juckto
Junior Strategist
Posts: 124
|
Post by juckto on Dec 31, 2018 18:05:01 GMT
Change "Damage Type: Magical" to "Damage Type: Enchanted". And fix all the "cannot be damaged by non-magical attacks" etc abilities accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 31, 2018 18:20:06 GMT
Change "Damage Type: Magical" to "Damage Type: Enchanted". And fix all the "cannot be damaged by non-magical attacks" etc abilities accordingly. Because that gets confused with spells? But spells also hurt incorporeal. Or is it more a matter of verbiage?
|
|
cuberic
Junior Strategist
Posts: 129
|
Post by cuberic on Dec 31, 2018 18:56:46 GMT
+1 for streamlining disabled, boxed, destroyed, and the rules that interact with them such as take down, remove from play, tough, etc. Would be nice if there was only 1 type of dead, and do you get to tough or not.
Recursing could be simplified again. It was pretty simple at the start of mk3, but now you have to ask every time if a model gains it's full action upon being returned to play.
Lastly Power attacks particularly throws. 2h / 1h throws should be same but with 2h you can throw further.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 31, 2018 20:08:31 GMT
Positioning still matters a little, but only in relation to LoS and Cover. Templates were also little used in some armies while prevalent in others. Interestingly enough, the cannon users were the most upset since they couldn't use their lines of death, and the weapon was used to be little more than raw damage on a single model. I just don't see how to get rid of sprays and AOE in Warmachine, and I'm pretty good at streamlining systems like game rules.
I do believe I gave several possible examples right after the area you stopped quoting. Would they not work?
Maybe some form of Ashes to Ashes. You hit one model and the D3/D6/XD6 models within 3" or 4"... You get the idea. Imho: Templates were only effective against inexperienced horde armies in 40k 2" cohesion is a lot of room with 30 models but I don't want to drag a WMH conversation off into the weeds of 40k. Sure, you can do it, but Cyel makes a good point: why bother with spacing anymore when you can just have "luck" do your job for you?
Because you don't need to be within a certain distance to be in Formation, but not hit by something, at least in WMH. In Warhammer, yeah, spacing only affects how the unit moves the next time they can.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Jan 1, 2019 1:19:13 GMT
+1 on deviation streamlining. You could just roll probability of hitting (like 5+) under template if you miss. I do believe deviation is a pain in reality and also a source of confusion/argument about whether a model is under template or not after deviation. And doing it clearly is a pain if there is a lot of models nearby, if you want 100% sure you must exchange them with proxies, measure then use template. Funny thing but often it ends with "OK, on 4+ it under template", and I'm not a person whoul'd argue about miniature game. And this game is 2d enough as it is already...
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Jan 1, 2019 2:07:14 GMT
Deviation in WMH is streamlined. It can only deviate in 6 directions and for a maximum of 6 set distances. Which gives 36 possible results for any deviation. Too random, too unpredictable.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jan 1, 2019 3:56:18 GMT
Deviation in WMH is streamlined. It can only deviate in 6 directions and for a maximum of 6 set distances. Which gives 36 possible results for any deviation. Too random, too unpredictable. Its far far less than the literally infinite possibilities of 40k's old deviation. There was a 2/3 chance of the attack deviating in a random direction determined by the direction of the scatter arrow on a dice. There was a 1/3 chance of a direct hit.
In both WMH and 40k the deviation is reduced by an amount. In 40k the 2D6 scatter was reduced by the attacker's BS. In WMH, the attack can only deviate up to 1/2 the distance between the shooter and the target.
WMH has far less randomness in it. Also, unlike 40k you have the option to target something out of range and hope for a good scatter. It has tactical depth by allowing you control over the randomness to an extent. You can get to within a certain distance and potentially reduce the scatter to zero, so the only question is if its a direct or indirect hit.
|
|
|
Post by elricaltovilla on Jan 1, 2019 15:01:11 GMT
Which gives 36 possible results for any deviation. Too random, too unpredictable. Its far far less than the literally infinite possibilities of 40k's old deviation. There was a 2/3 chance of the attack deviating in a random direction determined by the direction of the scatter arrow on a dice. There was a 1/3 chance of a direct hit.
In both WMH and 40k the deviation is reduced by an amount. In 40k the 2D6 scatter was reduced by the attacker's BS. In WMH, the attack can only deviate up to 1/2 the distance between the shooter and the target.
WMH has far less randomness in it. Also, unlike 40k you have the option to target something out of range and hope for a good scatter. It has tactical depth by allowing you control over the randomness to an extent. You can get to within a certain distance and potentially reduce the scatter to zero, so the only question is if its a direct or indirect hit.
