A simple solution to RPS

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • A simple solution to RPS

    Proposal: Replace the +1 combat resolution per rank (up to 3) with +1 automatic wound (with no saves allowed) per full rank beyond the first (up to 3), inflicted at Agility 0. These wounds can only be inflicted to an enemy engaged to this unit's front, and are distributed between units by the opponent.

    Why?
    1. Gives infantry, and especially core infantry, guaranteed value, and a reason to include them in lists.
    2. Makes armies look more like real armies - with an infantry core that doesn't need to be enforced with core points.
    3. Gives single model units a weakness against large infantry blocks, with counterplay available.
    4. Trades off with line formation. (Line formation trades more attacks for no automatic wounds).
    5. Would allow existing hard countermeasures like cannons to be redesigned or reduced in effectiveness without wrecking game balance, which in turn allows people to play less extreme lists (ie, one monster instead of needing to spam).
    6. Would reduce the need to enforce such strict category and model limits
    7. Increases the value of flanking
    8. No saves is essential, as countering uber-characters and cowboys is part of the point.
    9. Fluffy - it doesn't matter how good your armor is when you're surrounded and overwhelmed.

    Oh my poor cavalry!
    1. Cavalry should become cheaper and probably increase unit model limits.
    2. You shouldn't be charging big blocks of infantry in the face with cavalry unless you can annihilate them. You just shouldn't.
    3. KoE lance formation benefits a lot from this too, as they get guaranteed wounds for 3-model ranks. Mitigates rubber lance syndrome.

    Cannons?
    Should be redesigned. Don't need to be so RPS anymore. Recommend refocusing on penetrating hits and damage therefrom, and less multiple wounds. Also, no ignoring cover. Probably a significant price decrease as well, and maybe more relaxed per army limits.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • cptcosmic wrote:

    or how to wreck mmu msu and in general all lower body count armies... :thumbdown:
    I'm an MSU enthusiast. I guarantee this would barely affect real MSU (ie, 10-person infantry-unit-based armies).

    The whole goal of MSU is to hit big units with multiple small units. The guaranteed hits happen at Agility 0. If you crush them before Agility 0, they get fewer attacks because it only checks ranks then. And if you're playing MSU right, you're going to be doing a lot of work in the flanks, where they can't hit you with it. Meanwhile, they no longer get +CR for ranks, so if you only hit them in the flanks/rear, you're actually better off than present. In the worst case, sure, they lose a couple extra models against big units not in line formation. Units are expendable, it's fine. And the MSU army gets to choose which unit takes the wounds.

    MMU has an even better time of it, because it only takes 4 ranks to max out auto-wounds. MMU should easily be able to get that.

    Does it hurt single-model focused play? Yes it does. Because single-model focused play is degenerate - and the whole point is to encourage them to field troops along with their single models because those troops fulfill a real and necessary role. Part of countering RPS play is making the extreme units not so good all-around, with glaring and exploitable weaknesses.

    Obviously there would be some point adjustments. I'd suggest that lower body count (infantry) armies should be scoring more kills per model anyway, which would decrease the amount of guaranteed damage they suffer back. And if your enemy is in line formation, they get no benefit anyway.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

    I'm willing to play-test this version.
    Seems like VS, DH, EoS, O&G, UD, any large block Infantry Armies, would really benefit from this more than Elven kind though.
    I'd note that my armies include DE, ID, UD (monster mash - no big infantry blocks), EoS (gunline/MSU), and DL - and I'd happily play with this rule. But point costs and some designs are clearly wrong - this isn't a simple 'change this and nothing else' fix. I'd want to look at all war machine rules, and all cavalry costs and model limits.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • @Squirrelloid

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    allows people to play less extreme lists (ie, one monster instead of needing to spam).

    What makes you think that this wouldn't cause the game to settle into a new equilibrium where, instead of either spamming monsters or taking none, people just take none?

    Think about it: if 5 monsters are bad where you get to use the mobility of the monsters to 3v1 a unit, how is one monster going to be viable?

    Don't think about this idea as having the consequences you want it to have, think about the idea as if it fell out of the sky and try to work forward to deduce the consequences.

