About the slaughter encounter

[Angus Khan]

I think this post has gone farther off topic than any other post I've seen on this forums. It has even switched game systems.

I was just thinking that myself...

[Natty]

I don't see the relevance of the crap game I stopped playing 3 years ago when I discovered games beyond GW. Is this a deliberate act to lock the thread or what?

No one cares about WH40k/WHFB on this forum, or at least in this thread and none of it helps resolve the Enounter balance question. Come on....

Agreed. There was a real discussion about the slaughter strategy going on.

[Nutcase168]

at TEMPLECON they ran slaughter as killing 30+/40 SS of the opposing crew to get 4 VP.

[divrg]

Are those guys writing a book? lol, no offense...

[divrg]

And i also like to add that i think 40k is a crap game.

[Guy in Suit]

Slaughter sucks, but 40k sucks worse... and 8th Ed. fantasy.. whooo boy...

[Lucidicide]

Sucking sucks the most!

I don't think Slaughter sucks, it's just unfortunate to get. I often try to eliminate my opponent anyway just for fun.

I don't think 40k sucks, but I do think it's not really what a lot of people want from a game (much like I'm sure Malifaux isn't what a lot of people want from a game, but they probably didn't read 9 pages into this thread )

I pretty seriously considered taking Lalo's side just so I could quote one of those huge walls of text, but I did not.

[icemantis99]

Hell, now I want to quote all of the walls of text at once, and then make one myself. Would that be a Fortress of Text instead of just a Wall? :-P

I thnk some crews arte a lot better at slaughter than others. Leveticus is really good at both dealing out Slauighter and surviving it.

[Lucidicide]

Hell, now I want to quote all of the walls of text at once, and then make one myself. Would that be a Fortress of Text instead of just a Wall? :-P

I thnk some crews arte a lot better at slaughter than others. Leviticus is really good at both dealing out Slauighter and surviving it.

Ooo, Fortress of Text. I'm not sure I've seen on before, but the defensive bonuses must be obscene.

Yeah, in general certain crews favor certain things, which is why the hiring comes at the end -- make sure you're not in trouble just based on strategy alone. I think it's unfortunate that announcing is so commonplace because of the points advantage, but I'll get over it...

[Chucklemonkey]

Hell, now I want to quote all of the walls of text at once, and then make one myself. Would that be a Fortress of Text

Maybe a monolith...?

As for slaughter, it is what I almost always played initially - I just kept drawing it. It is not something that has drawn particular Ire from me. My Malifaux losses are far higher than my wins but unlike other games - one of which has been previously mentioned in this thread, at some length -I seem to even enjoy it when I get an absolute spanking.

I know that attitute won't be the same for everyone as different people like to get different things from their games.

Is slaughter tough? Yes, Therein lies the challenge.

[Lucidicide]

Maybe a monolith...?

As for slaughter, it is what I almost always played initially - I just kept drawing it. It is not something that has drawn particular Ire from me. My Malifaux losses are far higher than my wins but unlike other games - one of which has been previously mentioned in this thread, at some length -I seem to even enjoy it when I get an absolute spanking.

I know that attitute won't be the same for everyone as different people like to get different things from their games.

Is slaughter tough? Yes, Therein lies the challenge.

Agreed. I think Malifaux might attract somewhat of a more mature gamer. These boards are the only place I've seen (and granted I check them more) where people actually defend "cheese." People admit that you should do what you can to win, which is awesome. I don't feel like there is much TFG talk or fear in Malifaux, which is nice. In addition, I think this "mature gamer" (I don't actually think mature is the right word) also doesn't mind about starting from a worse position. Granted, it doesn't fly so well in tournaments, but...

I remember the first couple of games I played once I knew the rules against people at a local store I'd never met before... I lost 3 games in a row. One was really close, the other two weren't embarrassing... I enjoyed them immensely. I think there are multiple things that make this true (such as the speed of play when you know the game), but most of all it's gripping until the end, and very hard to blame the dice.

[icemantis99]

I'll print it out, take it with me, make a Tank of Text.

Same with me- I got Slaughter a lot early. I do think it's harder than most, and I like the idea of making it a complement to Assassinate- kill all Minions, don't worry about masters. But it doesn't bother me especially.

[icemantis99]

Agreed. I think Malifaux might attract somewhat of a more mature gamer. These boards are the only place I've seen (and granted I check them more) where people actually defend "cheese." People admit that you should do what you can to win, which is awesome. I don't feel like there is much TFG talk or fear in Malifaux, which is nice. In addition, I think this "mature gamer" (I don't actually think mature is the right word) also doesn't mind about starting from a worse position. Granted, it doesn't fly so well in tournaments, but...

