29 replies to this topic

[Orkimedez]

Advancing became a part of the moving phase during 8th(?). Most of us already did it "unofficially" several editions back. However, it feels like the mechanism has been simply inherited and not given any thought in a edition that aimed to simplify the rules. As an Ork player...I feel we throw too many "useless throws" each game.

How would you guys feel if advancing were to add half the unit movement instead of +d6?

As in the current rule set, my boys feel like sprinters who somehow manage to keep pace with full speed vehicles.

The proposed change would help to provide a speed boost to the units inside vehicles compared to footsloggers.

What would be the consequences that you could foresee?

[warhead01]

Interesting idea. Maybe a set range based on movement stats. But half the move speed isn't what I would do. 
If it were the case we'd end up wit MANZ moving 6" instead of the possible 10. So I would set the fixed advance at 4" but change it to balance a bit for faster infantry type units.  And again based on what the vehicle or monster is and their move speeds and so on. 

I actually prefer rolling I guess but only because I haven't been given a different option. 

I think your boys are acting as intended. with their max move of 11. Given our 6+ save. If my boys are going to die I want them to die out side of my deployment zone!

[Orkimedez]

Interesting idea. Maybe a set range based on movement stats. But half the move speed isn't what I would do. 
If it were the case we'd end up wit MANZ moving 6" instead of the possible 10. So I would set the fixed advance at 4" but change it to balance a bit for faster infantry type units.  And again based on what the vehicle or monster is and their move speeds and so on. 
I actually prefer rolling I guess but only because I haven't been given a different option. 
I think your boys are acting as intended. with their max move of 11. Given our 6+ save. If my boys are going to die I want them to die out side of my deployment zone!

Right, MANz are probably the slowest unit in the game. Some editions back they had this rule...which name I can't remember that boosted their...charge? Not sure. Old me.

As for the 2 digits, I wanted to propose something that does not force to rewrite all the movement profiles. However, I agreed that could have been the optimal.
Fliers already have 2 values (although for different purposes).

[Skumdreg]

I still can't figure out how Orks are somehow slower than Beakies at base movement... A beakie is a gigantic brick while an Ork is an agile muscle machine! 

[killercroc]

I still can't figure out how Orks are somehow slower than Beakies at base movement... A beakie is a gigantic brick while an Ork is an agile muscle machine! 

Or better yet how a Guardsmen moves as fast as a beakie. Logic, thy name is mud.

[Skumdreg]

Well to say most armies now can advance and suffer no negatives shows there is a problem. The whole point was that you could move a little further but you'll lose that accuracy and use of heavy weapons... the a gw dev went "crap! That means my army might actually have to make a real tactical, over whether to go for the objective just out of reach or fire on the on comming squad... nah, screw that! New rule! You can now advance, heavy weapons somehow become assault, there is no -1to hit and I can charge! Get wrecked!". It's like a child who makes up new rules so he can win and then the others make up new rules so they can win when really it was all good from the start. XD orks actually are the only faction (Ironically as the whole advertising of orks before 8th edition was that we had assault weapons so we were special) to have to really consider if we want to advance or not... obviously boyz always want to advance turn 1 with a warboss but shoota boyz with a mek might want to only move the 5 so they don't become half as effective. Lootas can't even movennever mind advance. XD even sluggas, to an extent, might want to hold off advancing as they might get a few pot shots off with their pistols.

To fix it i kinda feel like we have to join the gang and just make advancing a useless rule that has no effect on our army... it's dumb but kinda how it's gotta work. If I had my way I'd have made sure every army had no advance immunity and made every ork gun an assault weapon.

[killercroc]

The problem is mainly, like you said, they make rules so they can win. I mean, first it was you could move and still shoot rapid fire weapons full distance (hmm, which armies did that benefit?). Now we have moving and shooting all guns is fine, heavies is -1 to hit and you can run and fire assault guns at -1. But when you look at who has the most assault weapons (Bugs and Orks) then all the sudden every beakie has access to an assault weapon, and that -1 to hit isn't a huge deal to BS 3+ units but 4+ and 5+ actually means there is a huge choice between advancing and shooting. When one army can move, advance and still shoot just as good as every other army out there there is a bias slant. In comparison to the army that has low movement, short range assault weapons and a poor BS the rules aren't fair. They're fair in the sense that they apply to everyone but when the same rules apply to everyone but one army still performs better than every other army out there it's really hard to say these rules are "fair" And honestly Beakies don't pay enough points for their models to make all these benefits make sense. High BS, SV, LD, M, access to lots of gear, advantage in cover and assault, etc. when their points are only 2:1 compared to units that have bad M, BS, Sv, LD, short range weapons, etc. 