    In general, a Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic is very likely to arise in any sort of conflict or war. When you can build lists and when there are category restrictions, this will make the game regulate itself to some extent. If you give infantry a freewin against monsters, then it's possible that monsters will just get dropped in favor of more infantry.
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    @Squirrelloid

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    allows people to play less extreme lists (ie, one monster instead of needing to spam).
    What makes you think that this wouldn't cause the game to settle into a new equilibrium where, instead of either spamming monsters or taking none, people just take none?

    Think about it: if 5 monsters are bad where you get to use the mobility of the monsters to 3v1 a unit, how is one monster going to be viable?

    Don't think about this idea as having the consequences you want it to have, think about the idea as if it fell out of the sky and try to work forward to deduce the consequences.

    In general, a Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic is very likely to arise in any sort of conflict or war. When you can build lists and when there are category restrictions, this will make the game regulate itself to some extent. If you give infantry a freewin against monsters, then it's possible that monsters will just get dropped in favor of more infantry.
    Because monsters still have a role. They're tremendous force multipliers alongside infantry. It's just now they need to be supported by infantry, and can't just run in alone (unless they're on a flank or rear, then they're fine).

    It's far better when the game's design encourages you to balance your own list rather than rely on ad hoc category and model limits to do so. There are no category limits in real life, yet modern militaries use a mix of forces, because all of them are stronger together.

    But the reason less spam would be playable doesn't just have to do with the monster still having a role, but also with reducing the extreme nature of the counters to monsters, because they no longer need to be so extreme. If cannons only had MW2, for example, it would be a lot more plausible to field just a single monster.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    yet modern militaries use a mix of forces
    the analogy couldnt be more wrong. if T9A would work like modern warfare we would have wizards flying on mounts bombing down everything and the only thing those wizards would have to fear are other wizards on flying mounts because no weapon can reach or catch you. once you have air superiority and everything is destroyed you can send ground troops to clean up the survivors.
  • @cptcosmic:

    I was asking for an Archmage on Ancient Dragon for so long :D .

    On a more serious note: The last official answer I got was mentioning the fact that an Archmage could exploit the attribute from the Lore of Life.

    Yes that long ago :) .
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • Jarek wrote:

    So my turbo WDG lord now dies when i charge 21 infantry models with champion? Nice...
    Technically he's immune while in the challenge, I think, as you can't distribute hits to him.

    But more relevantly - bring a unit to support him. He shouldn't be charging into an infantry unit alone. It doesn't matter how good a fighter he is if he gets surrounded. A heavily armored knight alone is easily dispatched by 20 peasants.

    Edit: And characters could probably get a little cheaper with this change, too.

    cptcosmic wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    yet modern militaries use a mix of forces
    the analogy couldnt be more wrong. if T9A would work like modern warfare we would have wizards flying on mounts bombing down everything and the only thing those wizards would have to fear are other wizards on flying mounts because no weapon can reach or catch you. once you have air superiority and everything is destroyed you can send ground troops to clean up the survivors.
    This is comically missing the point. No one said T9A should function exactly like modern militaries. (And air support isn't immune to ground-based weaponry. There are plenty of SAMs available). Just that better design would naturally lead to more balanced armies because different unit types need each other to function optimally.

    And I know it's been a long time since we've had a major power war. But the ground war doesn't just stop if you can't secure air superiority. And it wasn't that long ago that the US lost in Vietnam despite clear air superiority.

    Modern militaries still have cavalry (air support = light cav, armor = heavy cav), artillery, and infantry. They all work together to secure mission objectives. Even when you can secure air superiority, you still need to send in ground forces. You can't win with only air forces.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Squirrelloid ().

  • Aegon wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    And air support isn't immune to ground-based weaponry. There are plenty of SAMs available
    Are you talking about these brand new anti-air goblin-cannons? :D
    I was talking about modern military forces.

    But yes, if T9A decided to treat air units like actual air support instead of just ground units that can jump things, then I'd expect every army would have anti-air tech/units/something.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Aegon wrote:

    @Squirrelloid:

    I heard there were actually rules for "flying high" at some point during the warhammer era, is that right?
    Once long ago. Like 5th edition. Those were objectively bad, even as air support rules.

