One of the big advantages of the bespoke psychic power system is that it potentially adds "stronger psychic powers" as a nob to turn to balance characters against each other. You can afford for the Exalted Sorcerer's powers to just be better than the regular Sorcerer's.
I will also look forward to being able to get the basic math fixers that everyone else gets without having to clear three failure points first
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
No, its just a decision you don't like.
We need a lot more context to judge it as 'terrible.' Or good.
Should the Combi-Flamer hit the same as a Combi-Melta vs various targets, yes or no?
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
No, its just a decision you don't like.
We need a lot more context to judge it as 'terrible.' Or good.
Should the Combi-Flamer hit the same as a Combi-Melta vs various targets, yes or no?
You've answered a point with a question that's answered by the point above it. You're just trying to word around it.
To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".
Some other things shown in this article which I think are a strong sign that Ork stats may stay static.
The Weirdboy stays T5, loses a wound, improved armour save. Has the same WS3 A3 S8 AP1 Dd3 with his staff, doesn't have Smite at all. Explodes when he dies, love it.
The Terminator Librarian has a 4++ and T5 like a regular Terminator.
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
You can try to justify knighting it, but it's obvious that combining Combi-Weapons like this is terrible decision making.
No, its just a decision you don't like.
We need a lot more context to judge it as 'terrible.' Or good.
Should the Combi-Flamer hit the same as a Combi-Melta vs various targets, yes or no?
You've answered a point with a question that's answered by the point above it. You're just trying to word around it.
To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".
They shouldn't have the same profile because Flamers and Meltas don't have the same profile. Real rocket science there.
Arachnofiend wrote: One of the big advantages of the bespoke psychic power system is that it potentially adds "stronger psychic powers" as a nob to turn to balance characters against each other. You can afford for the Exalted Sorcerer's powers to just be better than the regular Sorcerer's.
I will also look forward to being able to get the basic math fixers that everyone else gets without having to clear three failure points first
It also accepts the fact that many powers were just guns you'd go about firing in a very convoluted way anyway - especially some of the chaos powers became quite ridiculous, roll 2D6 to determine the number of D6s you roll, everyone that comes up 6 causes a Mortal Wound... much rolling for something that was ultimately not very far from D3 Mortal Wounds anyway.
Doing your baseline offensive powers as 'guns' is much faster, allows to plug into all sorts of ready-made weapon abilities for convenience, and still leaves enough room to let the truly special powers be special. It's a sensible decision.
EightFoldPath wrote: Some other things shown in this article which I think are a strong sign that Ork stats may stay static.
The Weirdboy stays T5, loses a wound, improved armour save. Has the same WS3 A3 S8 AP1 Dd3 with his staff, doesn't have Smite at all. Explodes when he dies, love it.
The Terminator Librarian has a 4++ and T5 like a regular Terminator.
Unless that ends up being a typo, Orks are going to M 6"
EviscerationPlague wrote: They shouldn't have the same profile because Flamers and Meltas don't have the same profile. Real rocket science there.
Ok, but what about combi-grav? We both know you think Grav should just become plasma, but grav has a profile now? Are you upset that the different bolt rifle variants have condensed profiles? Power weapons?
Are you also then going to slate GW when they can't pin point precisely balance the dozen of potential loadouts on a simple battleline squad because everything has to have a separate points and profile for you?
I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
Well given the alternative in GW land is:
1 per X has combi-A
1 per X has combi-B
1 per X has combi-C
1 per X has combi-D
In some cases it should be a welcome change to those who hate the finnicky loadout rules and/or if they don't do that, having to hunt/convert 5 of whatever meta flavour combi weapon is in that week.
EviscerationPlague wrote: They shouldn't have the same profile because Flamers and Meltas don't have the same profile. Real rocket science there.
Ok, but what about combi-grav? We both know you think Grav should just become plasma, but grav has a profile now? Are you upset that the different bolt rifle variants have condensed profiles? Power weapons?
Are you also then going to slate GW when they can't pin point precisely balance the dozen of potential loadouts on a simple battleline squad because everything has to have a separate points and profile for you?
Grav doesn't have a niche that wasn't filled by Plasma in the first place
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
It reduces bloat in that it removes a handul of options with overlapping use-cases and pretty situational benefits in favor of a condensed profil, which imho is an acceptable trade-off and becomes outright sensible once you consider edge cases like Deatwatch teams or some of the more esoteric Veteran units and the extreme amount of different loadouts they could otherwise have. You can still have the more specific combi-weapons like the melta or flamer as a skill on these units if they absolutely need to exist, but on characters the difference rarely matters or matters only situationally.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
They didn't have unique profiles before, they just had Bolter+ whatever Special Weapon was on there. It was pretty straight forward.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
They didn't have unique profiles before, they just had Bolter+ whatever Special Weapon was on there. It was pretty straight forward.
Those are all unique profiles though. I don't mean completely different from anything else, just that it's a unique thing that has to be balanced.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
They didn't have unique profiles before, they just had Bolter+ whatever Special Weapon was on there. It was pretty straight forward.
Those are all unique profiles though. I don't mean completely different from anything else, just that it's a unique thing that has to be balanced.
I think it's likely relevant that the bulk of people upset by this, I'd wager are because they added in combi melta or whatever to maximise the efficiency or purpose of a designated unit. Termicide squads, sternguard out of pods etc.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
They didn't have unique profiles before, they just had Bolter+ whatever Special Weapon was on there. It was pretty straight forward.
Those are all unique profiles though. I don't mean completely different from anything else, just that it's a unique thing that has to be balanced.
Wah?
Oh no. . . effort?
Do you actually have a point or are you just chiming in with "witty" asides? Extra complexity doesn't lead to effort, it leads to GW publishing imbalanced rules.
Dudeface wrote: I think it's likely relevant that the bulk of people upset by this, I'd wager are because they added in combi melta or whatever to maximise the efficiency or purpose of a designated unit. Termicide squads, sternguard out of pods etc.
Yes, i get that, but we don't even know that all combi-weapons are the same yet - depending on the profile, a combi-weapon on e.g. a Terminator chaplain could easily have a 'flamer' mode, the weapon name basically mean nothing anymore anyway. Deathwatch could have a single gun profile that presents their various modded bolters and special ammo, and a rule like the Tyranids hyper-adaptation that allowed them to tack a special trait onto them each turn depending on what the situation requires, representing them using the adequate gubbins for the job.
Dudeface wrote: I think it's likely relevant that the bulk of people upset by this, I'd wager are because they added in combi melta or whatever to maximise the efficiency or purpose of a designated unit. Termicide squads, sternguard out of pods etc.
Yes, i get that, but we don't even know that all combi-weapons are the same yet - depending on the profile, a combi-weapon on e.g. a Terminator chaplain could easily have a 'flamer' mode, the weapon name basically mean nothing anymore anyway. Deathwatch could have a single gun profile that presents their various modded bolters and special ammo, and a rule like the Tyranids hyper-adaptation that allowed them to tack a special trait onto them each turn depending on what the situation requires, representing them using the adequate gubbins for the job.
Oh I know, what I was getting at is a lot of people have spammed a loadout historically, likely to leverage a rules loophole/situation, will now be annoyed they can't do that any more.
Some are a bit weird to me, I doubt a unit of chaos terminators would strap in with combi meltas to just appear, kill a tank and die, for example. Likewise the lovely Emperor's Children blob of recent years with 10 combi plasma that drop in, shoot twice and charge. There's no fluff choice there, it's simply just trying to leverage a rules/loadout that's a temporary flavour of the season.
So for those, I'm glad it's gone. I'm glad people don't have to hunt bits to make a unit that makes sense. I'm glad we don't end up with stupid loadout limitations. It'll be nice not to have an obvious "best" option to tack onto a unit.
Do you actually have a point or are you just chiming in with "witty" asides? Extra complexity doesn't lead to effort, it leads to GW publishing imbalanced rules.
The point is that GW appears to not want to put in the effort that some of us expect? I thought that was pretty clear.
Dudeface wrote: I think it's likely relevant that the bulk of people upset by this, I'd wager are because they added in combi melta or whatever to maximise the efficiency or purpose of a designated unit. Termicide squads, sternguard out of pods etc.
I've been happily switching my Special/Combi/Heavy loadouts for the past . . . 25+ years or so. I feel no inconvenience regarding weapon swaps.
One could make an argument that GW wants to move away from that model so that people have to switch UNITS around, incentivizing more model purchases. But I also haven't seen the rest of the rules yet.
But for me personally? Pouring through the options, looking at point costs, expected use cases, mathhammering some stats out, is where I get a lot of enjoyment from the game. (and I know it's not just me). I don't want to see that go. I also don't want to see the individual character of these classic weapons and units getting mashed out of existence in a chase for "balance", especially when the argument for "balance" is being used to speed up churn or whatever.
I'll wait until full release, but atm I don't like what I see.
Do you actually have a point or are you just chiming in with "witty" asides? Extra complexity doesn't lead to effort, it leads to GW publishing imbalanced rules.
The point is that GW appears to not want to put in the effort that some of us expect? I thought that was pretty clear.
First off these things aren't just about effort. A lot of balance comes from the discipline to limit the surface area that needs to be balanced.
Second don't you think it's a little ironic to complain about effort when you didn't even put in the effort to write a coherent thought out?
I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
novembermike wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see psychic powers as enhancements. Psykers will have the default ones, and then instead of giving them a spicy gun or whatever you can give them Warp Time.
Wouldn't want a player to exceed the regulation amount of fun now, would we?
Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
More rules and less restrictions makes for a spectacle, but not necessarily a great game. 9th is a fun and fluffy system, but it is now terribly difficult to manage.
I am sad to lose much of my customizability, but I am excited to play a tighter game where everyone is having a good time rather than just those with enough time to process rules from all the new codexes each month or two. It is a sacrifice I am ok with given how much more interesting other aspects of the game seem to becoming.
To me this just brings back the comparison to D&D 4th edition.
The most common description of which was "It's a decent game, but it's not D&D".
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
Well given the alternative in GW land is:
1 per X has combi-A
1 per X has combi-B
1 per X has combi-C
1 per X has combi-D
In some cases it should be a welcome change to those who hate the finnicky loadout rules and/or if they don't do that, having to hunt/convert 5 of whatever meta flavour combi weapon is in that week.
I feel like this is the real reason. All those broad datasheets trying to accommodate multiple loadouts. Now it just all gets condensed, but units with more prevalent loadouts ( Devastators keep all their tools ).
I think the problem will be -- how do you make Sternguard feel special? It's going to be in whatever ability they gain as a result, I suppose.
Arachnofiend wrote: One of the big advantages of the bespoke psychic power system is that it potentially adds "stronger psychic powers" as a nob to turn to balance characters against each other. You can afford for the Exalted Sorcerer's powers to just be better than the regular Sorcerer's.
I will also look forward to being able to get the basic math fixers that everyone else gets without having to clear three failure points first
It also accepts the fact that many powers were just guns you'd go about firing in a very convoluted way anyway - especially some of the chaos powers became quite ridiculous, roll 2D6 to determine the number of D6s you roll, everyone that comes up 6 causes a Mortal Wound... much rolling for something that was ultimately not very far from D3 Mortal Wounds anyway.
Doing your baseline offensive powers as 'guns' is much faster, allows to plug into all sorts of ready-made weapon abilities for convenience, and still leaves enough room to let the truly special powers be special. It's a sensible decision.
Totally. I'm also happy that this (probably) means we can go back to having witchfires with a variety of profiles and preferred targets instead of just a bunch of mortal wound generators.