I remember the first couple of games I played once I knew the rules against people at a local store I'd never met before... I lost 3 games in a row. One was really close, the other two weren't embarrassing... I enjoyed them immensely. I think there are multiple things that make this true (such as the speed of play when you know the game), but most of all it's gripping until the end, and very hard to blame the dice.

Yeah, I think the same. I haven't played anyone who I really hated playing against- no whiners or "those guys". You know the guy. That guy. Yeah, that guy.

You do get lucky sometimes, but every time I've played, I've had a great time, win or lose. I even enjoy getting my ass handed to me on a silver platter. And every opponent I've had has been gracious in both victory and defeat.

Hooray for Malifaux!

[Ropetus]

I have always preferred games and scenarios where your objectives are tied to the battlefield. Dominating a certain area (or areas) with more models than your opponent, carrying objective markers around, getting certain models to certain parts of the table, destroying a terrain piece etc.

The reason is this: points denial.

When you think of it, the way to win the game is score VP:s from your own objectives while denying your opponent theirs. When the objectives are tied to the table, the only way to hinder your opponent from scoring is to get there and stop them (most often by engaging in battle). When the objectives are tied to enemy models, you stop scoring by running away and avoiding all fights. The first type of scenarios lead to exciting games with lots of interaction while the latter often turn quite dull with little action anywhere.

In a nutshell, when you play for the kills, the counter is passive play, just avoid any action. When you play for objectives, the counter is to take an active role and engage in battle to stop them. One does not need to think long to realise which type of game I like more.

Most of the Strategies and Schemes in Malifaux are fine in this aspect. The problems are mainly Slaughter, Assassinate and Bodyguard and to a lesser extent Raid and Army of the Dead. Treasure Hunt is a good idea but favors a speedy crew maybe a bit too much if they can snatch the treasure early and then play passively.

I think a fun Strategy would be having some sort of a token generator in the middle (a Soulstone mide or something) from where you can generate a treasure counter by performing a (1) Interact. You then have to gather a certain amount of these tokens (like 1 or 2 for 2 VP and 3+ for 2 VP) and bring them back home to score points. It is still challenging and can be stopped (with active play!) but cannot turn into an autoloss like Treasure hunt against Lilith who grabs your treasure on first turn (Earthquake from Cherub + Carry from Mature + Sprint from Tot + Transposition + some walking) and runs it back to their deployment zone next turn before you get a chance to react.

Also Sabotage could be a fun Strategy if instead you targeted a certain feature and can (1) Interact in contact with it (make it impossible while in melee) to add a 'sabotage counter' on the terrain feature. You then score VP for having a certain amount of counters on the building. Maybe your opponent could use Actions to remove them (by repairing the site). The scenario is fun and interactive and there are more counters to it than the quite freebie Sabotage with which you can score 2 VP for 1 AP.

Luckily it's easy to make your own interesting scenarios. The Strategy/Scheme system is a neat idea but sadly it is far from balanced.

-Ropetus

Edited July 26, 2010 by Ropetus

[Wodschow]

at TEMPLECON they ran slaughter as killing 30+/40 SS of the opposing crew to get 4 VP.

Although apparently unnoticed, I think this is one of the most interesting suggestions. I've read in this thread.

Although it should probably be made into 60% or 80% rather than the suggested 75% (as almost all game sizes are multiples of 5 where as only a few are multiples of 4).

Actually I guess that was just my OCD.. Logically I see no reason that 75% wouldn't be fine in a 25SS game.

[Justin]

I'm a post quoter, sorry if it's disconcerting, but it's an old habit.

Anyway, my argument against 5th being better than fourth is that the system was choosing to return to a prior example that was complained about many years ago.

I agree that codices should always be up-to-date, but GW works in ridiculous ways. Take note that GW knows that fans are unhappy, they closed down their own forums because people were questioning and criticizing. Many prominent members of the devlopment team also have left and Jervis Johnson has assumed a very strong position that (personal opinion incoming) I feel he has in no way earned. Letting an intern like Cruddace overhaul two of the more popular codices (that weren't having 5th edition problems to the degree of some of the others) was also a stupid move.

LET THE TRUE WALL OF TEXT SPILL FORTH, WOE BETIDE ALL LOOK UPON IT

I don't think that the game returning to a point people complained about is a bad thing, necessarily. I can't think of a single thing GW could do that their fans wouldn't complain about, so it's a moot point.

That said, they have most definitely mismanaged some things, in my opinion. I think we both agree there. And while I would most certainly like for them to learn and grow from the criticism they receive from their fans (which Wyrd most definitely does) even I must admit, most criticism GW receives is far from constructive or thought out. (see other posts in this thread)

Lol, I completely forgot that some people might not know what "leafblower" would have meant. Sadly, even fewwer people would know that it doesn't even deserve that name. After all, it's merely patterned after a SIGAFH list, swapping template count for shot count. (Shooty Imperial Guard Army from Hell, for the curious).