    Real air support rules would be something like Flyer rules from 40k. (Keep in mind the last edition I played was 5th, so I'm referring to those flyer rules). Possibly with teh ability to hover for some air units (but be much easier to hit while doing so), or even land (but then you're not flying until you lift off - which would probably eat your movement phase).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Because monsters still have a role. They're tremendous force multipliers alongside infantry. It's just now they need to be supported by infantry, and can't just run in alone (unless they're on a flank or rear, then they're fine).
    It's extremely unclear to me it that would actually work out like that.
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Because monsters still have a role. They're tremendous force multipliers alongside infantry. It's just now they need to be supported by infantry, and can't just run in alone (unless they're on a flank or rear, then they're fine).
    It's extremely unclear to me it that would actually work out like that.
    I've used both chariots and monsters like that in the current rules. Corner-hugging with a model with powerful offense limits attacks back at it.

    The only real issue would be for undead units, because crumble disincentivizes monster/infantry cooperation, so that might need looking at.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I've used both chariots and monsters like that in the current rules. Corner-hugging with a model with powerful offense limits attacks back at it.
    Sure, that's a very nice combo, but I think the game would look quite different if monsters auto-die to goblins. Suppose your infantry unit fails the charge? Or gets chaffed?

    The unit that actually works like this is the chariot. Goblin wolf chariots are 125 points, and they basically have the rule that if you get an infantry fight WITH a chariot, you might win quite easily, but if the chariot goes in alone it is guaranteed to die or flee. I don't think that that's a good role for monsters, they would be too cheap and expendable.

    It's also really unrealistic that a big unit of goblins can kill a dragon over 1 game turn, though I generally look at gameplay first and fluff second.
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    I've used both chariots and monsters like that in the current rules. Corner-hugging with a model with powerful offense limits attacks back at it.
    Sure, that's a very nice combo, but I think the game would look quite different if monsters auto-die to goblins. Suppose your infantry unit fails the charge? Or gets chaffed?
    The unit that actually works like this is the chariot. Goblin wolf chariots are 125 points, and they basically have the rule that if you get an infantry fight WITH a chariot, you might win quite easily, but if the chariot goes in alone it is guaranteed to die or flee. I don't think that that's a good role for monsters, they would be too cheap and expendable.

    It's also really unrealistic that a big unit of goblins can kill a dragon over 1 game turn, though I generally look at gameplay first and fluff second.
    Not that unrealistic. We have historical examples of monsters: Elephants. When surrounded by enemy infantry, they were easily dispatched with long spears, or forced to panic. A dragon that is surrounded by goblins would be killed in short order - it cannot defend itself effectively from tons of attacks from all sides, some of which will get between scales or find other vulnerable places, just by sheer weight of numbers. And that's precisely what infantry would do against a lone dragon - swarm it. Because that's how you deal with a hard to injure target which is vastly outnumbered.

    We have plenty of examples of heavily armored and well-trained knights which were overwhelmed by superior numbers, too. Numbers matter. A lot. There's no defense which can survive being overwhelmed.

    So you think it's unrealistic. But history disagrees with you.

    And a game turn is like an hour of battle. Plenty of time to disable and kill an exposed dragon.

    But expendable? Only if you're an idiot and put them in a place where they're expendable. You shouldn't be running your dragon into a big block of goblins anyway. And if monsters get a little cheaper as a result, isn't that better for people who want to play with some monsters?

    But basically you're complaining that monsters should be heavily RPS. And no, they shouldn't. The RPS in the game is degenerate, which is why we need all these ugly hacks like category percentages and model number limits. If there were more natural counters, you wouldn't need to tie peoples' hands. (And it's not like there isn't counter-play here. Hit a unit in the flank and you avoid the auto-wounds entirely).

    It would be better for everyone if things like cannons didn't need to be virtual auto-kills against monsters, and that means that monsters need vulnerabilities which prevent them from just blithely charging whatever they want.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