That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
EDIT: Regarding combi-weapons, was there anything wrong with the old system of treating them as a one-shot version of another weapon? I know it added a smidgeon of bookkeeping, but made sense and created the interesting choice of when to pop the special profile. Alternatively, we could just have them be treated as both a bolter and a special weapon and be done with it. I don't think it would gamebreaking if sergeants could shoot a flamer and a bolter at the same time without penalty.
novembermike wrote: I can't say that merging the combi weapons makes me happy but they're rare enough that the various options all having their own stats is kind of pointless. It's also hard to visually differentiate some of the combi-gun options. This seems like a good game design decision.
They didn't have unique profiles before, they just had Bolter+ whatever Special Weapon was on there. It was pretty straight forward.
Those are all unique profiles though. I don't mean completely different from anything else, just that it's a unique thing that has to be balanced.
Wah?
Oh no. . . effort?
Do you actually have a point or are you just chiming in with "witty" asides? Extra complexity doesn't lead to effort, it leads to GW publishing imbalanced rules.
Arachnofiend wrote: One of the big advantages of the bespoke psychic power system is that it potentially adds "stronger psychic powers" as a nob to turn to balance characters against each other. You can afford for the Exalted Sorcerer's powers to just be better than the regular Sorcerer's.
I will also look forward to being able to get the basic math fixers that everyone else gets without having to clear three failure points first
It also accepts the fact that many powers were just guns you'd go about firing in a very convoluted way anyway - especially some of the chaos powers became quite ridiculous, roll 2D6 to determine the number of D6s you roll, everyone that comes up 6 causes a Mortal Wound... much rolling for something that was ultimately not very far from D3 Mortal Wounds anyway.
Doing your baseline offensive powers as 'guns' is much faster, allows to plug into all sorts of ready-made weapon abilities for convenience, and still leaves enough room to let the truly special powers be special. It's a sensible decision.
Totally. I'm also happy that this (probably) means we can go back to having witchfires with a variety of profiles and preferred targets instead of just a bunch of mortal wound generators.
That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
EDIT: Regarding combi-weapons, was there anything wrong with the old system of treating them as a one-shot version of another weapon? I know it added a smidgeon of bookkeeping, but made sense and created the interesting choice of when to pop the special profile. Alternatively, we could just have them be treated as both a bolter and a special weapon and be done with it. I don't think it would gamebreaking if sergeants could shoot a flamer and a bolter at the same time without penalty.
Single shot versions create memory problems. It's not that bad when a vehicle has a single shot thing like a seeker missile but if you have 27 guys with combi-weapons and you need to keep track of whether the guy that shot his flamer died this fight phase or didn't it gets weird.
vipoid wrote: To me this just brings back the comparison to D&D 4th edition.
The most common description of which was "It's a decent game, but it's not D&D".
Sure. A potentially apt comparison, however, I feel like it comes from a baseline of what we have in 9th. Prior editions spoiled us on unit options, but not so much in compelling rules outside of that. The definition of what 40K is, is a little more nebulous.
Polonius wrote: I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
How is it more choice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: EDIT: Regarding combi-weapons, was there anything wrong with the old system of treating them as a one-shot version of another weapon? I know it added a smidgeon of bookkeeping, but made sense and created the interesting choice of when to pop the special profile. Alternatively, we could just have them be treated as both a bolter and a special weapon and be done with it. I don't think it would gamebreaking if sergeants could shoot a flamer and a bolter at the same time without penalty.
Keeping track of single-shot combi-s was a little tedious. I felt that the way 8th-9th handled them was fine. IIrc, in 2nd edition a combi-weapon worked the same way, it was just two guns and there was no "one-shot" limitation.
novembermike wrote: Single shot versions create memory problems. It's not that bad when a vehicle has a single shot thing like a seeker missile but if you have 27 guys with combi-weapons and you need to keep track of whether the guy that shot his flamer died this fight phase or didn't it gets weird.
I think this is just like it is, because it's simpler overall.
Sternguard with combi-flamer are very different than Sternguard with combi-melta. This creates an issue on measuring the value of that unit across games.
Why not just adjust the points accordingly? Because points don't always convey the problem at hand and often there isn't enough granularity to accomplish that. Even still you can wind up making glass cannons or OP units.
What if instead Sternguard had a really interesting ability that made them way more interesting than "combi-melta sterngaurd" or "combi-flamer sternguard"? Look at Intercessors. Their boltgun is super cool. It allows for interesting tactical flexibility. The same could happen here - especially if they bring back an actual special ammo ability.
Daedalus81 wrote: Given how much bloat was a complaint? Yes, probably.
I don't think people are complaining there being too many options of wargear to personalise your characters.
The fact we had pages of "options", and only a few were relevant, that's called bloat, so yes we do complain about it.
I'd also argue that after 9 editions of GW being unable to balance those options against each other that the system never supported said balance to begin with.
Which is why I say that the options belonged to the Dungeons and Dragons version of Warhammer, whereas the new game appears to be more of a wargame.
Polonius wrote: I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
How is it more choice?
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, if your choices are between 1 good item and 4 bad items, you don't really have a choice. Better to have 2 equally good things to choose between.
And that is what you are seeing here. The Stormbolter is better than the Combi-weapon until you start shooting at high Toughness and/or Good Save Infantry. It has the benefit of more attacks, but the Combi-weapon does Mortal Wounds to Infantry on a Wound Roll of 4+ (Anti-Infanty 4+, Devastating Wounds). So a Stormbolter is twice as effective as a Combi-Weapon into Guardsmen, which the Combi-weapon is over 3 times as effective as a Stormbolter into Terminators. Funnily enough, they are roughly equal into a Space Marine (T4, Sv 3+).
Yeah, and I could imagine that for sternguard the SIBolter would be a long range option and the combis would be short ranged. On sergeants it might be about the choice between a combi-gun and a hand flamer or plasma pistol. Those all become real choices rather than just combi-plas > combi-pistol.
Polonius wrote: I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
How is it more choice?
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, if your choices are between 1 good item and 4 bad items, you don't really have a choice. Better to have 2 equally good things to choose between.
And that is what you are seeing here. The Stormbolter is better than the Combi-weapon until you start shooting at high Toughness and/or Good Save Infantry. It has the benefit of more attacks, but the Combi-weapon does Mortal Wounds to Infantry on a Wound Roll of 4+ (Anti-Infanty 4+, Devastating Wounds). So a Stormbolter is twice as effective as a Combi-Weapon into Guardsmen, which the Combi-weapon is over 3 times as effective as a Stormbolter into Terminators. Funnily enough, they are roughly equal into a Space Marine (T4, Sv 3+).
Hmm. Interesting. It actually seems relatively compelling. I think I would go Combi all the time personally, but then again hordes could be a real thing now...
Polonius wrote: I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
How is it more choice?
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, if your choices are between 1 good item and 4 bad items, you don't really have a choice. Better to have 2 equally good things to choose between.
And that is what you are seeing here. The Stormbolter is better than the Combi-weapon until you start shooting at high Toughness and/or Good Save Infantry. It has the benefit of more attacks, but the Combi-weapon does Mortal Wounds to Infantry on a Wound Roll of 4+ (Anti-Infanty 4+, Devastating Wounds). So a Stormbolter is twice as effective as a Combi-Weapon into Guardsmen, which the Combi-weapon is over 3 times as effective as a Stormbolter into Terminators. Funnily enough, they are roughly equal into a Space Marine (T4, Sv 3+).
Hmm. Interesting. It actually seems relatively compelling. I think I would go Combi all the time personally, but then again hordes could be a real thing now...
Probably the better choice if your targets are always Infantry with a decent mix of MEQ or better. But what if your opponent uses lots of Monsters, Calvary, or of hordes of light Infantry? The Stormbolter is then clearly better with better BS and higher rate of fire.
Dudeface wrote: I think it's likely relevant that the bulk of people upset by this, I'd wager are because they added in combi melta or whatever to maximise the efficiency or purpose of a designated unit. Termicide squads, sternguard out of pods etc.
As long as my Chaos Chosen get to keep all thier combis.....
I recently built 2 full Chosen squads, each sporting the max # of combis allowed.
Polonius wrote: I would say that eliminating four different combi weapons for a single character, and just balancing it against a storm bolter is a pretty elegant way to have fewer options, but more choice.
Making things simpler is sometimes going to mean that one of a codexes literally dozens of characters will go from having five weapon options to two. I think we'll surive.
How is it more choice?
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, if your choices are between 1 good item and 4 bad items, you don't really have a choice. Better to have 2 equally good things to choose between.
And that is what you are seeing here. The Stormbolter is better than the Combi-weapon until you start shooting at high Toughness and/or Good Save Infantry. It has the benefit of more attacks, but the Combi-weapon does Mortal Wounds to Infantry on a Wound Roll of 4+ (Anti-Infanty 4+, Devastating Wounds). So a Stormbolter is twice as effective as a Combi-Weapon into Guardsmen, which the Combi-weapon is over 3 times as effective as a Stormbolter into Terminators. Funnily enough, they are roughly equal into a Space Marine (T4, Sv 3+).
You COULD argue that . . .
But I'd counter with the fact that there were at least 3 compelling choices before, Storm Bolter, Combi-Plas, and Combi-Melta. So for me it's a flat reduction of choice. Also, one could have increased the choice simply by making the other options better (combi-grav and flamer).
A very interesting point regarding hordes. You're not gonna lose them all in one turn if the enemy kills 15 models and you don't have morale mitigation. Your opponent will be able to hold an objective with as little as one model though, the unit will be more flimsy or weaker due to no stratagem access. And falling back being worse is interesting too.
novembermike wrote: Yeah, and I could imagine that for sternguard the SIBolter would be a long range option and the combis would be short ranged. On sergeants it might be about the choice between a combi-gun and a hand flamer or plasma pistol. Those all become real choices rather than just combi-plas > combi-pistol.
The ONLY reason it's not a choice right now is because GW, in their idiocy, removed the points costs for the upgrades! I ran the base Sternguard Squad with pure SI bolters faily often when it was the "cheap" version of the unit.
novembermike wrote: Single shot versions create memory problems. It's not that bad when a vehicle has a single shot thing like a seeker missile but if you have 27 guys with combi-weapons and you need to keep track of whether the guy that shot his flamer died this fight phase or didn't it gets weird.
I think this is just like it is, because it's simpler overall.
Sternguard with combi-flamer are very different than Sternguard with combi-melta. This creates an issue on measuring the value of that unit across games.
Why not just adjust the points accordingly? Because points don't always convey the problem at hand and often there isn't enough granularity to accomplish that. Even still you can wind up making glass cannons or OP units.
Ah yes, the good ol' "what if you don't run into the best target? What if GW didn't balance points? Best scrap everything" argument.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Ah yes, the good ol' "what if you don't run into the best target? What if GW didn't balance points? Best scrap everything" argument.
Trying to make it sound easy doesn't make it easy.
cody.d. wrote: A very interesting point regarding hordes. You're not gonna lose them all in one turn if the enemy kills 15 models and you don't have morale mitigation. Your opponent will be able to hold an objective with as little as one model though, the unit will be more flimsy or weaker due to no stratagem access. And falling back being worse is interesting too.
True. If large squad sizes stop being a liability (morale changes and maybe blast changes?) and lethality is going down, the points cost of horde units are going to be extra important. I wonder if we'll see some of the defensive changes meant to help hordes survive go away now that lethality is being toned down. For instance, do we think orks will go back to being T4? (Probably not given that the wyrd boy is still T5, but I can hope; flamers hurting orks on a 5+ makes me sad.)
EviscerationPlague wrote: Ah yes, the good ol' "what if you don't run into the best target? What if GW didn't balance points? Best scrap everything" argument.
