6.5/7th Edition and What GW Should have done

[deinol]

What are these heretical polyhedral dice you speak of, these run counter to the Holy STC, dice may only be cubical.

I remember when the armour penetration roll of a chainfist involved a d20...

[Sainhann]

Well I could consider using D20's for both shooting and saves.

Right now anything that has a ballistic stat of 4 will hit 66.67% of the time.

That is far to high of a percentage to hit.

So if you use a D20 and need the following:

Imperial Guard, Eldar, Squats, Tau & Orks etc..

Hit for shooting on a 16+ or a 25.00% chance of hitting.

Space Marines, Elites and Commanders...

Hit for shooting on a 15+ or a 30.00% chance of hitting.

Plus use lots of terrain on the table.

[DarkLink]

The Spartans were wiped out at Thermopylae, but strategically they held the pass long enough to allow the allies to gather an army. Killing everything on the field isn't always the overall strategic objective, that's why the game has missions and objectives and isn't just kill points like they used to be.

That does nothing to excuse the absurd situations that can arise, namely where you're completely dominating your opponent and then lose because you did -too- well. It's the wrong approach to try and balance out overpowered shooting armies. If you have a game where you can shoot all of your opponent's models off the table in the first few turns, then you have to keep exactly one of their models alive while you run out to grab objectives, there's a balance issue with your game that isn't going to be solved by something as clumsy as outright stating that you can't table your opponent.

[deinol]

That does nothing to excuse the absurd situations that can arise, namely where you're completely dominating your opponent and then lose because you did -too- well. It's the wrong approach to try and balance out overpowered shooting armies. If you have a game where you can shoot all of your opponent's models off the table in the first few turns, then you have to keep exactly one of their models alive while you run out to grab objectives, there's a balance issue with your game that isn't going to be solved by something as clumsy as outright stating that you can't table your opponent.

Except if you kill their entire army turn two, you'd get the points for controlling all the objectives for the next four turns, or whatever the battle length is. The killed them all but still lost scenario would only happen if they controlled most of the field for most if the game.

As it is, I have little sympathy for the player who doesn't want to take objectives and just castles up. Unless you are playing a defensive mission, but then they'll be sitting on most of the objectives to start.

[Caitsidhe]

As it is, I have little sympathy for the player who doesn't want to take objectives and just castles up. Unless you are playing a defensive mission, but then they'll be sitting on most of the objectives to start.

My sympathy, by contrast, is always with the players. It isn't their fault that their army is designed to do one thing better than another. It isn't their fault, as DarkLink points out, that Games Workshop botched balancing the army so bad that it can shoot opponents off the table. I lay the blame where it belongs, which is at the feet of a poorly balanced series of books. Hopefully, 7th Edition will somehow help fix the issue. Based on past performance I'm skeptical, but I remain hopeful.

The problem with your logic is that you don't know what mission you are going to draw until you get it. Most people build theme lists and design based around the both the fluffy history and strengths of the army. That makes commonsense.

[DarkLink]

Except if you kill their entire army turn two, you'd get the points for controlling all the objectives for the next four turns, or whatever the battle length is. The killed them all but still lost scenario would only happen if they controlled most of the field for most if the game.

I'm talking about a rule that would state that if you tabled your opponent but weren't on an objective, you don't get that objective. Or any rule similar to that, with the intent of "balancing" out tabling. Someone above suggested it, and my comments have been directed at that to explain why I think it's not a great idea.

I very much like the idea of collecting objective points mid-game, on the other hand. If they do a good job with it, that's a much better approach than some sort of no-tabling rule.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm with Darklink on this.

Done right, Missions and objectives are your balancing factor. I don't feel that simply wiping out your opponent should be auto-win. That makes the game dull as dish water for your opponent, and your tactics (hit everything in sight as hard as you can). Nothing wrong with it providing a solid VP haul, but your opponent should be able to balance it out with strategic wins.

I'm hoping we might see some inspiration from Epic Space Marine. Victory was achieved not by having the most VPs, but by hitting or exceeding a points size defined target, calculated at the end of each game turn. VPs were awarded for breaking units (half their value), wiping out units (their full value) and holding objectives (worth 5 VPs each if memory serves). It meant that while going for the wipeout could win you the game, your opponent could sneak a victory with a more tactically subtle* game.



*Because 'kill everything' still remains a tactic!

[Caitsidhe]

I agree that it would be nice if the objectives and rules are setup in such a way to encourage people to not build for maximum firepower. However, if Games Workshop set it up in a way that still says wiping your opponent out entirely is a win condition, I'm not going to blame the other players who go that route. I'm going to blame the design team for being fools and missing the obvious.

The best case will be if the new basic rules and objectives make objectives (whatever their nature) the key, i.e. it doesn't matter if the 137th Airborne is wiped out to the man as long as they held out for a certain amount of time and held key objectives long enough for the fleet to get into position or civilians to be evacuated and so on. The other side LOSES. They can crow about killing everyone but the key thing will be that they LOST, all in caps. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00 and so on. Moreover, the missions should be even enough that the missions that do allow you to win by tabling an opponent (and some will be required in fairness) should be equal to the other kind.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

Currently, there's no pyrrhic victories in 40k, and I feel their really should be.

I mean, you can do them in a campaign no problem. You just introduce margins of victory, requiring say a 250 point difference to bag that victory (Warhammer had this, honestly cannot remember if 40k did).

But in general 40k as it stands, the wipe out is just too reliable. Yes it's often easier said than done, but the fact you just win if you pull it off isn't much fun (though I hasten to point out I've never been wiped out in 40k myself).

[deinol]

I'm hoping we might see some inspiration from Epic Space Marine. Victory was achieved not by having the most VPs, but by hitting or exceeding a points size defined target, calculated at the end of each game turn. VPs were awarded for breaking units (half their value), wiping out units (their full value) and holding objectives (worth 5 VPs each if memory serves). It meant that while going for the wipeout could win you the game, your opponent could sneak a victory with a more tactically subtle* game.

I must admit, I really wish I'd purchased Epic stuff back in the day. It really is much more like the game I want to be playing. But at the time I was a poor college student.