Hi!
Quote:
"MagnusIlluminus"]Interesting thoughts. A few of mine.
1) Changing the die size used would make Gold and Platinum incompatible. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it seemed like part of the point of the Points Formula system was to allow players to be able to fight each other regardless of which version they were playing. If the basic die size changed, that would be impossible.
Looking just at the differences between D10 and 2D6, the former would keep more of the feel of Gold (and previous versions) while 2d6 would change things quite a bit. Mostly because 2d6 makes a bell curve on it's probabilities. To put that another way, the possible results near average (7 is the average result of 2d6) are more likely to happen than results at either extreme end (2 or 12). Rolling a single die, regardless of size, has equal chances of each possible result happening. With a single die, a fixed modifier to that roll has a fixed impact. With multiple die being rolled, a modifier can have a variable impact and is thus harder to put a value on.
To put that another way, while changing to 1d10 would have an impact on the Points Formula, it would be a lot easier to deal with than changing to 2d6. That could get very messy.
On the other hand, changing only things like Titan & Praetorian damage charts to 2d6 would have a minimal impact on the Points Formula. Mostly just on values for Penetrating.
It seems you, Bissler and I would prefer a d10. As I have mentioned I would vastly prefer the d10, for all the reasons you have mentioned. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking there will be more resistance towards it. We'll see what others think, but if more express favor for the d10 then that would makes things simpler.
I'm not overly concerned with platinum and gold being different. Even if the die did not change I feel that the cost formulas and different formation rules would make it play differently from "stock" gold version. Of course, as you mention it would be nice to have that uniformity/standardization across the versions.
Of course, the die change is merely a concern on my part that may not be shared by many. If all of you are okay with the level of granularity the d6 offers then let keep it.
So the very first question is "is it necessary?". If neither you or Bissler (and any others whom care to comment on this) don't mind it, then we can ignore this and move on to other things.
Quote:
2) Personally, I've never had a problem with the Flyer, Floater, & AA rules as they are, or even as they were in Epic 2nd. I've seen that some people do have problems with them. Would someone be so kind as to list exactly what the problems you are having are? [May need it's own thread.]
Indeed it may need a separate thread.
To keep it brief, the main concern is how powerful aircraft is versus an opponent with none, or just AA. Of course an opponent with neither air cover or AA is asking to be hurt by air power (as in real life combat), but it has been often said that a defender with just AA may still be "inadequate".
That may mean that the problem lies more with AA than the actual aircraft, but I have tried several solutions that have not been satisfactory.
I do like that addition made by a forum member on how to resolve aerial combat (rolling d6's per CAF factor). I would still tweak it, but its a good start.
I'll leave it short for now, but we can revisit it in more depth on its own thread.
Quote:
3) You say: "They don't seem to act like actual command at all most of the times." Would you please define exactly what you feel that "actual" Command should act like? Of course, in the context of a game like this.
Bissler touched on some of it, so I'll try to offer some examples.
SM HQ's for example, really don't serve any purpose other than using it as a "4th detachment", to either burn activations (to gain an advantage and save other detachments for later). Also, given they don't affect the functioning of the detachments they command, they are often used in an aggressive fashion charging far away from the formations they supposedly command to either secure objectives on their own, or to engage lone targets via close combat or shooting (the preferred method). I have seen and played many games where the so called "HQ" unit can be on the other side of the battlefield from their formation.
I have even seen "ad hoc" HQ formations made out of several HQ's from different formations acting together. While it may be an effective ploy, there is no real command function being preformed. It's like you have one "special unit" in a company that does whatever it wants with no relation to the rest of the formation. If it were called anything other than a command unit it would be fine, but as the supposed HQ, one finds many uses for it other than and true "command function".
Squat warlords and squat bike HQ's are subject to the same "abuses", since they too have no need to remain close to their formations. In the case of the squat bike warlord it increasingly worse, since it has the speed to span goods chunks of the battlefield on charge and fire a weapon with a good modifier on first fire. Used this way, they are actually specialized "seek and destroy" units. Not that this is bad, but they are supposed to be commanders and as they stand they work best used aggressively with little regard to the formation they command.
Of course it less of an issue with IG or orks, because the rules require them to stay within some radius, but event those seem that the value is in its "charge and first fire" capability rather than any real command value.
Quote:
A large number of Command models already do have other uses. Many have Inspirational, Medic, Psyker, or other various Special Abilities that define their role on the battlefield. Anything they do other than just being Command is defined by what other Special Abilities they have. Generally speaking, the weaponry such a squad has is minimal anyway, so I don't see any problem with them getting the permanent First Fire. After all, with the Points Formula, they pay for it.
There is no problem with any additional abilities, particularly from units with command functions AND another ability, since usually these are better left close to the units they "command" so they may benefit from that ability.
Oddly enough these units act more like command units than the actual "HQ" unit!
Quote:
I could agree with the proposed idea of forcing a Morale check for any associated formations if their Command model(s) were destroyed. In my view, this should be limited to such Command models as come with a Company or ones that have been attached to another Formation (like the Commissar model).
Perhaps a change to the rules that Command models from Special Formations cannot capture objectives (unless attached to a formation that can do so) would also help define their role more clearly.
Bissler and you have made some good suggestions that I think can solve this issue.
1. If the HQ unit is lost the remaining formations check for morale (even if they have not reached the break point). As you point out this only applies to the overall HQ unit of a company formation or attached units like a commissar.
2. Command models cannot secure an objective unless attached to a formation
3. Command models are activated with another formation in the company they command. This eliminates "milking activations" with lone HQ units.
I think these should solve any concerns.
Quote:
4) If you want a game in which which Morale has a bigger impact, try running a Guard force against a Chaos force heavy with Daemons. You will be rolling, and failing, Morale checks left and right. How big an impact Morale has is very dependent on which army you are running and which you are fighting against.
Also, in the Points Formula, an army with a lot of great Morale values will be paying for them. Compare the values for Space Marine formations with Sisters of Battle, or with Orks.
Probably about the best we could do with changing when Break Point is considered would be add a mini end Phase to the end of every Phase (Movement, Combat, etc) instructing each player to check each currently unbroken formation to see if it has taken enough casualties to have to make a Morale check, and then to do so if warranted.
I would not be in favor of immediate second rolls as then the Fallback condition has less meaning. An alternative might be to allow the second check after a number Phases equal to the amount by which the Morale check was failed. Thus as there are four Phases per game turn (Orders, Movement, Combat, End) if a model has a Morale value of 5 and rolls a 1 at the end of the Combat Phase in turn 2, they would be able to make their second Morale check to rally at the end of the fourth Phase after that, which would be the end of the Combat Phase in turn 3. If they had instead rolled a 4, they could try to rally at the end of the End Phase in turn 2.
Another idea could be to have a second Morale threshold happen when the formation has taken losses equal to half of those remaining when the primary Break Point was reached. For example, a Company with 30 models that has a Break Point of 15 would have to make a Morale check once they lost 15 models. This idea means that they would have to make another check when they lose another 7 models (half of 15 rounded down). The second roll could be at a one point penalty. Admittedly, this would mostly only affect Companies, but it could make Morale have more impact.
I like the last idea. It's simple to remember without much added complication. 1st break point is at standard value for morale and the second break point is done at a -1 penalty.
We should try this out this way and then see if it needs further tweaking.
Primarch