Trying to make it sound easy doesn't make it easy.
Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Insectum7 wrote: Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.
Insectum7 wrote: Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.
I'm gonna go with poor design choice and lack of effort on GWs part, and reiterate That the near-autistic drive for balance has a high probability of ruining some of what a lot of people enjoy about the game. Praise Be To The Balance God!
Aka: 40k should totally be more like chess, amirite? /sarcasm
Insectum7 wrote: Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.
I'm gonna go with poor design choice and lack of effort on GWs part, and reiterate That the near-autistic drive for balance has a high probability of ruining some of what a lot of people enjoy about the game. Praise Be To The Balance God!
Aka: 40k should totally be more like chess, amirite? /sarcasm
If by 'more like chess' you mean 'should the 40K rules be simpler?' then it seems that GW, and I'm sure a lot of players, do agree. From GW's perspective I'm sure it makes sense too, a simpler game is going to be easier to manage and balance. Whether that drives a meaningful number of people away from the game remains to be seen.
Combi-weapons though seems like an odd hill to plant a flag on, this apparent change really on affects a tiny number of units, across a handful of factions.
I'm becoming less enthused with each of these reveals. 9th has it's problems and I'll reserve final judgement, but if I had to choose between bloat or no choices I'll take bloat.
Brewing is one of the most enjoyable aspects for me. I really hope that doesn't get homogenized in the quest for perfect balance.
Also I am concerned that certain factions will get screwed. Marines for example have a billion HQ data sheets but drukhari has very few. So forced joining units is not a big problem for SM. But drukhari probably won't be seeing an archon alongside grots or succubus with incubi. This new approach just seems worse for less supported factions.
Insectum7 wrote: Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.
I'm gonna go with poor design choice and lack of effort on GWs part, and reiterate That the near-autistic drive for balance has a high probability of ruining some of what a lot of people enjoy about the game. Praise Be To The Balance God!
Aka: 40k should totally be more like chess, amirite? /sarcasm
If by 'more like chess' you mean 'should the 40K rules be simpler?' then it seems that GW, and I'm sure a lot of players, do agree. From GW's perspective I'm sure it makes sense too, a simpler game is going to be easier to manage and balance. Whether that drives a meaningful number of people away from the game remains to be seen.
Simpler rules is a fine goal. If 8th proved out anything it was that accessibility and ease of learning 40K was a very valuable thing to have. I'm perfectly fine with the aim of simpler rules.
By 'chess' I mean achieving balance through removing options and customizeability. Chess is balanced, but there are no options.
Combi-weapons though seems like an odd hill to plant a flag on, this apparent change really on affects a tiny number of units, across a handful of factions.
Am I planting a flag? Maybe. . . The idea that it affects only a handful of units is quite untrue though. As a First/True/Realborn Marine player it actually affects about every infantry unit I've tended to field in the last six years or so. Tactical Squads, Sternguard Squads, Devastator Squads, Scouts and Characters. Plus Combi weapons also show up on Primaris and Sisters of Battle, if I'm not mistaken.
But also, (and since we haven't seen the rest of what's coming I don't know which direction this is going) there are two outcomes that would seem to arise from the Combi-precedent:
1: The traditional array of Special Weapons are getting squashed into one profile, which would suck.
or
2: The Combi-Weapon is now it's own new gun, rather than simply having it be an assembly of two already existing guns. . . in which case it's actually not consolidating, and making it's own, new, bespoke thing. Which is sorta the opposite of simplifying. You've reduced the options, sure, but created a new, unique and unnecessary profile in the process.
or I guess 3: You got to buy the codex to get your real Combi's back. . . That's a possibility
Insectum7 wrote: By 'chess' I mean achieving balance through removing options and customizeability. Chess is balanced, but there are no options.
Chess has many options just none that come before the game starts. It's even highly customizable such that one could easily build a 40k chess set with each figure nicely painted and posed.
Am I planting a flag? Maybe. . . The idea that it affects only a handful of units is quite untrue though. As a First/True/Realborn Marine player it actually affects about every infantry unit I've tended to field in the last six years or so. Tactical Squads, Sternguard Squads, Devastator Squads, Scouts and Characters. Plus Combi weapons also show up on Primaris and Sisters of Battle, if I'm not mistaken.
It sounds like you might want to play your whole codex instead of hampering yourself and then asking for buffs that allow half a faction to compete equally with full codices.
Wyldhunt wrote: That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.
Wyldhunt wrote: That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.
I can sympathize with that design goal. On the other hand, part of me worries that we're going to see them handing out a wide variety of special abilities to similar-but-different models. So like, terminator librarian has the powers previewed, power armor librarian has some different power entirely, primaris librarian gets something else, phobos librarian gets something else... And then you have the farseer with two options in the form of bike or no bike and wyrd boy with no option at all.
Or maybe they don't do that. Either way, I still think I'd prefer a little variety, even if it's just swapping out one of the default powers with one of, let's say, threeish options. My favorite part of the game is being able to give my army its own personality (especially through wargear/unit options.) So I'm hoping they don't diminish my ability to do that too much.
But as we've said many times already, there's still a lot we don't know.
If by 'more like chess' you mean 'should the 40K rules be simpler?' then it seems that GW, and I'm sure a lot of players, do agree. From GW's perspective I'm sure it makes sense too, a simpler game is going to be easier to manage and balance. Whether that drives a meaningful number of people away from the game remains to be seen.
Simpler rules is a fine goal. If 8th proved out anything it was that accessibility and ease of learning 40K was a very valuable thing to have. I'm perfectly fine with the aim of simpler rules.
By 'chess' I mean achieving balance through removing options and customizeability. Chess is balanced, but there are no options.
Combi-weapons though seems like an odd hill to plant a flag on, this apparent change really on affects a tiny number of units, across a handful of factions.
Am I planting a flag? Maybe. . . The idea that it affects only a handful of units is quite untrue though. As a First/True/Realborn Marine player it actually affects about every infantry unit I've tended to field in the last six years or so. Tactical Squads, Sternguard Squads, Devastator Squads, Scouts and Characters. Plus Combi weapons also show up on Primaris and Sisters of Battle, if I'm not mistaken.
But also, (and since we haven't seen the rest of what's coming I don't know which direction this is going) there are two outcomes that would seem to arise from the Combi-precedent:
1: The traditional array of Special Weapons are getting squashed into one profile, which would suck.
or
2: The Combi-Weapon is now it's own new gun, rather than simply having it be an assembly of two already existing guns. . . in which case it's actually not consolidating, and making it's own, new, bespoke thing. Which is sorta the opposite of simplifying. You've reduced the options, sure, but created a new, unique and unnecessary profile in the process.
or I guess 3: You got to buy the codex to get your real Combi's back. . . That's a possibility
Given that removing options is one course of simplification, I guess the discussion is really about what level of simplification is 'acceptable'. I'm sure we all have different opinions on how granular the game should be; personally I'm all for less granularity than 9th edition has, provided that we get the benefit of a better balanced, more accessable game.
I'll grant that if you only play first born marines the potential combi-weapon change does dispropotionately affect your available choices, but GW are designing with much more than just first born in mind. We have to expect that different factions are going to loose various list building choices based on overall design decisions that they make.
Personally I'm expecting outcome 1 as 2 doesn't seem consistent with how the previews are trending. Outcome 3 would be pretty gakky on GW's part, hopefully it doesn't end up there.
I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.
While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.
Wyldhunt wrote: I like the new morale system. I like that psychic powers are spread throughout other phases now.
Not loving the idea of pre-set psychic powers. Being able to choose what type of powers your psykers favor was a nice bit of character customization/flavor. My mortal wound farseer gives off very different vibes than my support farseer. Hopefully they've just presented it this way for simplicity and we won't see psykers going the way of the haemonculus (zero customization options.)
Probably pure fantasy - but hoping GW bite the bullet and just make the Haemonculus a "quasi-Psyker". (Aka a psyker for rules purposes).
But tend to agree with you. Farseers have a lot of iconic psychic powers - and I'm not totally sure how you'd represent that if you get a fixed loadout and that's it.
Tbf they could all be on the datasheet with some rule that you can only cast 2 a turn or whatever.
Arguably though this would apply to Weirdboyz and seemingly no.
Not sure why you would want that now that psychic is just ability/attack. At worst enemy gets fnp vs your attack vs just being non psychic attack.
I love what they have done with combine wepons. Finally no worries about what to model them as to getthe most out of them.
And no more squinting to tell what a unit does best. One tiny piece dictating so much of what a unit did was not fun.
I really like the new morale system The only potential thing I feel could be a problem is if you need to check for battle shock every turn you are below half strength whether or not you suffered any casualties that turn. Not being able to contest or hold objectives is going to be huge and will itself define the entirety of the edition if true; for example if pox walkers are immune to morale, which is likely, they will automatically become the main choice again just because of that. We need to see the entirety of those rules to know It just how critical it will be.
Now on the subject of psychic powers My main concern here is whether what is shown on the sheet is the only one the unit has available or if that is their special one and then there is going to be a generic list of some kind based on discipline or faction or whatever. Back in third edition you bought powers as part of war gear and still had to take a psychic test in order to cast them but they were similar to what was just shown in that rather than being a specific phase the power would tell you when it could be used.
I think it will be quite a detriment if it's streamlined to the point where every psyker just has one or two powers that only they can use and that's it. Because what will happen then is you will see some units always taken because of their unique power and some units never taken because they're special power isn't as good. That will be a step backwards I think compared to any of the other choices which they could do. At the very least I would hope for a system like AOS where each wizard may have their own unique spell but there's still a pool of spells to pick from that everyone has access to based on whatever.
KingGarland wrote: I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.
While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.
While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).
That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.
KingGarland wrote: I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.
While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.
While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).
That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.
Combi weapons aren't a uniqueness between factions however, very little (sorry to some people) is lost by condensing them down beyond the number of lines on a unit/price list.
The combi-weapon thing is a bit of a mixed bag for me because different combi-weapons are actually visibly different. Like, you can tell if that's a plasma gun or a flamer strapped to the bolter, it's not the same as the accessories on the primaris boltguns. At the same time combi-weapons were more or less just the attached special weapon while the bolter half got ignored.
Functionally the biggest change here is that marines lost one of their best ways to get melta and plasma shots to the frontlines. Lethality down, I guess.
Dudeface wrote: To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".
Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.
The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?
While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.
Dudeface wrote: To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".
Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.
The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?
While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.
You've kinda proven the point though in that you only come to those conclusions by both inspecting the mini with the tiny component to see it is different, alongside applying the "this is what it used to do" knowledge. If you simply know all combi bolters have the same profile, no need for a headache, "oh they all shoot with that profile? Cool I'll stop asking".
Dudeface wrote: To spin it around, why shouldn't they have the same profile, but I want an answer that isn't "because that's what they used to do".
Verisimilitude, for one - might not be a concern for you, or for tournament players, but I would guess that this sort of amalgamation is going to cause headaches for a not-insignificant number of players who look at the non-bolter half of a combi-weapon and expect it to behave differently depending on what it is.
The version we see on the Termi Librarian isn't a terrible proxy for a combi-plasma, maybe even a combi-grav, but having the full effect out to 24" makes it a horrible proxy for a combi-flamer or combi-melta - though the flat 1 damage is a point against it for everything bar the flamer. The reduced BS makes little sense - if that was meant to be a reflection of firing both barrels, why does it only get 1 shot (plus RF1, which reflects the bolter half of the weapon), rather than 2 shots (with RF1)?
While I'm liking some of what I'm seeing from the core rules previews so far, I'm also loathing some of what I'm seeing from the unit previews.