You'll find me in complete agreement about Netdeck/list building. I won't say that the internet has not influenced my list building over the years, but I most certainly do play the metagame against basic players in tournaments. A habit from my old Magic the Gathering days XD)

Agreed then!

Skimmers and vehicles have actually gotten much weaker in my experience. Aside from the defensive weapons nerf that hurt a number of common units, the main push towards more ground-pounders is evident in the designs.

Think about a few key differences.

1) Vehicles can never take objectives now (core change to troops being the only scoring unit), yes, I know you can contest, but is truly not the same capability they had in earlier editions.

2) Everyone is faster now. Almost universally the run and outflank rules have brought combat to vehicles much quicker than ever.

3) Vehicles being hit on rear armor in CC. I hate this change with a passion. The game turned a deadly dance of positioning into a no-brainer for every CC force.

4) Vehicle Squadrons. I, for one, don't enjoy the fact that attacks on one vehicle can/are evenly spread around the group as a whole. Add to this the penalty for being in a group if you are immobilized and it's harsh (more on this later).

5) (This is a composite issue) Vehicles being forced to move slower to fire with the effectiveness they once did reduces the penalty for CC'ers to hit them. Moving full speed (for many) results in your firepower being severely limited.

I'm sure I could go dig up more, but these are the big sticklers that I can think of.

1) This is true, but neither can terminators, or attack bikes, or...a lot of things. They just changed up how objective taking works entirely, which is another one of my favorite changes. It really forces you to look at your list and and keep your scoring units in mind. Makes wiping out your opponent's scoring units a viable strategy. Adds another level of thought to the game. Nerfs vehicles I suppose, but no more than it nerfs...every single selection that isn't a basic troop.

2) Agreed.

3) This is true, it is a nerf to vehicles. But I really don't mind it, honestly. If the orks get base to base with a leman russ, I say they earned it.

4) I don't mind that hits are allocated on squadrons. It's simply how allocating hits to squads works in this game. The immobilized point, I'll grant you. But then again, at least you CAN take your vehicles in squadrons. This used to be a much less common occurrence. Also, I may be misremembering, but I'm not sure if an immobilized vehicle counting as destroyed is unique to fifth.

5) I'm not sure what you mean by this one. The only movement and fire ability that has been reduced that I can think of is the loss of defensive weapons.

Ok, this may seem ill thought out, but I would counter all of these with one single point:

Vehicles are harder to kill now.

You need a 5 or 6 to destroy them on the normal table (as opposed to 4, 5, or 6 in fourth), and they may not be destroyed on a glance at all. This is a HUGE change from fourth, and a huge boost to vehicles, and another of my favorite changes. Sure, AP 1 adds one on the table, but not all armies have legitimate access to this, it's usually very short ranged, and they have to have it in their list.

I would argue that first point really. There were some very deadly 3rd edition CC armies that just aren't around any more for 4th. Tyranids now, are still showing strong numbers of participants compared to most of the armies I mentioned. This is, in part, due to the recent codex, but also capabilities.

Maybe there was a miscommunication, but it sounds like you agree with me? I said fifth was less CC heavy than third, but more CC heavy than fourth.

I disagree, simply put. Last time I checked, the only skimmer I know that is statistically close to it's old survivability is/are the Eldar ones. They always were pains in the ass though...

Anyway, going back to fourth, you'll notice that the "glancing only" was a much bigger buff than many first realize. Aside from what defensive gear a group might have equipped, you had to move much further in the new edition for your defensive benefits.

Oh, but before I forget though, modifiers are the real killer here. Open topped is automatically +1, now that you can be penetrated, the threat of this is higher as well. As you noted, AP1/Melta is also getting very annoyingly common in the game. In this case a Melta gun (very common mind you) automatically starts out with a +2 on whatever damage chart it ends up going on. At least half the time, when used properly, you'll actually be penetrating the skimmer which leads to even larger chances at critical damage.

Back in fourth? It didn't matter how close that Melta was, you had just that 50/50 (if you moved over 6"). Now it might be 50/50 for a glance, but the chance at getting penetrated is extremely high now. (Especially when you thrown in CC to the mix, you'll have near automatic penetrations with most power fist users)

Well, yes, the chance of being penetrated is extremely high now. No argument there. I was talking about the damage table itself. So, glancing table from third and fourth:

1-shaken

2-shaken

3-stunned

4-immobilized

5-weapon destroyed

6-destroyed

So, speaking in relation to dark eldar, keep in mind that back in fourth any immobilized result automatically destroyed a skimmer. Also keep in mind your roll received a +1 for open topped, so the vehicle would be destroyed on a 3, 5, or 6.

