja
Yep, it's an option all right. But it's mostly a counter strike vehicle that
moves once per battle. And I think extra armour isn't really needed for
that.
Rhinos are a different thing altogether, though.
- Jer
Tanja
I know exactly what you mean, but the rules really aren't that "life
related", and we often have discussions about just _how_ to break the rules
in order to have some common sense. If you play the common sense way, the
Sentinels couldn't balance enough to move, for starters...
- Jer
EVIL_ROB
> >5. Overwatch?
>
> 2 words fuck overwatch but then thats just my opinion.
>
*LIES* it is my opinion as well
rob.
njsl
40k needs, more space marine armies)
Tanja wrote:
> >1. a move from a HtH based system to a total combat based system, I
> >would hate to think in 38000 years time mankind would always use Hth as
> >the main way to win comabat.
>
> That would be nice, but difficult without a major overhaul.
>
> >2. an increased roles for psychers, allowing for the influence of
> >precognition but not vortex powers
>
> Nope, I do fine without psykers, thanks.
>
> >3. A move away from the linear shoot charge system into a more tactical
> >system
>
> Perhaps, but again difficult without a major overhaul.
>
> >4. SQUATS!!!
>
> Nope. We all do fine without them. Well, most of us do, anyway... (hello
> ranter!)
>
> >5. ZOATS
>
> You CAN field them in 3rd edition, with Pete Haines creature rules in WD!
>
> >6. Mercenaries, ie, zoats, jokero etyc, maybe 1 squad per 1500 points
>
> C'mon!
>
> >7. less low AP weapons
>
> Yeah, and better saves?
>
> >8 less power weapons, retain pw for HtH specialists ie banshees and
> >characters, no Pw for vet sarges etc
>
> Hmm... but we still pay a lot for them in 3rd ed, don't we?
>
> >9. an increased roll of vertical scenary in the game akin to WHFB
>
> Sorry, I don't get it. "Vertical scenary"? In WHFB? Since when?
>
> >> Then, what are the top ten changes needed in certain codices?
>
> >1. Imperial guard psychers
>
> No, skip them, but give the Inquisitors and Astropaths some more nasties.
>
> >2. no overcharged engines
>
> I agree, for once.
>
> >3. underpowered starcannons
>
> Yep. Jolly nice, it'd be.
>
> >4. add more cost to rhino accessories
>
> Skip the Rhino, or design a new model!
>
> >5. add more cost to wraithlords
>
> Oh, I'd prefer if they made Wraithlords dreadnoughts again. Why did they
> change that in the first place?
>
> >6. improve CHAOS
>
> Yeah? Improve <whatever army I use at the moment>!
>
> >> Model Range?
> >
> >Increased character models, more variation in basic trooper range, not
> >50p each for a crappy codex shoulder pad.
>
> Increase BITZ to create characters with, perhaps.
>
> Oh, and release plastic valhallans, of course!
>
> - Jer
Flashbart
3B4AC23B...@iprimus.com.au...
> WHAT?! u dont know what a squat is?! omg goto ebay.com., and search for
> squats, they were the dwarves of 40k
WHAT?! u dont know what a typo is?! omg goto ebay.com, and
search for sqAUts.
> Tanja wrote:
<snippy>
> >
> > OK, but what's a "Sqaut"? My thoughts wander to the Boy-Scouts so
eagerly
> > discussed elsewhere...
> >
> > You want those, really, in infinite amounts? :)
> >
> > - Jer
>
P Bowles
johnhw...@cs.com.no.com (John Hwang) writes:
>Ahem. Check *your* rule books.
>
>"If a unit armed with rapid fire weapons moves, each model can shoot once at
>targets up to 12" away." [40k3 rulebook, p.57].
>
>Also, P. Bowles very rarely makes a rules mistake. Particularly WRT basic
>rules, and especially WRT Eldar. In the future, you would do well to
>double-check before challenging him on such things.
*blushes*. Oh, yes, I forgot to remind everyone that witchblades are treated as
force weapons which wound on 2+...
Philip Bowles
P Bowles
writes:
>Now that just sounds stupid, how can the death spinner be classified as
>rapid fire weapon with such a short range? It can never fire over 12" and if
>you stand still with it you get to shoot twice at 12" which no Eldar player
>is likely to get the chance to use the weapon in such a way.
It's not common, but it's useful to have the option - say you have an Ork mob
you really need to be sure of reducing to half strength or destroying this
turn, and standing and firing twice might just give you the edge you need to do
so. In that circumstance, I'd be very glad my deathspinners are rapid fire.
Philip Bowles
P Bowles
writes:
>> No, rapid fire weapons always fire 12" when moved, whatever their normal
>> maximum range. This means that you get one shot at 12" if you move, two
>shots
>> at 12" if you don't - undeniably better than the alternative, which is an
>> Assault 1 version.
>Check your rule books. Death Spinner is listed as rapid fire and have a
>12"maximum range. Bolt Guns are also listed as rapid fire and have a
>24"maximum range. So as rapid fire weapons if they move they can only fire
>their weapons at halk range, for a death spinner that would be 6".
No, it simply happens to be a coincidence that the rapid fire range is equal to
half boltgun range - every rapid fire weapon can fire up to 12" if its owner
moves no matter what its maximum range. Checking the rulebook, on p.57 I read:
"if a unit armed with rapid fire weapons moves, each model can shoot once at
targets up to 12" away.
"If a unit armed with rapid fire weapons remains stationary each model can
shoot twice at targets up to 12" away or once at targets over 12" away."
Presumably this last clause only applies if the weapon has a maximum range over
12", otherwise deathspinners would have an infinite range when fired by a
stationary Warp Spider...
>>
>> very often warp spiders become suicide troops that are just too
>> >costly to bother using.
>>
>> Not in my experience, but if you just use them to shoot and pop back into
>cover
>> you aren't making the most of them.
>Useing them for assault after wards works fine against Imerial guard, Space
>Marines are a different story. It never turns out pretty.
Not for the Marines, certainly... Ten deathspinner shots, assault, continue
fighting in the Marines' turn, Withdraw at the end of the Marine assault phase,
fire deathspinners, assault, fight in Marine turn, Withdraw, carry on until
opposing squad is dead or you have a better one to deal with - even if you
don't plan on staying to wipe out the enemy squad, being able to tie up
Devastators or the like in close combat without having your own squad tied up
in the process is a huge advantage. Warp Spiders are tactically useful rather
than valuable for the amount of damage they can cause, as indeed you would
expect of a squad which specialises in ambush tactics.
RT Maitreya
> It's not common, but it's useful to have the option - say you have an Ork mob
> you really need to be sure of reducing to half strength or destroying this
> turn, and standing and firing twice might just give you the edge you need to do
> so. In that circumstance, I'd be very glad my deathspinners are rapid fire.
Far more often I see them stand and go after my tanks
RTM