-1 to hit could easily be due to under-barrel weapons being far harder to aim and having smaller barrels than a full-sized version of the usual version of that weapon.
As for the profile, I'd prefer to see the weapon have three options, normal bolter, the mode we see now, and a shorter-range anti-horde weapon.
Wyldhunt wrote: That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.
I agree and really hope they achive this. I did not like how looking at the datasheet did not tell you how strong a unit really is because of all the buff layering.
Wyldhunt wrote: That said, I find myself kind of missing the pre-7th system of just paying points for psychic powers. Was there really anything wrong with that approach? You could have weaker and stronger powers, and the cost of your psyker unit went up or down based on how expensive (read: powerful) your chosen powers were. They tossed it out in 7th for the Fantasy-esque dice-off game, but I feel like the pre-7th approach was just better in general.
One of the big things they're trying to accomplish this edition is for the other player to be able to look at a model in your army and know what it does without having to get your dissertation on it. It's a reaction to 9th, obviously. Every terminator librarian you see is going to have roughly the same threat level, as opposed to this one doing some mortal wound chip damage, and this one taking away your invuln and turning your Lord of War into paper.
I agree and really hope they achive this. I did not like how looking at the datasheet did not tell you how strong a unit really is because of all the buff layering.
On a probably paranoid note, it can also help prevent your opponent fine tuning against your army in a manner not everyone can replicate.
It reminds me of a change in WHFB, where you listed which spell deck your wizard was using at the point of list design. Whilst not all Wizards had much, if any choice, things like Empire Battle Wizards could really swing a battle by drawing spells from The Right College of Magic. So when you chose at deployment, certain armies had an unfair upper hand, as they could pick the lore best suited to exploit your army’s weakness.
I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:
- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)
...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.
I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.
I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.
The New Edition of Warhammer 40,000 Makes All the Phases Count
The Psychic phase and the Morale Phase are now no more
psychic powers are used throughout the other phases
Smite is used in the the Shooting phase
Morale gets sorted in your Command Phase, when you take Battle-shock tests for any units that have taken enough losses.
Roll a 2D6 for every unit that’s Below Half-strength – that means they’re a squad with less than half of their starting models, or a single model with less than half of their starting Wounds. You’ll need to roll above your new Leadership characteristic – if you fail, that unit suffers some nasty penalties until your next turn:
-OC falls to 0
-Stratagems cannot be used on that unit
-if it Falls Back, it must take a test-roll for every model in the unit
So what will be the equivalent for deny the witch and especially all defenses of non-psyker armies, or will they just drastically increase the costs of all psykers?
a_typical_hero wrote: I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:
- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)
...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.
I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.
I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.
I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.
I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.
a_typical_hero wrote: I happen to know an alternate system that is very close to 40k, which currently includes:
- 35 weapons
- 37 wargear items
- 9 veteran abilities
- 35 chapter traits
- 7 vehicle equipment items
- 2 prayer lists (10 prayers in total)
- 3 specific + 6 general psychic disciplines (54 powers in total)
...just for Space Marines alone to customise their squad leaders, units and characters.
I have yet to meet somebody who thinks the actual gameplay on the table is slower or more complex than 9th edition.
I don't see "less options come with better balance" as a good argument. Especially given GW's track record of having a bad external and internal balance regardless of how many options there have been throughout the editions.
I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.
I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.
It’s also about making the game accessible.
Whilst there are of course merits to being able to craft and arm your own character? Right now, in 40K, if I buy a Command Model? It’s one and done. I don’t need to worry about what I want to arm them with, because the rules have set that out for me and anyone else collecting that army.
Think of the n00b learning the ropes. They buy, assemble, maybe even paint the model, and it’s ready to go.
I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,
This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,
This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .
In terms of the number of models fielded in an army these days? I'd agree.
In terms of how zoomed in we are when we look at each model/units equipment and wargear? No, I'd say we're still at the skirmish level.
A relatively clean cut-off point is that we're still talking about individually-based infantry models, which imho puts the game into skirmish scale, as well as the wargear issues you already mentioned. The fundamental unit of the game is still the single soldier, while usually company-level wargames use fireteams or squads as their lowest-level unit.
It's also really points/PL dependent.
500point/25PL and under games still very much have the skirmish feeling.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I also have my grump about the perception that not having to convert = converting is now forbidden. That’s not the case. You wanna convert or scratchbuild? Nothing and nobody is preventing it,
This cuts both ways. Having the option to customize your character with wargear = / = requiring to get involved with wargear. You think it is tiresome? Don't do it, just bring your character with their base wargear. Nothing and nobody is preventing it .
It then goes for pay/model for win.
Only if GW can't balance out the options, which to date they've shown they can't and people don't think they can.
Insectum7 wrote: Trying to make it sound hard doesn't make it hard, either.
Given that more balanced systems are far and above more restrictive than even this version of 40K seems to be I'd be comfortable going out on the 'not so easy' limb.
I'm gonna go with poor design choice and lack of effort on GWs part, and reiterate That the near-autistic drive for balance has a high probability of ruining some of what a lot of people enjoy about the game. Praise Be To The Balance God!
Aka: 40k should totally be more like chess, amirite? /sarcasm
Those same people also complained about balance though.
Some don't want balance - they just want the old rules - they should play the old editions.
Some want old rules thinking they were balanced.
Some want 40K to be a historical system.
Some want super duper random and quirky rules.
Some want a hardcore tournament system ( not many on this forum, I think ).
Don't get me wrong. I have mixed feelings on many things with 10th, but if units are more interesting to play, if the game is more accessible, if balance isn't as helter skelter, and if GW can still provide good narrative options then I'm all in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think it will be quite a detriment if it's streamlined to the point where every psyker just has one or two powers that only they can use and that's it. Because what will happen then is you will see some units always taken because of their unique power and some units never taken because they're special power isn't as good. That will be a step backwards I think compared to any of the other choices which they could do. At the very least I would hope for a system like AOS where each wizard may have their own unique spell but there's still a pool of spells to pick from that everyone has access to based on whatever.
One really big factor on all of this is characters aren't really individuals as much like in 9th.
Will other armies be restricted by 'armor type'? What does an Exalted Sorcerer do? Is it the same or different from a Sorcerer? An Infernal Master?
Suppose a Sorcerer gives Lethal Hits - sounds great for Rubrics with bolters. He is no longer my sorcerer that can give out a 4++ and heal something. He's a 'Rubric Bolter Sorcerer' that can Smite.
Part of this is going to be that Index options will be more bland than what the codex will offer, but how things change in the codex is really unknown. And that's where is gets sketchy if they didn't plan things out well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gunchar wrote: Psychic Hoods for Custodes, both kinds of Sisters, Necrons, etc...?
I will guess that mortal wounds are much harder to get, which means GW doesn't need to add a ton of layers to help survive them thereby creating inescapable counter skew ( Emperor's Chosen ).
Transports Are the Fast and Flexible Way To Travel the New Edition in Style
any embarked unit is free to hop out once a transport has moved – provided the vehicle didn’t Advance or Fall Back. They can also shoot, but can’t make a charge, unless they disembark before the vehicle moves
open-topped replaced with Firing Deck X : choose one weapon each from a given number of embarked models and the transport will count as if it’s equipped with them for their own shooting attacks.
Previously, embarked troops couldn’t benefit from buffs, but now because the transport itself is making the attack, their weapons gain any boosts the vehicle does
Rapid Deployment Rule : Some vehicles, however, circumvent the rules entirely with special abilities, such as fast movers like the Impulsor and the Astra Militarum Taurox who can disembark troops even after advancing.
The Land Raider reclaims its Assault Ramp – meaning passengers can declare a charge on the same turn they disembark.
Minus a couple of exceptions, Space Marine transports no longer care whether a Primaris unit is riding in the back or not. The Rhino, Razorback, and Impulsor are still specialised for certain squad types, and many larger models like Terminators and Gravis-armoured Space Marines still have their own restrictions.
Mobile Command Vehicle Rule : Astra Militarum officers can issue orders during the Command Phase from inside a Vehicle
Fire Support: re-roll wound for a Unit that disembarked from a Transport this turn
Yea so this transport article sort of exemplifies what makes 40K.
You can dodge a charge by hopping into a Repulsor.
A Falcon works in tandem with it's cargo.
Guard can still command from a Chimera.
Taurox, Impulsors, and probably DE boats will be able to run and dump.
Orks can bring hilarious gunboats.
It seems to me like GW really is trying to give every unit some kind of ability to make it interesting and useful, even down to the glorified buses.
It remains to be seen how hard it will be to keep track of all of that in practice, but I like the idea of each unit having something that sets it apart and gives you reason to consider it besides just raw stats.
KingGarland wrote: I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.
While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.
While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).
That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.
Combi weapons aren't a uniqueness between factions however, very little (sorry to some people) is lost by condensing them down beyond the number of lines on a unit/price list.
Flamers, Melta, and Plasma are distinct things and always have been.
Do you think GW might send you free stuff for defending them on this? That's what it appears to be at this point.
KingGarland wrote: I am not too keen on the consolidation of the Combi-weapon profiles.
While we are not there yet I am afraid the game could fall into the No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination problem were, in the name of balance, it kills all uniqueness in the game.
While it's not impossible that this is the outcome, I doubt that's an outcome GW want. At the end of the day they are a company that sells miniatures, uniqueness between the factions is part of the appeal of having multiple armies and by extension buying more models (at least for me anyway).
That said I would be unsurprised if a lot of uniqueness dissappears intially and comes back with new codexes. Gotta sell those overpriced books somehow.
Combi weapons aren't a uniqueness between factions however, very little (sorry to some people) is lost by condensing them down beyond the number of lines on a unit/price list.
Flamers, Melta, and Plasma are distinct things and always have been.
Do you think GW might send you free stuff for defending them on this? That's what it appears to be at this point.
No but I live in your mind rent free. I'm glad me not being offended allowed you to totally misread what was written for the sakes of some weird cheapshot.
Pretty relieved the LR is getting it's assault ramp back. Let's hoping it means other units will also get back their unique rules (mainly stuff in the FW books).
I really like the design direction of these transport rules, even if there could be some balance issues off the bat. Right now, a lot of transports feel kinda useless, as you can't really do anything while in them, and you can't really use them to move. Giving each transport more of an identity than "Holds 10 dudes" or "Holds 5 dudes and has a gun" is great.
I do think that initially we may see a lot of tanks of the battlefield with buffs to them from multiple sources, (more durability, more mobility for transported squads, more utility/buffs for transported units), but there has been no information on points yet.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.
Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.
Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.
As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.
Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.
Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.
As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.
OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.
It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.
Everything, but Rogue Trader.
Why is it shocking? Part of why GW might be doing is sunsetting kits with these kinds of weapons. Eventually they'll either legends them or make a new kit where the options aren't as expansive.
EDIT: Well, I guess that doesn't make sense for some of the non-marine stuff.
Glad they are changing comvi wepons now I don't need to worry about what is best and how do I get more plasma parts.
Also it was kinda rediculas that they had the same power as full size plasma guns and such on account of how small they where.
Anyways glad it's done. Between this and what they did with power wepons I can't wait to see some of the more unique models people come up with on the table. With this a terminator is a terminator and we can all focus on making them as crazy and unique looking as possible.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.
Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.
Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.
As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.
OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.
It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.