Now, the fifth edition penetration chart:

1-shaken

2-stunned

3-weapon destroyed

4-immobilized

5-destroyed

6-destroyed

Keep in mind immobilized no longer destroys the vehicle, but you get a +1, the raider will be destroyed on a 4, 5, or 6. Three numbers out of six. A dark eldar raider that was glanced in fourth edition, had the exact same odds of being destroyed as a dark eldar raider penetrated in fifth edition. And the dark eldar raider in fifth didn't have to move to get those odds, and may receive cover if it moves fast enough.

Yeah, meltas add +1, but this is no more a disadvantage to skimmers than it is to any vehicle.

Another portion of this is how survivable exploded vehicles are now for infantry. The chunks can barely hurt a squad of embarked guardsmen, much less how lethal it used to be (again a point for Infantry).

I see this as a benefit to transport vehicles, which actually makes the game more mechanized.

I'm not seeing the balance you're taking for granted here... It's completely alien to me to think that a (for all intents of the game) rendered useless hunk of metal is somehow not an achievement for the player that did so. If he killed it before, it was full VP's, in a crippled state it was half. Now it's literally all-or-nothing. This is a game design that is completely flawed because it equates the worthless to a fully functional unit (or in the case of infantry under serious losses a full strength unit).

Now, some armies might feasible pull this off (I would rate SM's mainly) but it'd have to be a special rule.

It's not about any single result, it's about the probability.

It's not very likely that you would blow everything off of a vehicle and not kill it. Especially considering that now if you blow all of the weapons off of a vehicle and immobilize it, if you get either of those results again, the vehicle is destroyed. (fourth did not have that rule, potentially leaving you firing las canons at a worthless hulk in the hopes of achieving the other half of your VP, and each subsequent weapon destroyed or immobilized result gaining you absolutely nothing) All fifth forces you to do is to make that one last shot to blow it up. But, back to my point: it's about the probability. Let's say Player A has two rhinos: One rhino blows up to the first las canon shot of the game. The other rhino takes three hits and doesn't die. Player B fired four las canon shots, and got one kill point. Not bad.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this tbh. You still pay the 250 pts now as if you did then. For an opponent the benefit from destroying said piece of machinery hasn't changed either that I can see.

Yes, you do still pay the points, but the benefit to the opponent for destroying it has changed drastically.

With VPs he scored a number of VPs equal to its points. (making its high points a liability to the player taking it, as it could potentially yield a very high amount of Vps) Now, it is no more or less a liability than any other unit. Your opponent is in no way rewarded for how much more expensive it is.

*Shrugs* I'm not dismissing your points, nor am I taking it personal. I don't mind you quoting me if you feel like it. XD

Ditto that then.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Justin

[ddot]

Back to the topic at hand...

I think encounter size has a lot to do with how diffucult a particular Strategy may be. For example, at 25-30 SS, Reconnoiter is nigh impossible for some crews, who just can't put out enough non-Insignificant models. Sure, I could run Pandi with no Sorrows, but that puts a bit of a cap on Pandi's strengths. So I switch out a Sorrow or two for Terror Tots. Sure, they can race out to all four quarters to gain Recon points, but that entails me hiding them out a bit to avoid getting killed, undercutting their strengths (killing stuff).

Of course, at 35 SS, I can simply take the "optimal" number of Sorrows and then take a few Terror Tots as well.

Applying this to Slaughter, same principle applies on my side of the board. In fact, at 35 pts, a few extra Tots might be a VERY GOOD thing... fast (seek and destroy those trying to hide out) and killy, to complement the rest of Pandi's crew. Sure I have more models to kill, but I'm better set up to do so.

I do agree with the people who say to pick your schemes accordingly. Anything you can do to manipulate opposing crew(s) to make your life easier is quite fair; beyond that, it's one of the things I really love about the game.

[Justin]

Back to the topic at hand...

I think encounter size has a lot to do with how diffucult a particular Strategy may be. For example, at 25-30 SS, Reconnoiter is nigh impossible for some crews, who just can't put out enough non-Insignificant models. Sure, I could run Pandi with no Sorrows, but that puts a bit of a cap on Pandi's strengths. So I switch out a Sorrow or two for Terror Tots. Sure, they can race out to all four quarters to gain Recon points, but that entails me hiding them out a bit to avoid getting killed, undercutting their strengths (killing stuff).

Of course, at 35 SS, I can simply take the "optimal" number of Sorrows and then take a few Terror Tots as well.

Applying this to Slaughter, same principle applies on my side of the board. In fact, at 35 pts, a few extra Tots might be a VERY GOOD thing... fast (seek and destroy those trying to hide out) and killy, to complement the rest of Pandi's crew. Sure I have more models to kill, but I'm better set up to do so.