To fix advancing I'm not sure if going back to the old rules of everything moves 6" and only really fast units can advance would be good or not. The alternative would be to make vehicles even faster so in comparison to infantry they blitz across the table but if you're getting 18"-24" movement for APC's on a board that's 4' x 6' you're really making the table size arbitrary. If you use vehicles the table is too small because 1 turn you're on the other side, or make the battlefield larger but then games take longer and moving models is more difficult. 

Maybe like was said advance is half movement so M 5" units advance 7" and M 6" units advance 9" but then the 5" movers are screwed because they're slow and almost everything that's slow is a combat unit and they just made shooting better so... GG trench warfare in 40K got even heavier.

 

[Badfang Brassaxe]

Been of the opinion for a while now that GW released 8th having only really balanced it for beeky vs beeky (as came in the starter box) whilst assuming that they'd be able to bodge all the other factions in later. Unless they're going to introduce even more 'get out of jail' special rules that bypass the basic flaws in the system, the only real solution would probably involve a points cost reduction of at least 25% across the entire ork range, see how that plays and reduce it further if they still don't work properly, rinse and repeat until some semblance of balance is achieved.

[Lexington]

GW has been moving away from almost any immediate negative repercussions for a player choice for quite a while now. Theres very few trade-offs anymore, models can mostly just do as they please. I think this is less about the developers themselves and more about a sales psychology strategy - players who dont have to make difficult choices will often enjoy a game more, since they cant make wrong decisions.

Always remember that the Studios been an arm of the sales/marketing department for some time, now, and a lot of their decisions reflect that.

[Wortsnagga]

Orks love running to get involved in a good scrap so logic says they would be the fastest beings in the galaxy on two legs as orks grow bigger after every fight. That said 7" movement for orks is about right, the 6" movement for humans is to show how fast they can run away.

[Nefairius]

GW has been moving away from almost any immediate negative repercussions for a player choice for quite a while now. Theres very few trade-offs anymore, models can mostly just do as they please. I think this is less about the developers themselves and more about a sales psychology strategy - players who dont have to make difficult choices will often enjoy a game more, since they cant make wrong decisions.

Always remember that the Studios been an arm of the sales/marketing department for some time, now, and a lot of their decisions reflect that.

 

This isn't unique to them either, there are a few video games I've played that have design decisions like that, but the foremost thing I thought of while reading your post is MTG; for years now it has been their stated design intent curtail the number of cards with drawbacks, because the casual player dollar they're always chasing after doesn't understand, and therefore like, cards with drawbacks. Goddamned market research. They still make cards with drawbacks but far less frequently than I'd like.

 

That drive to make every aspect the most fun possible to the least common denominator inadvertently spoils the effort.

 

But you can't really eliminate negative aspects in a game, can you? Just shift the paradigm. Complex trade-offs are replaced with "less optimal" actions. The difference, is you took something with defined, maybe interesting choices and muddled it all up. It's all for naught! In any game where you can lose, players who lose will be butthurt.

 

I hate it when games get to a point where there isn't so much of a decision to make as an action to take.

[Orkimedez]

Maybe like was said advance is half movement so M 5" units advance 7" and M 6" units advance 9" but then the 5" movers are screwed because they're slow and almost everything that's slow is a combat unit and they just made shooting better so... GG trench warfare in 40K got even heavier.

 

And if so, transports become an option. Grated, MANz could move 4"+2" advance. But the battlewagon they are now in moves 12+6".

[killercroc]

And if so, transports become an option. Grated, MANz could move 4"+2" advance. But the battlewagon they are now in moves 12+6".