I started in 1997. If they won't design better, and since they make incredible profit no matter what they have no reason to do it, the next best thing is to sacrifice some flavor for the sake of balancing. Is it ideal? Maybe not, but as long as GW is rewarded for mediocre rules it won't change.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. Just that it has something. This isn't a small skirmish game where individual equipment should matter. if 40k is a platoon at most level game, which it isn't anymore, then yeah sure I may care what a squad has. But then flyers/big tanks/superheavies don't belong. So it can't be platoon level. At company or higher, you don't care about specific weapons, it's all genericized (and often small scale but that's not the topic for debate)
But GW decided that it will be run like a skirmish game with large number of models, and not like a historical, where potentialy under a changed scale a single intercessor could represent an entire squad.
It is nice to have expectation, and there is ton of things GW should be doing , from players point of view, but they don't. But in the end the reality is that if it doesn't affect the sales GW is not going to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boosykes 809431 11521323 wrote:
Anyways glad it's done. Between this and what they did with power wepons I can't wait to see some of the more unique models people come up with on the table. With this a terminator is a terminator and we can all focus on making them as crazy and unique looking as possible.
What about armies where unique power weapons and psychic powers was the defining part of what made the army? If all nemezis weapons are the same, bar maybe the hammer. And psychic powers for units and characterss look like the ones on the librarian, then GW is going to have to do some drastic point drops or release 4-5 new unit types for GK, just so they can actualy play the game.
Karol wrote: But GW decided that it will be run like a skirmish game with large number of models, and not like a historical, where potentialy under a changed scale a single intercessor could represent an entire squad.
It is nice to have expectation, and there is ton of things GW should be doing , from players point of view, but they don't. But in the end the reality is that if it doesn't affect the sales GW is not going to do it.
They can decide whatever they want, the fact remains that "skirmish game with lots of models" is a piss-poor way to do a game, and is not sustainable, and maybe they finally are realizing that and taking steps to fix it.
Sure. Then you go to the higher ups and explain them, why you think the game should be designed with most players spending 500$ instead of 1000$, they spend now, on avarge. And yeah it is not sustainable, but maybe GW thinks that in X years the model making industry will be drasticly different with all the 3d printing going on. Right now in my part of the world, people create 1 to 1 perfect copies of GW models in resin, before their official premier. And they can do nothing to stop it. The poles, czechs, germans etc all do it. And GW should thank God that Russians and Ukrainians are busy right now. Because stuff like the new termis, guants etc and I expect the librarian to be on etsy. And even if GW takes those down, they can't delete them from people hard drives. So maybe GW knows it is unsustainable, knows it doesn't have a legion of 12-14y olds playing their games, so they milk the 30+ age demographic as much as they can. Sprinkling nostalgia stuff and remakes of old models.
catbarf wrote:It seems to me like GW really is trying to give every unit some kind of ability to make it interesting and useful, even down to the glorified buses.
It remains to be seen how hard it will be to keep track of all of that in practice, but I like the idea of each unit having something that sets it apart and gives you reason to consider it besides just raw stats.
I think Daedalus81 has it right.
Daedalus81 wrote:Yea so this transport article sort of exemplifies what makes 40K.
You can dodge a charge by hopping into a Repulsor.
A Falcon works in tandem with it's cargo.
Guard can still command from a Chimera.
Taurox, Impulsors, and probably DE boats will be able to run and dump.
Orks can bring hilarious gunboats.
It might not be the most exciting choice, but limiting a faction to a specific transport rule would be make it easier to memorize and help focus on a certain play style.
Karol wrote: Sure. Then you go to the higher ups and explain them, why you think the game should be designed with most players spending 500$ instead of 1000$, they spend now, on avarge. And yeah it is not sustainable, but maybe GW thinks that in X years the model making industry will be drasticly different with all the 3d printing going on. Right now in my part of the world, people create 1 to 1 perfect copies of GW models in resin, before their official premier. And they can do nothing to stop it. The poles, czechs, germans etc all do it. And GW should thank God that Russians and Ukrainians are busy right now. Because stuff like the new termis, guants etc and I expect the librarian to be on etsy. And even if GW takes those down, they can't delete them from people hard drives. So maybe GW knows it is unsustainable, knows it doesn't have a legion of 12-14y olds playing their games, so they milk the 30+ age demographic as much as they can. Sprinkling nostalgia stuff and remakes of old models.
The vast majority of people will buy from GW even if printing is easier. Going to a store is simply faster, easier, less error prone, you can return it if you need to, and it comes with decals.
I like a lot of what I'm seeing with the new transport rules.
Letting units hop out and shoot seems like it will make mechanized infantry more interesting. It adds a fair bit to your units' threat range on the turn you actually attack. Given that assault ramps are coming back, I'm hopeful that drukhari vehicles will get a similar treatment. I miss being able to launch wyches out of a raider with a power slide so they can pull off long charges. It used to be a big part of what made the army feel fast.
Marines learned to share vehicles! How sweet! Next thing you know, they'll be playing catch in the yard.
My nitpicks:
* The taurox would not have been my first guess at which vehicle is extra super duper good at dropping off infantry while moving at speed. I don't think my eldar especially *need* to be able to disembark after their skimmers advance, but it might seem a little weird if the treaded human vehicle can do it and they can't?
* The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.
Wyldhunt wrote: * The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.
Some banshees hop out, the Falcon moves off before plinking some Marines with its underslung Shuriken weapons. The Banshees then get to charge in with full rerolls to wound.
There's potential issues that 6 Fire Dragons are more likely to do something to a tank than say 6 Banshees hitting some Terminators, but still.
Why is it shocking? Part of why GW might be doing is sunsetting kits with these kinds of weapons. Eventually they'll either legends them or make a new kit where the options aren't as expansive.
To be fair GW started sunsetting non-Marine kits long ago and probably would have started with marines already if there hadn't been an uproar after Primaris.
I personally welcome reducing options as I'd like to focus on making my models cool and not selecting what works this edition. It's what I like about AoS currently: I just kitbash cool models with almost whatever weapon I have and it works without some DnD Rules Lawyer going "Well Achually this is a force micro stave and not a Vibro nunchaku. Therefore you are technically playing with an illegal loadout FYI unless you accept the worse stats of the force micro stave..."
Added bonus is that this could potentially open for some 3rd party creativity.
Wyldhunt wrote: * The falcon's fire support rule seems mildly weird. Assuming the pulse laser is still non-optional (as it always has been), that means the falcon is going to be inclined to shoot at heavier targets like vehicles. The only eldar units with small enough unit sizes to fit inside a falcon that also want to shoot at tanks are dark reapers (who want to keep their distance and thus arguably don't need a transport as much), fire dragons (which is the current and classic pairing so that tracks), and maybe warlock squads if you kit them out with singing spears. So just a bit of weird anti-synergy there, but not a big deal. I guess there's nothing stopping you from shooting the pulse laser into a squad of termagants or whatever if you want to have dire avengers riding in the falcon. Guess I was just expecting something a bit more general.
Some banshees hop out, the Falcon moves off before plinking some Marines with its underslung Shuriken weapons. The Banshees then get to charge in with full rerolls to wound.
There's potential issues that 6 Fire Dragons are more likely to do something to a tank than say 6 Banshees hitting some Terminators, but still.
Yeah, i also thought of Fire Dragons first, but it's probably intended to do suppressing fire with Scatter Lasers, Eldar Missile launchers, shuriken weapons etc. and then rush in with Banshees or other close combat specialists. I suppose the Falcon will get some sort of assault ramp style rule to allow charging after disembarking, or alternatively some of the Aspect warriors have it on their sheet as their special skill.
dominuschao wrote: I'm becoming less enthused with each of these reveals. 9th has it's problems and I'll reserve final judgement, but if I had to choose between bloat or no choices I'll take bloat.
Brewing is one of the most enjoyable aspects for me. I really hope that doesn't get homogenized in the quest for perfect balance.
Also I am concerned that certain factions will get screwed. Marines for example have a billion HQ data sheets but drukhari has very few. So forced joining units is not a big problem for SM. But drukhari probably won't be seeing an archon alongside grots or succubus with incubi. This new approach just seems worse for less supported factions.
Don't worry, GW already have a fix planned - even more Marine HQs.
Ah, I missed that fire support could help with melee attacks too. For some reason I thought it was only helpful for shooting. That does make more sense. And honestly, I don't necessarily need a falcon assault ramp (especially for banshees). Falcons basically providing their own mini-doom for whatever was riding inside them is pretty good. Although... does this mean that the falcon successfully got a useful, fluffy fire support mechanic before the wave serpent did? The 6th(?) edition weirdness that made the serpent shield into a gun ended up outshining the units inside, and it never really felt like much of a "support" weapon until 9th edition. (Where it was a stratagem that I never used.) So the idea that the falcon might be doing the same basic idea but better on the first try is kind of funny.
Edit: I will say, I'm really fond of a lot of the transport rules both from this preview and from some of the later 9th edition books. Stuff like chimas/devilfish being able to help out the squads that disembark from them helps solidify them as support units for their own passengers, which is cool. It means that transports can contribute without having to have extremely impressive defense or offense of their own.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
I feel like 2k point games are sort of the worst of both worlds for the playerbase. I feel like some of us basically want to be playing Apoc (big armies, less IGoUGo, no need to worry about the minutia of squad upgrades) while others among us prefer a smaller, more zoomed-in game with more customization and fewer units to avoid bogging the game down. Right now, games above 1500 feel like they're trying to provide small game customization to big game armies.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
I feel like 2k point games are sort of the worst of both worlds for the playerbase. I feel like some of us basically want to be playing Apoc (big armies, less IGoUGo, no need to worry about the minutia of squad upgrades) while others among us prefer a smaller, more zoomed-in game with more customization and fewer units to avoid bogging the game down. Right now, games above 1500 feel like they're trying to provide small game customization to big game armies.
They are. 1500 should have stayed the "standard" game size. Enough to have a fun game with some bite, but curb some of the more egregious Apoc-type nonsense. 2k is like the absolute worst because it's just enough to focus on skew/spam and dis-incentivize well rounded lists. ther's a reason why for over a decade 2k was normal for WHFB but 40k was 1500 for everything, and 2k was for those special "better part of a weekend" games when you really wanted to bring something special and have a spectacle.
The entire problem is that 40k is trying to be like 3 games in one:
1) A squad or platoon-level game
2) A company or battalion game
3) A large battalion or brigade level game where you have flyers and war machines that can wipe out huge swathes of the board in one go.
The issue is those types of games each wants different levels of abstraction. A small-scale game cares what each trooper has, because it matters that Brother Cassius has a flamer and Brother Gaius has a power fist. Company an higher games don't need to differentiate, you just need to know that they're equipped to deal with a variety of threats. Brigade level games require even more abstraction than that, because you're concerned with the high level not individual commanders and things.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?
There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.
Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?
There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.
Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.
I lived through 3rd edition, I know this all too well. And it sucks, I get it. But I think if they want a balanced game they need it to avoid bloat.
Nightlord1987 wrote: It seems to me that the combi weapon part on the bolter is meant to enhance the bolter, not be a secondary weapon.
Think of it as a bayonet or a Digital Weapon.
Is it stupid? Sure. But it's Collector friendly.
As long as they refuse to include all the necessary parts in a kit/sell an upgrade kit that has it, this is a sacrifice I think that is better overall for the game, despite making things a bit blander.
OR we can demand GW make bitz sprues or better design kits to begin with.
It's absolute insanity what I'm seeing here. It's like none of you have played an edition before 8th.
I started in 1997. If they won't design better, and since they make incredible profit no matter what they have no reason to do it,
Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Are you saying that Special Weapons are bloat?
In a company or higher game? Yes. Below that, no. MAYBE company level, it depends.
Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.
40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:
1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual) 2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger) 3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)
EviscerationPlague wrote: Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.