I do agree with the people who say to pick your schemes accordingly. Anything you can do to manipulate opposing crew(s) to make your life easier is quite fair; beyond that, it's one of the things I really love about the game.

I know I'm totally off topic. Sorry about that. I've just discussed it all to death already. But I understand that's not the case for everyone. Maybe I'll just start responding with links to save myself some carpal tunnel. In response to your point here...

BAM!

http://www.wyrd-games.net/forum/showpost.php?p=124026&postcount=7

And in response to the thread in general...

BAM!

http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?p=124635#post124635

[enderwiggin]

I don't think that the game returning to a point people complained about is a bad thing, necessarily. I can't think of a single thing GW could do that their fans wouldn't complain about, so it's a moot point.

I disagree. Fundamentally bad options then haven't magically gotten better for no reason. They were under pressure to go back to a more profitable time. This is even more apparent by what they didn't decide to bring back to help support the edition.

1) This is true, but neither can terminators, or attack bikes, or...a lot of things. They just changed up how objective taking works entirely, which is another one of my favorite changes. It really forces you to look at your list and and keep your scoring units in mind. Makes wiping out your opponent's scoring units a viable strategy. Adds another level of thought to the game. cuddles vehicles I suppose, but no more than it cuddles...every single selection that isn't a basic troop.

A wide cuddle still is a cuddle under the conditions I noted before. I am both talking about Vehicles and 5th's changes so it's not inaccurate to say.

4) I don't mind that hits are allocated on squadrons. It's simply how allocating hits to squads works in this game. The immobilized point, I'll grant you. But then again, at least you CAN take your vehicles in squadrons. This used to be a much less common occurrence. Also, I may be misremembering, but I'm not sure if an immobilized vehicle counting as destroyed is unique to fifth.

I wouldn't mind it so much for shooting if they kept to their "TLOS" mantra. When I have vehicles out of range or LOS though, it's grating. Even much moreso with CC when the above issues crop up. (Actually happened) I just do not feel it's validated or accurate to say that a lone nutter with a power fist managed to take down a squadrons of vehicles by hitting each of them once in their most vulnerable spot (hitting rear armor and glance/penetrating three vehicles).

5) I'm not sure what you mean by this one. The only movement and fire ability that has been reduced that I can think of is the loss of defensive weapons.

No problem, I'll try to explain it better.

You are either much more vulnerable in CC (as we seem to agree) by moving slower, or you can remove your shooting ability (greatly in some cases) to try and keep out of range. The general speed increase of CC'ers makes the second a more likely choice, instituting an artificial cuddle on the vehicles.

Ok, this may seem ill thought out, but I would counter all of these with one single point:

Vehicles are harder to kill now.

You need a 5 or 6 to destroy them on the normal table (as opposed to 4, 5, or 6 in fourth), and they may not be destroyed on a glance at all. This is a HUGE change from fourth, and a huge boost to vehicles, and another of my favorite changes. Sure, AP 1 adds one on the table, but not all armies have legitimate access to this, it's usually very short ranged, and they have to have it in their list.

Not to be blunt, but you're wrong.

From a purely shooting standpoint, with 4th editions weapons you'd have been right. Now though, modifiers push those numbers to exactly similar levels of destruction in fourth along with a much greater influx of higher strength weapons and shot counts.

You also only died on an immobilized (before) if you moved flat-out in a normal vehicle (iirc) or over 6" in a skimmer (for obvious reasons).

You'd be close to estimate that DE skimmers are similar to how they were before the edition, but I hold that overall they have become weaker, especially considering that up until this point the similar kill numbers are only talking about shooting.

Once CC is brought into effect, it is very one-sided in the cuddles. In fact, with regards to CC, I can't think of a single change that could be said to universally benefit vehicles. Ability to penetrate skimmers, hitting rear armor, faster ground troops... Maybe not a vehicle cuddle directly, but as a system it can't be taken any other way.

Maybe there was a miscommunication, but it sounds like you agree with me? I said fifth was less CC heavy than third, but more CC heavy than fourth.

Sadly, I do disagree. I feel that 3rd was more CC intensive than 5th, but as I mentioned the holdovers of 3rd were pared down considerably with 4th and by Fifth (while very CC heavy in it's own right, for the armies involved) while the CC rate of the armies involved had risen, you had more CC armies in 3rd imo. I did not say to what degree that I disagreed though and I admit that it's relatively minor with regards to the total. I think 3rd was more CC heavy, but 5th is more CC focused (which has not reached all the armies, yet).

