1st game feedback

By my 1st game experience there are only few things that don't suited me. I specify that I don't know the game well, so I can change my mind soon about these things by playing again, BUT we agreed that some feedback is always useful and BTW I come from an high experience on skirmish games, Necromunda above others, but also Confrontation (1st to 4th edition), Mordheim and minor others.

I don't like the AP system from when it comed out in 40k, and I prefer save modifier. That's because AP is one of the change GW made to avoid calculations and rise the game speed, when they (unsuccessfully) planned to lower the age target of WH40k by simplify the rules.
AP mode is, for my opinion, frustrating and unbalanced. I simply don't understand why, if I'm a Tau warrior for example, a weapon with AP5 allow me to save 4+ (50% chance to survive) when a weapon with AP4 grant me 100% death on wound. AP5 and AP4 must represent in game a slight variation of power, but there's a 50% chance of death on these two.

Also, in a game like this I prefer that models are not restricted by one save only. In term of realism, if I'm behind a wall, wear an armor and got a refractor field device, the shot can hit the wall (5+ save) then my field can stop it (5+) and maybe my armor if it dosn't (5+ modified). It's easy to die anyway ;=)

Finally, for a player first experience the rulebook may seems to contain long explainations. When a rule comes it must be divided by flavor description, in italic and rules: ___ so it can be readed fast.
I don't need this, I like in deep explainations, but may be an useful thing when you plan to reach more players as possible (I know it can be a big work ^^').

Now you can hate me ><

We do never hate people who come with constructive critisism! I for one really like to get perspectives on both the rules and on experience from other games / gamers.

About the formatting of the rulebook I agree on the "fast-read" aspect of it. I know the authors aim for a non-faq ruleset; a very high goal indeed, and it has to go through a lot of revisions and changes to get there.

I'm sure Mord will reply to this post in large, and do not be afraid of the large amount of text - he really means well, and even though he *can* sound like a up-front-kind-of-guy, he always - like everyone in this community, encourage constructive critisism. =)

Welcome to the other side, and hope to hear more about your experiences with the game.

Thanks for the feedback Justagainst!

As you may have heard, we are in the mists of a major revision to the game. While I'm not allowed to go into details, I can tell you that the information you provide makes me think that your are either a psyker (unsanctioned... watch your back), a spy (Chinese hacker!) or that we are up to something.

AP
In terms of game mechanics, specifically AP, I agree with you. The purpose of the AP is to simplify the massive dice rolling that Mathammer may involve. From that perspective, it is OK and useful. From our perspective you bring an excellent point. I understand what you are saying; the AP give a modifier to the Armor Save of 0% or 100%... nothing in between. The problem with escalated modifier is that we add yet another complexity to the mix. We could create a simple rule... something like... replacing the "AP" for "Save Modifier". Your lasgun could subtract -1 to all Armor Saves, while a Plasma Canon a -4. But it is another rule to remember.

Regardless, I will bring your suggestion to the Staff. I'm sure this will start a mini-war (again!) Hehehehe...


One Save
Again, this is another 'gift' from 40k. It is designed to make the game faster. If you were taking cover behind a cement wall AND wearing body armor, you should be more protected that if you were behind the same wall and wearing no armor at all. The only thing I think I could tell you (before getting by everyone) is that we ALL agree with you. Changes on this area are on the horizon. Your comments reassure me that I'm not crazy (or that you are too... either way, it is a good thing!)


Game Speed vs Realism
Right now we are torn (literally) between increasing the speed of the game (by removing some rules and thus decrease realism) or streamlining the current speed. In my experience, playing takes between 1 to 1.5 hours if you count my dancing, joking and "wait, wait... let me take another picture!". We have seen games that last 30 mins as well as our own time record of 5.5 hours (yes... I played that game too!) Do we want our game to be more like an RPG (detailed, but slow) or like a boardgame (simple, but fast)? I have been talking to Arachas about this subject. His group (very cool guys) like fast-paced games and are accustomed to straight forward rules. They understand complex/detail rules and options, but they take time to look for them. They have indicated that playing takes forever. While they acknowledge some of their weaknesses (not remembering stuff), they brought very valid points; we NEED to streamline things... specially on TLRB.