I always took it as 'haha plastic crack...too funny' *scratch scratch scratch* 'Say, uhh, anyone got $50 I can borrow?'
Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.
40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:
1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)
Luckily there are, Kill Team / 40k / Epic ( / BFG )
But yeah, solid game design requires a vision of the desired level of operations. I would contend that 40k doesn't really reach above platoon level gaming despite sometimes having a company's worth of models, as the action itself is too constrained in its objectives. Definitely nowhere near battalion level. A battalion level game would be one of maneuver, with larger objectives and more focus on coordination between various arms of your military. Epic: Armageddon and the like do that pretty well, as the games feel like fluid maneuver wars at a moving battlefront. Apocalypse below that is solidly in the company level range, where you might be fighting over a suburb or other proper terrain features. In regular 40k, it's more of a brawl over one relevant building, something you'd send a platoon to do. Sure, you might put more men and maybe attach a higher level support element like a super-heavy to actually do it, but "take that road / factory / church / supply storage" are just small mission objectives.
I feel the general community has somewhat suffered from the original culling of the classic Specialist Games line, as enjoying 40k universe only through one monolithic game is always going to end up disappointing some. Much easier to scratch any particular itch with a well designed game for it if you've got a larger suite to choose from at any time.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Is it because of people like me? Even though I've often argued for consolidation numerous times?
There's a way to do it smart, and there's a way to do it dumb. Bolt Rifle incorporating it's different versions is smart. Combi's losing their different versions is dumb. ESPECIALLY dumb when those versions are already existing weapon profiles.
Be careful for what you wish for, I guess. . . especially if it's in the hands of GW.
I lived through 3rd edition, I know this all too well. And it sucks, I get it. But I think if they want a balanced game they need it to avoid bloat.
Goddamnit the whole "kill options for balance" battlecry is so stupid.
Yes, they need to avoid bloat. But not for balance. Bloat is bad for cognitive overload during gameplay. Bloat is when nobody knows what anything can do because there are 5 layers of special rules, equipment, and stratagems, which are opaque to the opponent. Bloat is the Space Marines equipment list being 3x that of any other faction.
Are combi-weapons bloat? They've traditionally simply been the same weapon that already exists, attached to another weapon that already exists. If you know what a Bolter does, and you know what a Meltagun does, then you know what a combi-Melta does. Easy peasy.
Are combi-weapons unbalanced? They are if you don't pay for them! But if you have to pay for them. . . then no, they're not a source of imbalance as long as the points costs are reasonable.
That you bring up 3rd is funny. By the time 4th rolled around Tactical Squads were back to being able to take Plasma Cannons and Multimeltas even though they were cut as options from the 3rd ed book. Time will tell I suppose.
. . .
But "remove options for better balance" is such a dumb argument. . .
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Are you saying that Special Weapons are bloat?
In a company or higher game? Yes. Below that, no. MAYBE company level, it depends.
Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.
40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:
1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)
An ideal solution for someone like me would be to represent these 3 "games" as 3 separate, individual games:
1) Kill Team
2) 40K 3) Epic scale
Shoehorning 40K into all three levels feels.. unsatisfactory. I wouldn't even mind maintaining my army across the 3 different systems, in order to allow any level of a game, during a longer campaign, for example.
Regarding the transport leaks, I do like what I am seeing. I see a Repulsor in my army's future now, whereas earlier when it was only for Primaris, there was no way to thematically fit one in (I only field Gravis & firstborn)
EviscerationPlague wrote: Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.
You're right, I exist to fuel my need to snort sweet plastics. The same way you seem to exist to try and win edge lord points for your keeping it real "I hate this game and you should too" image.
Hell, the fact 40k is no longer a small scale game where individual weapons matter is IMHO reason enough to get rid of all of it. In a game the size of what 40k is mean to represent I shouldn't care if a squad has a flamer, or a meltagun, or a missile launcher or whatever. . .
The don't pay attention to it.
But for those of us who actually like it, why remove it?
You always had the choice to not care about what your squads were armed with. All your doing then is removing the choice for people like me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Yeah the horse is long bolted if you're bothered by the sterilisation of the game.
But does it mean that one can't be bothered about further sterilization?
Because "people like you" (your words, not mine) are why the game is so bogged down and bloated. Because you have a game that's company/battalion level with minutiae for a skirmish game. By virtue of it existing, it's problematic. It's not just a matter of "well ignore it then", it's the fact that because it exists, it bloats the game whether someone ignores it or embraces it.
Are you saying that Special Weapons are bloat?
In a company or higher game? Yes. Below that, no. MAYBE company level, it depends.
Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.
40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:
1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)
An ideal solution for someone like me would be to represent these 3 "games" as 3 separate, individual games:
1) Kill Team
2) 40K 3) Epic scale
Shoehorning 40K into all three levels feels.. unsatisfactory. I wouldn't even mind maintaining my army across the 3 different systems, in order to allow any level of a game, during a longer campaign, for example.
Regarding the transport leaks, I do like what I am seeing. I see a Repulsor in my army's future now, whereas earlier when it was only for Primaris, there was no way to thematically fit one in (I only field Gravis & firstborn)
Right. They should have had 3 different games with 3 different levels. I much lament the loss of Epic because 40k represented firefights within a much larger battle; think like the conflict at Hougomont during Waterloo, with a focus on the fighting specifically around La Haye Sainte. Instead, 40k has bathtubbed* so much that it's trying to represent that conflict, plus Waterloo itself, plus as large as Leipzig. So when they got rid of Epic, they rolled all the stuff that made epic, well, epic and throw it into 40k without care for whether or not it actually fit. Flyers especially spring to mind, as they should have worked closer to how they do in Bolt Action, where they are just support that come on and do a strafing/bombing run, not stick around like they were a landspeeder on steroids.
* "Bathtubbing" is the concept of scaling down maps/units to make a campaign manageable on the tabletop. E.g. 10 guys representing an entire corps of soldiers, one tank representing an entire Panzer Division, etc.
The worst part is, while it's undoubtedly cool to have those things in "regular" 40k, it adds more to the bloat. Epic worked in part because it was what, 6mm or something like that? So you really could have a huge battle play on a tabletop, and 40k was best left suited to key encounters within that battle.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.
You're right, I exist to fuel my need to snort sweet plastics. The same way you seem to exist to try and win edge lord points for your keeping it real "I hate this game and you should too" image.
Now now, if anything I DO hate the game. Because I've been around it and GW for almost 30 years, and I've seen the "golden age" when the game was both enjoyable and reasonably balanced and was really suited to all players, and GW either didn't care only about miniatures but good rules as well or were really good at hiding it, and I witnessed the decline when all their good designers quit and left and went elsewhere (and, surprise surprise, the companies they founded have good rules that are reasonably balanced and appeal to all players) and the rise of the "We're a miniatures company, not a game company!" mantra to justify their shoddy rules. And, let me tell you, this is a pale shadow of what came before. This is like the tail end of the Roman Empire acting like it's still the days of Augustus and the Legionaries.
I've been a hard-core WYSIWYG player since 5th edition. I rather build a while new model/unit by Kit-bashing than play a proxy. But this is my own OCD.
If the new game simplifies things, and now I don't have to worry about building a Stalker Bolter Lieutenant for the backfield, and an Auto Bolter Lieutenant for the frontline, but now Power Swords are free, so I have to make a Power Sword and Auto Bolter Lieutenant from the Power Sword and Bolt Pistol Lieutenant I got from DI... Then I'll take the hit.
I bought ebay bitz, and I've bought 3rd party bitz just to keep up with meta and I'm over it now. Kitbashing is my favorite part of the hobby. I LOVE building unique units out of spare parts. But not having to hunt down 3 extra Plasma bitz or combi-grav parts where the cost of shipping is higher than the part, I'll take that.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I've been a hard-core WYSIWYG player since 5th edition. I rather build a while new model/unit by Kit-bashing than play a proxy. But this is my own OCD.
If the new game simplifies things, and now I don't have to worry about building a Stalker Bolter Lieutenant for the backfield, and an Auto Bolter Lieutenant for the frontline, but now Power Swords are free, so I have to make a Power Sword and Auto Bolter Lieutenant from the Power Sword and Bolt Pistol Lieutenant I got from DI... Then I'll take the hit.
I bought ebay bitz, and I've bought 3rd party bitz just to keep up with meta and I'm over it now. Kitbashing is my favorite part of the hobby. I LOVE building unique units out of spare parts. But not having to hunt down 3 extra Plasma bitz or combi-grav parts where the cost of shipping is higher than the part, I'll take that.
So you were on board with the 9th edition Plague Marine datasheet, because it stopped you from needing extra bits?
EviscerationPlague wrote: Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a joke, but with how Dude and you are replying, I don't think it's a joke at this point.
You're right, I exist to fuel my need to snort sweet plastics. The same way you seem to exist to try and win edge lord points for your keeping it real "I hate this game and you should too" image.
Seems I touched a nerve.
Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I've been a hard-core WYSIWYG player since 5th edition. I rather build a while new model/unit by Kit-bashing than play a proxy. But this is my own OCD.
If the new game simplifies things, and now I don't have to worry about building a Stalker Bolter Lieutenant for the backfield, and an Auto Bolter Lieutenant for the frontline, but now Power Swords are free, so I have to make a Power Sword and Auto Bolter Lieutenant from the Power Sword and Bolt Pistol Lieutenant I got from DI... Then I'll take the hit.
I bought ebay bitz, and I've bought 3rd party bitz just to keep up with meta and I'm over it now. Kitbashing is my favorite part of the hobby. I LOVE building unique units out of spare parts. But not having to hunt down 3 extra Plasma bitz or combi-grav parts where the cost of shipping is higher than the part, I'll take that.
So you were on board with the 9th edition Plague Marine datasheet, because it stopped you from needing extra bits?
I did, and I played Death Guard at the time so the "nerf" directly affected me as I often ran like 2 plasma or blight, double knives, etc. in my squads. I felt it was way better for both balance and WYSIWGY as it alleviated the idea of needing to buy multiple boxes/kitbash/3d print enough weapons to pick the "optimal" choice, which has always been a problem. One kit should make a single squad with the relevant options, but if GW refuses to do that and refuses to sell weapon boxes like they do for HH, this is a necessary evil. it actually rewarded you buying a single box and building a variety kit. I also absolutely love the Accursed Weapons for Chaos Terminators, for the same reason.
Wayniac wrote: Company/Battalion level doesn't need to know "this guy has a plasma gun", it just needs to know the squad has whatever appropriate equipment they need to deal with the "relevant" situation.That's why in most historical games at that level the type of weapon doesn't actually matter and doesn't have its own special rules, it's just a generic approach because as a battalion/brigade commander, you don't need to care about minutiae like that. In a platoon or squad level game you care about each guy's individual weaponry. You don't at higher abstractions, because in-game you trust the individual commanders take care of it.
I'm not sure where it started, but there's a long-standing principle in wargame development that the player gets to wear two hats, ie represent two command echelons.
So if you are playing a game where your force is a single company, generally the player is taking on the role of the company commander (giving orders to the platoons) as well as acting as the platoon leaders (giving orders to the individual squads). But you are not responsible for the orders given to your individual soldiers; that's the job of your sergeants.
So in a company-level wargame where you command multiple platoons, the most granular it ought to get is moving squads around, and then things within the squad are abstracted. A good example would be the old Squad Leader by Avalon Hill, where each squad is just a chit. You care about a squad's capabilities and its overall status but you don't track its individual casualties or manually position riflemen at windows.
Then an example of a slightly smaller scale would be Chain of Command, where you are both the platoon leader and the sergeants. Now you do care about the armament and positions of your individual dudes, but at most you're managing 20-40 of them in total, because the platoon is your entire force.