Well, yes, the chance of being penetrated is extremely high now. No argument there. I was talking about the damage table itself. So, glancing table from third and fourth:

1-shaken

2-shaken

3-stunned

4-immobilized

5-weapon destroyed

6-destroyed

So, speaking in relation to dark eldar, keep in mind that back in fourth any immobilized result automatically destroyed a skimmer. Also keep in mind your roll received a +1 for open topped, so the vehicle would be destroyed on a 3, 5, or 6.

Now, the fifth edition penetration chart:

1-shaken

2-stunned

3-weapon destroyed

4-immobilized

5-destroyed

6-destroyed

Keep in mind immobilized no longer destroys the vehicle, but you get a +1, the raider will be destroyed on a 4, 5, or 6. Three numbers out of six. A dark eldar raider that was glanced in fourth edition, had the exact same odds of being destroyed as a dark eldar raider penetrated in fifth edition. And the dark eldar raider in fifth didn't have to move to get those odds, and may receive cover if it moves fast enough.

Incorrect, I'm afraid.

The table for 4th was actually this

1-shaken

2-shaken

3-stunned

4-weapon destroyed

5-immobilized

6-destroyed

You get the exact same numbers for death (at first) when you tabulate similar sequences. In fourth a Ravager moving fast had a 66% chance of dying. The same thing in 5th's easily penetrated region. However, it get's noticeably weaker when you use the vehicles as they are supposed to function and with the mods now in effect kept in mind (or weapons)...

To receive that "buff" of a cover save (now), the DE skimmer will be going past the speed required to actually fire any of it's weapons or dispense infantry (which will be pathologically ridiculous for players to do to an effective means). Before, your odds were the exact same and you could pound out multiple shots (depending on loadout) and still be speedily running around with less to fear from infantry (since they were slower and had to assault against the armour facing you presented).

Also add in the amount of tech/options that specifically help against many of the glances or immobilized results (for skimmers, specifically) and you'll find the odds not so quaintly in 5th's favor.

So yes, if you want a one-sided affair you can claim that they are statistically "stronger" now in 5th each turn that you move so fast that render the vehicle useless (since you also don't block LOS now) for a turn.

The vehicle cuddle was largely brought about by the neigh-invulnerable Holofalcons that displayed such... Annoying, to say the least, qualities in play of any level. I don't quite remember the number, but statistically it was something around 5% iirc per shot of a Falcon going down per Lascannon hit on it.

Yeah, meltas add +1, but this is no more a disadvantage to skimmers than it is to any vehicle.

I'm talking about vehicles as a whole. You brought up DE skimmers saying they're stronger. I disagree and if a general cuddle is used on a specific it does not lessen the impact in this situation.It is more effective against vehicles and I don't see the Ravager as not being a vehicle, hence the Ravager is now weaker in it's current state.

Meltas have become extremely common and more effective against skimmers, being able to penetrate them now without regard for speed while kicking in a wonder +1 boost to the result.

This isn't even considering the new weapons put out, some of which makes melta's look silly in combating skimmers.

I see this as a benefit to transport vehicles, which actually makes the game more mechanized.

I disagree, but then this is our respective opinions.

I'm in a more realistic mindset that exploding vehicles should actually hurt people transport or otherwise.

It's not about any single result, it's about the probability.

It's not very likely that you would blow everything off of a vehicle and not kill it. Especially considering that now if you blow all of the weapons off of a vehicle and immobilize it, if you get either of those results again, the vehicle is destroyed. (fourth did not have that rule, potentially leaving you firing las canons at a worthless hulk in the hopes of achieving the other half of your VP, and each subsequent weapon destroyed or immobilized result gaining you absolutely nothing) All fifth forces you to do is to make that one last shot to blow it up. But, back to my point: it's about the probability. Let's say Player A has two rhinos: One rhino blows up to the first las canon shot of the game. The other rhino takes three hits and doesn't die. Player B fired four las canon shots, and got one kill point. Not bad.

Actually, you're wrong again. 4th had the rule that when an immobilized and weaponless vehicle (no strength str 4 or greater weapons left) suffered another immobilized result it was counted as destroyed.

Like I mentioned prior, this is one of the reasons Necrons were so badly hurt in the change (the much lower chances to outright kill vehicles before they got there changed, while the purely glance effect stayed fairly level).

To be blunt, you are starting to make me suspicious that our relative experience levels are not as close as you made them appear at first.

One question, how much weight do you place on vehicle survivability now that LOS/area terrain have had new rules?

Not to be offensive, but your answer will make solid my decision to continue this discussion with you from our respective viewpoints.

I'll address the KP issue next and a little further down though.

Yes, you do still pay the points, but the benefit to the opponent for destroying it has changed drastically.

And you see this as mutually benefiting the game as a whole? I do not.