Just because it's better than it could have been doesn't make it good at what it's supposed to do. Many people, including designers of the game, expect deviated blasts to be how some armies are supposed to deal with stealth or high def enemies. As someone who scatters a lot of blast templates, the inconsistency makes them (scattered blasts) fail at that goal. I suppose that's my real problem with them. Big, inacurate guns are too big and too inaccurate to serve as blast template delivery systems.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Jan 1, 2019 17:07:02 GMT
I'm not even bothered by the randomness of AOE attacks as much as the sheer time it takes to resolve them and the occasional argument or confusion over whether a model is hit. Even if we're playing a timed game and on my opponent's clock. To this day, I still groan when I see a full unit of Zealots or Deliverers.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Jan 1, 2019 23:32:56 GMT
Its far far less than the literally infinite possibilities of 40k's old deviation. There was a 2/3 chance of the attack deviating in a random direction determined by the direction of the scatter arrow on a dice. There was a 1/3 chance of a direct hit.
In both WMH and 40k the deviation is reduced by an amount. In 40k the 2D6 scatter was reduced by the attacker's BS. In WMH, the attack can only deviate up to 1/2 the distance between the shooter and the target.
WMH has far less randomness in it. Also, unlike 40k you have the option to target something out of range and hope for a good scatter. It has tactical depth by allowing you control over the randomness to an extent. You can get to within a certain distance and potentially reduce the scatter to zero, so the only question is if its a direct or indirect hit.
Just because it's better than it could have been doesn't make it good at what it's supposed to do. Many people, including designers of the game, expect deviated blasts to be how some armies are supposed to deal with stealth or high def enemies. As someone who scatters a lot of blast templates, the inconsistency makes them (scattered blasts) fail at that goal. I suppose that's my real problem with them. Big, inacurate guns are too big and too inaccurate to serve as blast template delivery systems. Well thats a problem with the game designers and not scattering blast templates. Tell them they need to offer alternatives besides "blast deviation" to certain factions. Don't take it out on the poor innocent blast mechanics.
|
|
tomw
Junior Strategist
Posts: 128
|
Post by tomw on Jan 2, 2019 6:25:53 GMT
Another rule that bothers me is gunfighter. Making a ranged attack in melee seems so unintuitive, and the way the range of gunfighter attacks is based on the range of your target’s melee weapon can be very confusing.
I don’t see why they can’t just add the attack as a melee weapon to the model’s card. They’d need to add special rules making strength buffs not apply to the attacks, and to not let the model gain boosted damage for charge attacks, but I feel that would be a lot less confusing.
Even more annoyingly, why does point blank exist? It’s basically the same rule as gunfighter, just with different confusing interactions.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 2, 2019 6:48:20 GMT
For models who don't have both melee and ranged weapons, Gunfighter doesn't have much difference from Point Blank until you look at things like Carapace. For models with both a pistol and a sword, such as Arcane Tempest Gun Mages, it makes a huge difference. When a Gunfighter Charges, they can only use Pistol OR Sword, while a Point Blank model can use both Pistol AND Sword in close combat.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 2, 2019 6:49:59 GMT
Another rule that bothers me is gunfighter. Making a ranged attack in melee seems so unintuitive, and the way the range of gunfighter attacks is based on the range of your target’s melee weapon can be very confusing. I don’t see why they can’t just add the attack as a melee weapon to the model’s card. They’d need to add special rules making strength buffs not apply to the attacks, and to not let the model gain boosted damage for charge attacks, but I feel that would be a lot less confusing. Even more annoyingly, why does point blank exist? It’s basically the same rule as gunfighter, just with different confusing interactions. It's exactly opposite actually. Point Blank is effectively a melee attack (uses MAT, benefits from Flankt/Gang/etc.) and Gunfighter is still a ranged attack. The distinction exists exactly because it adds depth, though I do agree that for many players it's mostly just confusing.
|
|
|
Post by P'tit Nico on Jan 2, 2019 8:27:45 GMT
Another rule that bothers me is gunfighter. Making a ranged attack in melee seems so unintuitive, and the way the range of gunfighter attacks is based on the range of your target’s melee weapon can be very confusing. I don’t see why they can’t just add the attack as a melee weapon to the model’s card. They’d need to add special rules making strength buffs not apply to the attacks, and to not let the model gain boosted damage for charge attacks, but I feel that would be a lot less confusing. Even more annoyingly, why does point blank exist? It’s basically the same rule as gunfighter, just with different confusing interactions. It's exactly opposite actually. Point Blank is effectively a melee attack (uses MAT, benefits from Flankt/Gang/etc.) and Gunfighter is still a ranged attack. The distinction exists exactly because it adds depth, though I do agree that for many players it's mostly just confusing. Like most of the rules in this game, it stops being confusing once you actually read them.
|
|
|
Post by cgdeth on Jan 2, 2019 11:40:48 GMT
I'm not even bothered by the randomness of AOE attacks as much as the sheer time it takes to resolve them and the occasional argument or confusion over whether a model is hit. Even if we're playing a timed game and on my opponent's clock. To this day, I still groan when I see a full unit of Zealots or Deliverers. What about_____DOUBLE JUDICATORS
|
|