A game where you only wear one hat- say as the company commander- might be too simplistic, because you only have 2-4 moving parts on the board.
But a game where you are the company commander, the platoon leaders, and the sergeants- responsible for the positioning and actions and equipment of 100+ individual troopers- gets messy and complex. And since the tactical considerations at a squad level and at a company level are so different, you'll probably wind up with a game that fails to adequately model one end or the other. Usually, that manifests as a game that is fundamentally squad/platoon in its design and tactics, but then doubles or triples its model count to hit squad/platoon/company game size but without adopting the C&C considerations that become relevant at that level.
So you were on board with the 9th edition Plague Marine datasheet, because it stopped you from needing extra bits?
Not the one you asked, but as a Plague Marine player I would have loved for a majority of the melee loadouts to just be "Plague Weapon" that had the plague rule and maybe -2 to AP. So a plague knife, mace, and the weapons you wield with one hand would just be a generic Plague Weapon. Then the big cleaver and flail could have been Greater Plague Weapons. Kind of hoping 10th will do that. And yes, I played a lot of Plague Marines after their upgrades became free as they were finally worth it.
Instead we have the current mess and no, it's not a solution to have 7 axes, 7 maces, 7 knives, and so on on the sprue. I don't want to buy a Battleforce worth of plastic for 7 troop dudes just so I have some precious "options" that I could easily throw in the bin because there is only one option worth taking each and every edition. I just really don't want to own hundreds and hundreds of Plague Marines so I am ready every edition with each option. Nobody has space for that amount of plastic and the planet does not need that extra plastic.
40k is trying to be like multiple levels of wargame rolled into one, and that's where a lot of the issues come from. Ideally there should be 3 "games" of 40k:
1) Kill Team (small, squad level, focus on individual)
2) 40k "Normal" (call it Incursoin/Strike Force whatever; this is "regular" 40k with a step up of abstraction from Kill Team as it's larger)
3) Onslaught/Apocalypse (even more abstracted than normal, most special/heavy weapons don't even get unique stats because it's not relevant)
An ideal solution for someone like me would be to represent these 3 "games" as 3 separate, individual games:
1) Kill Team
2) 40K 3) Epic scale
Shoehorning 40K into all three levels feels.. unsatisfactory. I wouldn't even mind maintaining my army across the 3 different systems, in order to allow any level of a game, during a longer campaign, for example.
Regarding the transport leaks, I do like what I am seeing. I see a Repulsor in my army's future now, whereas earlier when it was only for Primaris, there was no way to thematically fit one in (I only field Gravis & firstborn)
To be fair, Kill Team exists and Apocalypse as well.
But still, 40k is too bloated for a game that can go from 500 to 3000 points. Weapons options, keywords, relics, stratagems, special rules on every datasheet...
While its not realistic to ask that of GW, there should be a clear difference between say 750-1500pts, and 1500-3000pts.
The real problem is twofold:
- hardcore/uncompromising old-schoolers who want to keep the granularity of their loadouts in regular 40k, at all costs and become incredibly agressive and snarky when the word "simplify" is brought up. They apparently love swinging dices for hours during interminable turns
- GW rules team who is lives under the impression that the community as a whole wants to keep that granularity, maybe afraid of bad PR if they shake things too much. So far with 10th, they have tried to simplify loadouts and limiting available relics and stratagems, but datasheets are going to be a mess of special snowflake rules. The upside is, those rules should be known to everyone because they will be USRs.
You all agree some kind of bloat reduction is good and focus on a set 'scale' of play is good.
You're just disagreeing on what level of streamlining or scale is appropriate. Because it's subjective. So there's not going to be one objective truth.
There are lots of different scales between a roleplaying game level of weapons stats and EPIC.
You could make special weapons identical to bolters and give them each a special rule:
I think it's important to keep in mind the context in which GW rules team makes decisions. The game design team are a small part of a much larger organisation whose primary goal is to make and sell miniatures. As far as the company directors are concerned, they make miniatures, not games. The games are more of a marketing tool.
Accordingly the games ultimately have to serve this goal. That's not to say that the game designers set out to make bad games, but they have to make decisions and more importantly compromises, within that framework. Bad PR from making rules changes only really matters to the extent that it leads to selling fewer models. Simplifying the rules is about making the game more accessible to help drive sales. You also have to keep in mind that rules come after models. Having rules for squads full of dozens of weapon options (Sternguard, Plague Marines, CSM Terminators, etc) is (from GWs perspective) unnecessary if they're not going to make kits that have all those options.
Does it suck for the people that like having those options? I guess so. Is the 9th edition Plague Marine datasheet awful? yes. But given that it appears that GW don't want to make those kinds of kits for 40k, and that they're not going to make rules for kits that they don't make, simplification of weapons options is the natural conclusion. But that doesn't mean that a Rhino/Waveserpent/Ork Trukk all have to be functionally identical. Differentiation between datasheets is important for making different models and factions appealling purchases.
To be fair, Kill Team exists and Apocalypse as well.
But still, 40k is too bloated for a game that can go from 500 to 3000 points. Weapons options, keywords, relics, stratagems, special rules on every datasheet...
While its not realistic to ask that of GW, there should be a clear difference between say 750-1500pts, and 1500-3000pts.
I don't know. Apparently they're differentiating between Combat Patrol and "normal" games in 10th. That same concept could probably be expanded to basically be <=1500 pts rules and 1501+ pts rules. I imagine the two big challenges would be:
1. Determining how different the "big game" stats/rules would look compared to the "little game" stats.
2. Figuring out how to present/sell those rules without basically putting two games in a single book or functionally selling two games. (Or maybe you do put two games worth of rules into a single book.)
I'm thinking of the apoc weapon profiles here. You probably can't go so far as to have apoc style weapon stats in the same book that you have more familiar weapon stats. So then do you just kind of treat entire squads as having only one or two gun profiles? But then, what are the consequences of functionally taking the melta guns off of a tac squad? Armies with specialized units would work pretty well with such a system, but armies that currently depend on the little bells and whistles to function would be a bit awkward. I don't know. I'm rambling. It's tricky to make the game significantly more abstract without having a lot of ripples is all I'm saying.
The real problem is twofold:
- hardcore/uncompromising old-schoolers who want to keep the granularity of their loadouts in regular 40k, at all costs and become incredibly agressive and snarky when the word "simplify" is brought up. They apparently love swinging dices for hours during interminable turns
- GW rules team who is lives under the impression that the community as a whole wants to keep that granularity, maybe afraid of bad PR if they shake things too much. So far with 10th, they have tried to simplify loadouts and limiting available relics and stratagems, but datasheets are going to be a mess of special snowflake rules. The upside is, those rules should be known to everyone because they will be USRs.
I feel like I might fall into the old-schooler category. I definitely see the appeal of simplifying the game so that larger games are more managable, but that's only now that I already have a ton of points worth of models. Being able to customize ur dudez is and always was one of my favorite aspects of the hobby. I'm not sure I would have ever gotten into the game if the assumption was that you just spent several hundred dollars on a bunch of cut and paste units that feel extremely similar to the next guy's. No sarcasm here: if you simplify units enough, at some point we should all probably just be using cards or cardboard cut-outs instead of models.
What I'm trying to say is that I support the idea of a more streamlined version of the game meant to support larger armies. I just wouldn't want that approach to become the "default" or to lose the option to play a ur dudez version of the game. And one of the things that keeps me from getting into the latest version of Kill Team is that, as I understand it, you're actually pretty limited in what combination of models you're allowed to take.
Wyldhunt wrote: I'm thinking of the apoc weapon profiles here. You probably can't go so far as to have apoc style weapon stats in the same book that you have more familiar weapon stats. So then do you just kind of treat entire squads as having only one or two gun profiles? But then, what are the consequences of functionally taking the melta guns off of a tac squad? Armies with specialized units would work pretty well with such a system, but armies that currently depend on the little bells and whistles to function would be a bit awkward. I don't know. I'm rambling. It's tricky to make the game significantly more abstract without having a lot of ripples is all I'm saying.
I think you could strike a position on granularity in between 40K and Epic/Apocalypse. Maybe the bolters of the entire tac squad condense into a single weapon profile that throws a couple of dice, but then the meltagun gives you a single extra die optimized towards anti-tank. Get away from comparative checks between offensive and defensive stats, move towards offensive stats (affected by target category) that produce hits and defensive stats that negate hits, reduce granularity of casualty resolution.
At a larger scale it's the meltagun that matters, not whether the squad is currently at 8 or 9 dudes or what pattern of bolters they're using or whether the sergeant has a sword or axe. Reduce the minutiae, and you can still keep more significant bells and whistles.
Really, I would probably play Apocalypse in lieu of 40K more if it had some representation of those special weapons. They set it just barely above the level of granularity I would have preferred for the sort of battles too big for 40K, but not quite at Epic scale.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I've been a hard-core WYSIWYG player since 5th edition. I rather build a while new model/unit by Kit-bashing than play a proxy. But this is my own OCD.
If the new game simplifies things, and now I don't have to worry about building a Stalker Bolter Lieutenant for the backfield, and an Auto Bolter Lieutenant for the frontline, but now Power Swords are free, so I have to make a Power Sword and Auto Bolter Lieutenant from the Power Sword and Bolt Pistol Lieutenant I got from DI... Then I'll take the hit.
I bought ebay bitz, and I've bought 3rd party bitz just to keep up with meta and I'm over it now. Kitbashing is my favorite part of the hobby. I LOVE building unique units out of spare parts. But not having to hunt down 3 extra Plasma bitz or combi-grav parts where the cost of shipping is higher than the part, I'll take that.
So you were on board with the 9th edition Plague Marine datasheet, because it stopped you from needing extra bits?
The 9th Edition Plague Marine datasheet is an abomination. However that is not because it enforces the kit build instructions, but because it was before they realized giving a unit 7 distinct melee weapons options was a very bad idea. As others have said, the datasheet could have had options for a single, dual, and heavy Plague Weapons and thereby given more freedom to the player while matching the assembly instructions.
We can only pray that GW does such rules for 10th Edition.
Probably because y'all still buy it anyway. Plastic Crack USED to be a Because I've been around it and GW for almost 30 years, and I've seen the "golden age" when the game was both enjoyable and reasonably balanced and was really suited to all players, and GW either didn't care only about miniatures but good rules as well or were really good at hiding it, and I witnessed the decline when all their good designers quit and left and went elsewhere (and, surprise surprise, the companies they founded have good rules that are reasonably balanced and appeal to all players) and the rise of the "We're a miniatures company, not a game company!" mantra to justify their shoddy rules. And, let me tell you, this is a pale shadow of what came before. This is like the tail end of the Roman Empire acting like it's still the days of Augustus and the Legionaries.
When was the golden age of balance, do tell? I've been playing since tail end of 2nd (and 5th for whfb). There have been 0 balanced editions in that stretch by my reckoning. Not one. There have been exceedingly brief stretches of relative balance...then a book comes out in 3 months.
Who are the designers? Jervis? Andy Chambers? Gav? Do you remember the comments at the time?
I do remember the comments of the time. And them shutting down the forum because they didn't want to hear negativity. But yes in my opinion the golden age was when you had people like Alessio and Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley. Guys who actually understood you need a good game to sell the models and add the majority of people buy the models because they're used for the game not to sit on a shelf somewhere.
Was it perfect? Far from it but the fact remains that you look at games like bolt action or Kings of War and you can tell that they are written to be games and they are written with at least some eye towards balance not the current design team level of wackiness.