It does not makes sense in the slightest that you aren't liable for what you bring to the degree of what you spent on the unit or selection. You are the one making that selection and paying the price because you believe it will be worth it.

I'm sorry if I don't agree that your gambit unit of (for example) a squadron of Leman Russ tanks at potentially over 600 points is somehow as tactically, strategically, or materially worth the same as my pair of Tau drones that popped off my vehicle.

Yes, that's an extreme example, but GW has not sought to even attempt to curb said limits.

If you spend half your points on infantry and you happe to lose them, then your opponent should be recognized by the rules as destroying half an army. With KP manipulation, this potential situation could reward the half dead player with more points than the opponent, merely because he focused on a different army type or one without KP's in mind.

However you want to slice it, VP's were fair in the sense that everyone was treated equally. You got the points you killed, period. It's not like said units (at the time) were any less the gameplay sledgehammers/gambles they are now either.

With KP's you have a restricted system where you are encouraged, no.. forced to go after the "easiest" KP's of the opposing army. I call that imbalanced. You should have to outplay the other person and I don't see that happening with Fifth as much as Fourth (or third).

With VPs he scored a number of VPs equal to its points. (making its high points a liability to the player taking it, as it could potentially yield a very high amount of Vps) Now, it is no more or less a liability than any other unit. Your opponent is in no way rewarded for how much more expensive it is.

Again, how is this fair? Especially when the respective FOC selections are not quite that equally made? If you make the selection you should carry the risk of losing it, especially when the game is not as balanced as Wyrd has made their choices.

Brought over to Wyrd standards (I do love them after being with GW for so long) this would be akin to saying make a general list BEFORE a game. If you happen to roll this in the subsequent scenario (good possibility) then it's 1 point for every killed/sacrificed/destroyed model in a scenario.

Masters would be worth what a totem's value would be, something like a 3/4 point model would be worth what Killjoy would be.

Want to bring the summoners in to start thinking how much a potential resser or Levi/Ramos list would racking up in potential KP's compared to, say a Pandora or Perdita list?

Wyrd is something, thankfully, that I can get my point across well with. How many people do you think would use Goblins or some of the other crews if it meant that, no matter what they did all the easily killed things in their crew damned them to lose. Pre-fabbed lists, no schemes, insignificant models equal in victory weight as your masters or more expensive models... See how well that would go over.

Now take those same pre-fab lists/players, no schemes, and make them play a game to get more of the opponents points than they get of yours. Half life is half points. See how many of them will like that better.

---

More Wyrd induced examples? Alright, try setting up a game where only 3,4,and 5 SS costing models are significant, everyone else gaining the insignificant trait. I know this sounds odd, but it's actually probably generous...

That's what 5th turned the troop only scoring system into though. Another "general" cuddle that you don't seem to want to accept happened to vehicles. It doesn't have to happen specifically, but it has happened and you can make a specific example of how that affected the vehicles as a whole compared to other units.

---

Then again, that's my Wyrd/gamer bias showing. I'd rather more options than a simple "kill all of the opponent", even if it's something like weakening them so they can't hold objectives etc. While objective holding provides a fun diversion, I already explained my distaste for lack of choices.

Maybe I'm spoiled having options in 4th/3rd that I don't have now (very much in the mainbook missions). Maybe I'm the kind of player to see the general dumbing down of rules to be excessive and hates that. I know that I'm not the only player (tourney or otherwise) to feel it.

Coming to Wyrd has been quite refreshing, but I've not so easily forgotten what GW has done. While they might get a lot of criticism (as any large corp could expect) there is still a large percentage of it that will ring with truth.

I have not met a single veteran so far that doesn't think that Games Workshop has more profit in mind than gaming credentials.

[Justin]

Back to a stupider time? Everytime I shoot at something and don't have to take a leadership check, I'm a happy guy. Everytime a transport blows up and the troops don't get automatically pinned, or pile out of it on a penetrating hit, I'm a happy guy. Those were horrible, horrible rules that just made the game annoying.

You're right, I gave you the third edition glancing table instead of the fourth. And I was thinking of third edition again when I said the "destroyed for blowing everything off" rule didn't exist.

It's been years, so I get them confused. And, admittedly, I played far more of both third and fifth than fourth. Fourth being my least favorite edition. (but I was around)

But the different table, at least, doesn't change my point at all. A glanced raider was destroyed half of the time in fourth. And a penetrated raider is destroyed half of the time in fifth. Same odds. The thing that makes the raider better in fifth (aside from the 4+ for moving flat out, which is nice but not really worth noting) is that dark eldar receive these odds even on the first turn of the game, before they have had a chance to move and receive the "only glancing" rule from fourth. So you don't automatically lose when you don't get first turn. Also the way first player works now, I love.