As you mentioned, we plan to make TLRB easier to read. We are gonna move to one Core Rule book, with a summary of rules at the end. When you read the book for the 1st time, you get the fluff, detailed explanation and examples in a very Zero-FAQ fashion. Why? Because it avoids fights and arguments. If you NEED details, they will be there to help you sort things out. On the same token, sometimes you need just a quick reminder to answer quick/simple questions; for example "How much can I Run again?" Check Movement on the Summary and get answer "A Fighter may Run twice his Movement Attribute." For explanations and examples, go to the main text.

For a veteran (like you) this would be enough to play right away or even help others learn the game. Hmmmm.... maybe at the end of each section we can make a "Section Summary". Crap... more work for me. Hehehehe

Also, the Squads will have their own Codices with everything you need to play that Squad. No need to dig over 30 pages of weapons, armor or wargear you can't use... for example. At the end of the Codex, you will find a 'generic' pre-made Squad. Nothing fancy, but balanced. You could give this to your newbie friend and have him playing in less than 3 mins. We want to include a one-page Unit summary (Attributes, Special Rules, Cost, etc) to ease the Squad creation. All this would help speed up the game when a resource needs to be researched.


All in all... you are right. One of our greatness weakness is that TLRB and some of the game is not as streamlined as it can be. I could hide (wait... no more hiding, maybe Lay Low) in the fact that we are amateurs or that we are far from finished. But I won't do that. We take intelligent criticisms like yours in the chin... because they help us push our game further into perfection. THANKS YOU!

Mordheimer wrote:

At the end of the Codex, you will find a 'generic' pre-made Squad. Nothing fancy, but balanced. You could give this to your newbie friend and have him playing in less than 3 mins.

I really like the addition of the "Sample Squads"! I'm planning to create some squads for my friends so I can introduce them to the game. The use of a Sample Squad can be very useful to speed up the creation! I can make 2 IG squads from my existing 40K models and I was planning to do a Tau squad as I was under the assumption that such a squad already existed (that's also why I wanted the FW models from Arachas), but a quick look at TLRB made me realise that I was wrong... So perhaps I'll build a Ork squad or so.

Tau Squad is on the oven... hopefully it will be released with the new edition of TLRB, along with the Adeptus Arbites and all other Squads (each with its own Codex!)

When? We don't know. LOTS of changes and work for this revision. Basically it is a re-write!

Great feedback.

Agreed the AP thing doesn't work how it should (a table - don't shoot me anyone - of AP vs base armour save, showing resultant armour save to be rolled might work and be relatively fast e.g. Armour Save 4+ vs AP 3 (RESULTS IN A LOWER ARMOUR SAVE by 1) = resultant save of 5+ (for example). That way it would be graduated so Armour Save 5+ vs AP2 (RESULTS IN A LOWER ARMOUR SAVE BY 3) = resultant save of NO ARMOUR SAVE etc. There is probably a simple way of remembering it too.

Fast Reading is a good thing - definitely worth a look.

Multiple saves adds loads to the realism, but could slow things up to the point of frustration. Still worth looking into.

Cheers Laney

I'm not good at seeing behind the math and all, but as long as it does not get closer to the Mordheim rules, where armor is all but useless if your opponents have 4 str and an axe... 50gp full plate negated by an orc with a 5gp axe

Mordheimer wrote:

Tau Squad is on the oven... hopefully it will be released with the new edition of TLRB, along with the Adeptus Arbites and all other Squads (each with its own Codex!)

When? We don't know. LOTS of changes and work for this revision. Basically it is a re-write!

Cook faster!

Laney wrote:

Great feedback.

Agreed the AP thing doesn't work how it should (a table - don't shoot me anyone - of AP vs base armour save, showing resultant armour save to be rolled might work and be relatively fast e.g. Armour Save 4+ vs AP 3 (RESULTS IN A LOWER ARMOUR SAVE by 1) = resultant save of 5+ (for example). That way it would be graduated so Armour Save 5+ vs AP2 (RESULTS IN A LOWER ARMOUR SAVE BY 3) = resultant save of NO ARMOUR SAVE etc. There is probably a simple way of remembering it too.