Exactly, transports would have a reason to be in the game now. With units that move 4/6, 5/7, 6/9 a vehicles that can move 12/18 is a huge difference and does something tactically for the game. it more anywhere from 3 times to 2 times faster than anything else instead of more or less the same speed now. And it would make fast units truly fast, if bikes moved 14" but 21" advancing they'd be a reliably fast support unit. I mean bikers are fast now but the fact they can turbo boost 1" further for a total of 15" but infantry that can move 6" can advance another 6" to get 12" making them run as fast as a motorcycle...is just silly.

As of right now I don't see a reason for transports, most only hold a single squad, they start of fast but soon as they lose half their wounds (which can happen from a single shot) they become just as fast as the unit inside on them making them useless as a means of transportation & they're too expensive. Last edition most vehicles were far too cheap (Especially Rhinos 35 points really?) but now they're too much ranging from 75-100 meaning depending on what's inside of them they're more expensive than the unit they're transporting so you'd be better of just taking a second squad. I think dropping a Trukk to 50 points plus upgrades is the right spot. As it stands 80 points for a T6 10 W 4+ sv vehicle with 12"/8"/6" makes no sense, it's as expensive as the boyz inside of it and can be destroyed easily and isn't very fast so it fails as a reliable transport or armored cover while getting to the front line, but you pay as many points as the beakie T7 10 W 3+ sv 12"/6"/3" so they only advantage you get is +2" movement at lower wound values but with the reduced T and Sv you're going to blow up before you get a chance to use them. 

[Orkimedez]

Exactly, transports would have a reason to be in the game now. With units that move 4/6, 5/7, 6/9 a vehicles that can move 12/18 is a huge difference and does something tactically for the game. it more anywhere from 3 times to 2 times faster than anything else instead of more or less the same speed now. And it would make fast units truly fast, if bikes moved 14" but 21" advancing they'd be a reliably fast support unit. I mean bikers are fast now but the fact they can turbo boost 1" further for a total of 15" but infantry that can move 6" can advance another 6" to get 12" making them run as fast as a motorcycle...is just silly.
As of right now I don't see a reason for transports, most only hold a single squad, they start of fast but soon as they lose half their wounds (which can happen from a single shot) they become just as fast as the unit inside on them making them useless as a means of transportation & they're too expensive. Last edition most vehicles were far too cheap (Especially Rhinos 35 points really?) but now they're too much ranging from 75-100 meaning depending on what's inside of them they're more expensive than the unit they're transporting so you'd be better of just taking a second squad. I think dropping a Trukk to 50 points plus upgrades is the right spot. As it stands 80 points for a T6 10 W 4+ sv vehicle with 12"/8"/6" makes no sense, it's as expensive as the boyz inside of it and can be destroyed easily and isn't very fast so it fails as a reliable transport or armored cover while getting to the front line, but you pay as many points as the beakie T7 10 W 3+ sv 12"/6"/3" so they only advantage you get is +2" movement at lower wound values but with the reduced T and Sv you're going to blow up before you get a chance to use them.

Completely agree with you

[Badfang Brassaxe]

Trukks do make pretty good movement trays

[killercroc]

Trukks do make pretty good movement trays

Taking Trukks just so you don't have to move models around. The thinking man's versus of 40K! 

[Giganotosaurus]

"Trukks do make pretty good movement trays  "  Just like GW to charge 22.50 pounds ($37.50 US dollars) for a movement tray that can't hold 10 Orks. 

[Wortsnagga]

A points drop and movement increase for trukks would definitely help to give ork players more options when building a list. Plus extra guns on the trukks could help with the trukk being useful after it has delivered the boys.

[Lexington]

This isn't unique to them either, there are a few video games I've played that have design decisions like that, but the foremost thing I thought of while reading your post is MTG; for years now it has been their stated design intent curtail the number of cards with drawbacks, because the casual player dollar they're always chasing after doesn't understand, and therefore like, cards with drawbacks. Goddamned market research. They still make cards with drawbacks but far less frequently than I'd like.

 

To be fair, here, the market research isn't wrong. GW has been doing well lately, bringing in a lot of casuals and other people on the fringes of wargaming precisely because of this.

 

I say it a lot, but if you want a good game, play Infinity. If you want a dumb, bad, but also kinda fun game with armies of cool models, play 40K.

[Skumdreg]

I want to play Star Wars Armada. I hear it is fun.