Anyway, that point explained I suppose I'll answer the only question that apparently really matters:

"One question, how much weight do you place on vehicle survivability now that LOS/area terrain have had new rules?

Not to be offensive, but your answer will make solid my decision to continue this discussion with you from our respective viewpoints."

They are less survivable. Since they're easier to see. I suppose that's the answer you want, but I would rebut with the same thing I said back when fifth first came out: get new terrain. Demolished walls and solid rock have taken the new role of LoS blocking terrain at my store.

They are also less survivable since they get a 4+ save for being hulled down instead of the only glance rule.

However, I actually like that rule, because although it might allow for the vehicle to be destroyed a little easier, if you make your 4+ save then nothing happens to the vehicle at all. You're not shaken, you can shoot the next turn all you want. As opposed to being glanced instead of penetrated, which would inevitably leave your vehicle at least shaken. More deadly for vehicles, sure, but you also take the gamble of coming out totally unscathed.

And, as I stated earlier, I feel this is further offset by the new damage table.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Justin

[icemantis99]

It is the return! The prophecy has been fufilled! Let the walls come forth, and grind all who oppose them down, ye, as to dust!

[Lucidicide]

And, as I stated earlier, I feel this is further offset by the new damage table.

If by "this" you mean "this thread," you are correct

[enderwiggin]

@Lalochezia. I liked those mechanics tbh. I felt it was more realistic for someone to continuously see their mates die and possibly slip into shell shock... As for the vehicle bit, I plainly just disagree. If you get blown out of a vehicle I still feel that it's not too bad to be forced to a pinned state. It was also one of the very few times that you could even pin certain armies (mainly marines) because of high leaderships.

Hmm, the fact that you were more involved with 3rd, does actually explain some things though.

Very oddly a great deal of things.

(Not criticism either, you remind me of someone I know is all and it came down to him liking 3rd more than my 4th and with 5th being more similar to 3rd, our respective feelings on the issue).

Looking back, that was not proper of me to issue that statement in that sort of ultimatum'ish way.

Sorry.

Not that I would have been happy with another response, but I'm really hateful of this fractions to be seen through three terrain pieces sort of shooting. You might have a point with terrain, but I like windows and rubble.

I won't go on my personal (trust me, purely my own opinion, I haven't found anyone else yet to agree) rant about terrain changes in-game, I will say that I just miss the fact that a lot of our terrain (now) is much less effective.

Many of use spent a lot of money making most of the cityfight and rubble terrain that we have available. Luckily it's still nice for Necromunda, but TLOS seems to push for no LOS terrain like the devil.

[Justin]

@Lalochezia. I liked those mechanics tbh. I felt it was more realistic for someone to continuously see their mates die and possibly slip into shell shock... As for the vehicle bit, I plainly just disagree. If you get blown out of a vehicle I still feel that it's not too bad to be forced to a pinned state. It was also one of the very few times that you could even pin certain armies (mainly marines) because of high leaderships.

Hmm, the fact that you were more involved with 3rd, does actually explain some things though.

Very oddly a great deal of things.

(Not criticism either, you remind me of someone I know is all and it came down to him liking 3rd more than my 4th and with 5th being more similar to 3rd, our respective feelings on the issue).

Looking back, that was not proper of me to issue that statement in that sort of ultimatum'ish way.

Sorry.

Not that I would have been happy with another response, but I'm really hateful of this fractions to be seen through three terrain pieces sort of shooting. You might have a point with terrain, but I like windows and rubble.

I won't go on my personal (trust me, purely my own opinion, I haven't found anyone else yet to agree) rant about terrain changes in-game, I will say that I just miss the fact that a lot of our terrain (now) is much less effective.

Many of use spent a lot of money making most of the cityfight and rubble terrain that we have available. Luckily it's still nice for Necromunda, but TLOS seems to push for no LOS terrain like the devil.

Yeah, I suppose it just comes down to whether you're more of a third guy or a fourth guy.

No offense taken.

And it was moderately annoying that forests don't block LoS like they used to. They just made it easy to set up a board. Now you have to have a giant wall or pile of rocks that you had to construct very carefully to have no cracks in it to achieve the same effect. Luckily I knocked all that out of the way a few years back now.

[enderwiggin]

Want to know something really funny?

For all the advantages they had in 4th, I never used Kroot as heavily as FW's and almost never with forests.

Now, in 5th, most of my troops are now Kroot. XD

Huh, just noticed that this was moved to the Malifaux Matters section, must mean all the little bits that don't fall anywhere...

Seen the chompy rules yet? This next wave of Masters will make things interesting... Though with the gorgeous models and fairly balanced rules being put out every month... This feels almost more monetarily constricting than GW. More of an addiction than an obligation, but no less strong are the shackles.