Fast Reading is a good thing - definitely worth a look.

Multiple saves adds loads to the realism, but could slow things up to the point of frustration. Still worth looking into.

Cheers Laney

You could have multiple saves add a modifier to the best save. For each additional save you improve your save roll by one, a 1 still being auto-fail. Your save is still one die, but you get some benefit from smart play.

Komfritten wrote:

I'm not good at seeing behind the math and all, but as long as it does not get closer to the Mordheim rules, where armor is all but useless if your opponents have 4 str and an axe... 50gp full plate negated by an orc with a 5gp axe

That is EXACTLY what we wanted to avoid from the very beggining. Armor in Mordheim sucks oysters harvested by Nurgle's Aquacultural Products, LLC. Heheheh... that was funny. Sorry. We may do a simple table as Laney suggested... maybe making AP an OPTIONAL rule.

Please post your ideas... they would help the Staff!

s4dfish wrote:

Mordheimer wrote:

Tau Squad is on the oven... hopefully it will be released with the new edition of TLRB, along with the Adeptus Arbites and all other Squads (each with its own Codex!)

When? We don't know. LOTS of changes and work for this revision. Basically it is a re-write!

Cook faster!

HA! Yes, Sir!

I'm glad to have found this forum and this game and you all guys T_T I feel at home here :'D sniff ... finally, people with my same thoughts

If I can help for some rules, my mind is overfilled by gaming ideas ò_ò ask me everything you want!

While I'm not sure I like the way AP works I have the same reservations about the Mordheim armor situation as everyone else, hell even in Necromunda it's use was limited. I'm less convinced by the "too much math" argument. I never found it to add much time to simply modify a roll. You have to consult both the armor save and AP already.

s4dfish wrote:

You could have multiple saves add a modifier to the best save. For each additional save you improve your save roll by one, a 1 still being auto-fail. Your save is still one die, but you get some benefit from smart play.

This seems like a pretty simple option, personally I'm in favor of multiple rolls, but if it has to be just one this seems like a very clean way of accomplishing it. Might actually work in your favor if you have multiple high saves, not sure on the math of it.

What I'm thinking is that AP should be a 'simple' modifier to the roll... something that you should be able to calculate in 5 seconds or less... kindda like To-Hit and shooting.

Something like:

Code:

(AP - Armor Save) -1 = modifier to the roll
NOTE: a natural roll of 1 is always a failure.

For sake of argument, lets see the following table.

Save	AP -	AP 6	AP 5	AP 4	AP 3
6+	+0	-1	-2	-3	-4
5+	+1	+0	-1	-2	-3
4+	+2	+1	+0	-1	-2
3+	+3	+2	+1	+0	-1

A Fighter with Flak Armor & Helmet, this means he has a combined Armor Save of 4+ and thus needs to roll 4+ to Save. If attacked by a weapon with AP 6 (weaker Armor Penetration) thus it would be logical to think that it would be 'easier' to avoid the wound (i.e. succesfully Save) just as if he is attacked by a weapon with AP 3 (stronger Armor Penetration) it would be more likely to 'be' wounded (i.e. fail the Save).

He rolls the Armor Save as normal (VERY IMPORTANT) and then you apply the Modifier to the die roll. If attacked by an AP 6 weapon, then you add +1 to the roll (thus increasing your chances of success). If you are attacked by an AP 3 weapon, the you substract -2 to the roll (thus reducing your chances of success).

How does this work on extremes? Lets see... Mesh Armor (Save 6+) vs Plasma Gun (AP3). Based on fluff, if you are wearing a crappy Mesh Armor and you get blasted by a Plasma Canon, you should end up a giant pile of ash. Let's see if the rule suggestion supports it. You need a 6+ to Save, but you substract -4 to the roll. If you roll a "6", the result would be a "2", thus you FAIL the Save. Makes sense!

So far, so good. What about the other extreme? An Autogun (AP -) used against a Space Marine Power Armor (3+ Save). Fluff would say that the Astartes should be able to shrug the shots, only worry about 'lucky shots' (extreme luck or critical hits). You need a 3+ to Save, but you add a +3 the roll. If you roll a "2", the result would be a "5", thus you PASS the Save. You only fail on a natural roll of "1" (luck) or if the Critical Hit increases the AP (the table would have to be adapted) or negates the save.

While it seems abusive... do you REALLY want to try to shot a Space Marine with an Autogun?

Seems like a simple solution for me... allow some variance, although it increases (slightly) the complexity of the Save. If this is an 'optional' rule, then it should be fine. Personally, I don't think is too much... but by making it optional, we can give some wiggle rule for those who want a speedier game. It does add to the survibability of a Fighter (less chance to fail a Save) when he wears amor, thus favoring armored tanks. Maybe no bonus greater than +1?

Mord I suggest to apply the SM to armor BEFORE roll, it seems much easier to get. Carapace armour 4+, hitted by a Boltgun (-1 mod) is lowered to 5+. I miss something? :O

Hmm. I like the idea and that it can give bonuses rather than just give a penalty. I like that it modifies the roll, the way I read it, that means if you don't get a save you still don't get a roll just because you get shot with AP- (So it doesn't grant a save like daggers did in Mordheim). I'd fully support a rule like this, and if making it optional helps it get into the book then go for it.

I trust you guys to balance the math of it better than I can, but here are my initial thoughts it seems to work well with the two extremes you mentioned. I think you're right that some capping or scaling may be required for bonuses. I think I'd be in favor of scaling the table (though that might make it harder to remember).

Take the marine again (granted power armor will be pretty unique) versus a bolter . Save 3+ vs AP 5 = 2+ save. So the standard marine weapon gives them a 2+ save which doesn't quite feel right, especially when in the old system a bolter was -1 which meant the AP would go from 3+ to 4+. Maybe start the bonus chart one place to the left, so power armor wouldn't get bonuses until AP6, and a 5+ save would never get a bonus.

Justagainst wrote:

Mord I suggest to apply the SM to armor BEFORE roll, it seems much easier to get. Carapace armour 4+, hitted by a Boltgun (-1 mod) is lowered to 5+. I miss something? :O

From a zero FAQ perspective, this is confusing. Since I've played 2ed (and Necromunda and Mordheim) it's natural to me, but what you're actually doing is taking a negative number, and increasing the other number. That just isn't math, in truth. The way it's written as a negative modifier suggests it changes the roll, but as far back as I remember that hasn't been the case.

Justagainst wrote:

Mord I suggest to apply the SM to armor BEFORE roll, it seems much easier to get. Carapace armour 4+, hitted by a Boltgun (-1 mod) is lowered to 5+. I miss something? :O

I understand what you are saying... but it is oen of those weird wording stuff. Read the following like a 5 year old (typical rules-layer player... hehehehe)

Quote :

You have Flak Armor and Helmet, so you need a 4+ to make your Armor Save. Now SUBSTRACT ONE POINT to the Save, so you need a 5+.

Uhhh... ?!?! Remember, read the wording as written... 4 MINUS 1 equals... FIVE??!?! Confusing. Now, we veterans players, understand that a higher Save is WORSE... so a penalty actually adds to the number. So we are cool. The newbies get confused.

The aim of the suggested rule as written is to leave the Armor Save alone. You need what your armor says... period. If you use the AP Rule, you still need the same number (look at the roster at a glance) roll the die and add/substract the modifier from the roll. If the result is the same or more as your Save, you succeed! Basically, you need the same number that is on your roster sheet (fast) and modify the die roll.

I understand that mathematically is the same... but from the (EVIL!!!) rule writing Zero-FAQ (AGGHHHH!!!) stand-point, it makes a difference. Especially if we decide to make this an Optional/Advanced Rule... just substract from the die roll.

Anyhow... what do you think of the alternative solution. Better? More complicated? Suckish? Not good? It is KISS ? Your opinion matters!

Got the point. After all isn't a bad solution.

Just be careful for the "bonus" side. On your table a 3+ save would be overpowered, because most of the weapon have AP5 or worse, so by gaining a 3+ save you roll a 2+ instead far too often.

And what if I get 2+ armor and being hit by a weak weapon? It can't become better. Reroll the save maybe?

Some of those AP values on weapons will be changing with the new version also.
So when this hits the Net to download it should be looking good.