Considering that it is commonly accepted by the community that in "recent" editions the balance went from:
5th: Horrible 6th: Worse than horrible 7th: Are you even trying?? 8th: Decent at times. 9th: Fine... mostly.
Then your last comment is weird. One can say whatever he wants about older editions and which ones he did prefer and for which reason, but it is objectively demonstrated that 9th edition has been the most balanced edition, and 8th edition has been the best before 9th.
9th edition had so much attention to balance that it is claimed as its biggest drawback (the "tournament edition").
Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.
Not at all, just seeing how giving a like for like response works. The big issue here is people not disliking the same things as you isn't 'defending' anything.
Spoletta wrote: Considering that it is commonly accepted by the community that in "recent" editions the balance went from:
5th: Horrible
6th: Worse than horrible
7th: Are you even trying??
8th: Decent at times.
9th: Fine... mostly.
Then your last comment is weird. One can say whatever he wants about older editions and which ones he did prefer and for which reason, but it is objectively demonstrated that 9th edition has been the most balanced edition, and 8th edition has been the best before 9th.
9th edition had so much attention to balance that it is claimed as its biggest drawback (the "tournament edition").
You might also go back and rate those editions for "fun", because lord knows balance isn't the only thing people want from a game.
Hell, for fun I'd rate 7th over 9th, and 7th sucked . . .
Spoletta wrote: Considering that it is commonly accepted by the community that in "recent" editions the balance went from:
5th: Horrible
6th: Worse than horrible
7th: Are you even trying??
8th: Decent at times.
9th: Fine... mostly.
Then your last comment is weird. One can say whatever he wants about older editions and which ones he did prefer and for which reason, but it is objectively demonstrated that 9th edition has been the most balanced edition, and 8th edition has been the best before 9th.
9th edition had so much attention to balance that it is claimed as its biggest drawback (the "tournament edition").
You might also go back and rate those editions for "fun", because lord knows balance isn't the only thing people want from a game.
Hell, for fun I'd rate 7th over 9th, and 7th sucked . . .
I prefer 9th to 7th for fun but its also a lot more tiring to play. It might just be that 7th was just starting to introduce the stupidity where as 9th has it normalised though.
At a larger scale it's the meltagun that matters, not whether the squad is currently at 8 or 9 dudes or what pattern of bolters they're using or whether the sergeant has a sword or axe. Reduce the minutiae, and you can still keep more significant bells and whistles.
Really, I would probably play Apocalypse in lieu of 40K more if it had some representation of those special weapons. They set it just barely above the level of granularity I would have preferred for the sort of battles too big for 40K, but not quite at Epic scale.
Yeah, but what about armies that are build on bolter type weapons and getting special rules to them, and having ad hoc generated special rules and a mix of different weapons for the entire squad. If everything turns in to a one or two roll, and they don't have those plasma, melta etc weapons , because of how GW designed them, then the model line would have to be reset to be playable, and people that already have an army would have the rebuy it, and probally all of it, because GW upscales everything making playing metal SoB next to plastic ones, an expiriance where you get accoused for tailoring for model size adventange.
Even for armies that have squad plasma or melta it would be the death of newer model lines. Intercessors don't have access to special weapons. Their squads are specilised. On the other side of things there are armies that could spam units that are just "special" dice rollers. For marines it would be the death of the infantry army, and they would have to play a bit like custodes. HQs+minimal obligatory MSU troops and then spaming the ever living thing from FW dreads and tanks.
Spoletta wrote: Considering that it is commonly accepted by the community that in "recent" editions the balance went from:
5th: Horrible
6th: Worse than horrible
7th: Are you even trying??
8th: Decent at times.
9th: Fine... mostly.
Then your last comment is weird. One can say whatever he wants about older editions and which ones he did prefer and for which reason, but it is objectively demonstrated that 9th edition has been the most balanced edition, and 8th edition has been the best before 9th.
9th edition had so much attention to balance that it is claimed as its biggest drawback (the "tournament edition").
You might also go back and rate those editions for "fun", because lord knows balance isn't the only thing people want from a game.
Hell, for fun I'd rate 7th over 9th, and 7th sucked . . .
Why would I do that when answering to a comment talking about the balance of the last editions?
Its tempting to say 3rd edition was not balanced. The end.
But it seemed so to me at the time - because I was 12-16~ or so playing other 12-16 year olds. Our lists were soft-highlander collections - not "just take the best stuff". You ran the good with the bad because that's the models you owned. You didn't spam starcannons, because why would you own the minis to spam anything? People who did that were mocked rather than the norm.
Based on say White Dwarf (which undoubtedly was in a Golden Age) this was how GW has always "imagined" people would play. But its rarely been like that the moment people have been able to pay to win. Cue lots of "we went to a tournament and our innocent eyes were shocked at what we saw" responses from GW as late as last year.
This is why I didn't enjoy 5th much. I imagine if I'd been 10 years younger it would have been great great. But I'm now 22-26, playing other people in their early-mid 20s or so. If something seemed good, you just went out and bought it - even whole armies weren't actually "that" expensive (especially second hand). The meta became much more cut-throat, and the imbalances much more explicit as a result. And yes, this weighed on "my fun". For some reason losing feels much worse when it seems you never had a chance, because their list was just so much better than yours. I hated Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Necrons with the sort of fire Karol directs at the Sun Elfs.
Flash forward to 7th, and it wasn't "tournament cheese" to see Wraithknights, Riptides or bike-riding Marine character blobs at over half the tables. It was a random Saturday night in the FLGS. But I kind of accepted it by this point. Play casually with casuals, play competitively with competitive people. 8th and then 9th tried to reduce the number of outright traps in the books, which was a good thing. Its sad certain armies were weak all edition (GK, Necrons to a degree in 8th, Guard until 5 minutes ago in 9th) - but this was better than before.
Tyel wrote: Its tempting to say 3rd edition was not balanced. The end.
But it seemed so to me at the time - because I was 12-16~ or so playing other 12-16 year olds. Our lists were soft-highlander collections - not "just take the best stuff". You ran the good with the bad because that's the models you owned. You didn't spam starcannons, because why would you own the minis to spam anything? People who did that were mocked rather than the norm.
Based on say White Dwarf (which undoubtedly was in a Golden Age) this was how GW has always "imagined" people would play. But its rarely been like that the moment people have been able to pay to win. Cue lots of "we went to a tournament and our innocent eyes were shocked at what we saw" responses from GW as late as last year.
This is why I didn't enjoy 5th much. I imagine if I'd been 10 years younger it would have been great great. But I'm now 22-26, playing other people in their early-mid 20s or so. If something seemed good, you just went out and bought it - even whole armies weren't actually "that" expensive (especially second hand). The meta became much more cut-throat, and the imbalances much more explicit as a result. And yes, this weighed on "my fun". For some reason losing feels much worse when it seems you never had a chance, because their list was just so much better than yours. I hated Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Necrons with the sort of fire Karol directs at the Sun Elfs.
Flash forward to 7th, and it wasn't "tournament cheese" to see Wraithknights, Riptides or bike-riding Marine character blobs at over half the tables. It was a random Saturday night in the FLGS. But I kind of accepted it by this point. Play casually with casuals, play competitively with competitive people. 8th and then 9th tried to reduce the number of outright traps in the books, which was a good thing. Its sad certain armies were weak all edition (GK, Necrons to a degree in 8th, Guard until 5 minutes ago in 9th) - but this was better than before.
Locally in the day, although I was young too but most of my opponents were older, 3rd was enjoyable. The streamlining from 2nd was favorable to us, and games played faster. You had some stuff still (BA rhino rush was pretty nasty, or the jackass who would bring 3 wraithlords to low point games) but overall it was way better than what came before. I think the issue, as I perceived it anyway, with 9th was that it followed a similar change pattern from 3rd up, by not adding much of the core rules, but then immediately bloated up the game with masses of stratagems and quickly bloated gameplay (IMHO) with secondary objectives as a core thing. So unlike before where it looked like some stuff was cleaned up, it felt like it was just rearranged and a ton more layers thrown on top based only on listening to feedback from people like Mike Brandt and other TOs, who were already basically playing a different format of the game (i.e. ITC's variant) rather than regular players.The adoption of ITC as part of the main game sealed that, and IMHO was one of the largest turnoffs as it took a Frankenstein variant of the game which IMHO missed the point entirely anyway, and said this must be what everyone wants so let's make this the norm.
Was it perfect? Far from it but the fact remains that you look at games like bolt action or Kings of War and you can tell that they are written to be games and they are written with at least some eye towards balance not the current design team level of wackiness.
No idea on KoW, but Bolt Action is not balanced. It just has tournaments willing to ban the bad stuff and lots more people interested in historical accuracy.
Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.
Monopoly stands against your point considering it's known as "the game that ends friendships".
Well, Monopoly was originally made as a teaching tool by a member of a religious movement, and was supposed to hammer home that 'Landlords bad', so that checks out
Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly has a fanbase too but the difference in defending those games vs 40k fans is remarkable.
Monopoly stands against your point considering it's known as "the game that ends friendships".
Well, Monopoly was originally made as a teaching tool by a member of a religious movement, and was supposed to hammer home that 'Landlords bad', so that checks out
Funny. I thought it was Diplomacy that ended friendships. Monopoly just made you want to shoot yourself in the head because the damn game never ends if everyone plays cutthroat.
Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
Wayniac wrote: And, let me tell you, this is a pale shadow of what came before. This is like the tail end of the Roman Empire acting like it's still the days of Augustus and the Legionaries.
Jesus those are some rosy glasses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: And since the tactical considerations at a squad level and at a company level are so different, you'll probably wind up with a game that fails to adequately model one end or the other. Usually, that manifests as a game that is fundamentally squad/platoon in its design and tactics, but then doubles or triples its model count to hit squad/platoon/company game size but without adopting the C&C considerations that become relevant at that level.
This might be an alluring aspect for gamers though -- part of why 40K feels different from other games and part of why it continues to have success.
I forget the reason but one edition the standard list size was 2,001. The extra point was to allow for the size limitations of a 2001+ point game. GW didn't decide that - we did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Its tempting to say 3rd edition was not balanced. The end.
But it seemed so to me at the time - because I was 12-16~ or so playing other 12-16 year olds. Our lists were soft-highlander collections - not "just take the best stuff". You ran the good with the bad because that's the models you owned. You didn't spam starcannons, because why would you own the minis to spam anything? People who did that were mocked rather than the norm.
Based on say White Dwarf (which undoubtedly was in a Golden Age) this was how GW has always "imagined" people would play. But its rarely been like that the moment people have been able to pay to win. Cue lots of "we went to a tournament and our innocent eyes were shocked at what we saw" responses from GW as late as last year.
This is why I didn't enjoy 5th much. I imagine if I'd been 10 years younger it would have been great great. But I'm now 22-26, playing other people in their early-mid 20s or so. If something seemed good, you just went out and bought it - even whole armies weren't actually "that" expensive (especially second hand). The meta became much more cut-throat, and the imbalances much more explicit as a result. And yes, this weighed on "my fun". For some reason losing feels much worse when it seems you never had a chance, because their list was just so much better than yours. I hated Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Necrons with the sort of fire Karol directs at the Sun Elfs.
Flash forward to 7th, and it wasn't "tournament cheese" to see Wraithknights, Riptides or bike-riding Marine character blobs at over half the tables. It was a random Saturday night in the FLGS. But I kind of accepted it by this point. Play casually with casuals, play competitively with competitive people. 8th and then 9th tried to reduce the number of outright traps in the books, which was a good thing. Its sad certain armies were weak all edition (GK, Necrons to a degree in 8th, Guard until 5 minutes ago in 9th) - but this was better than before.
Ding ding ding! And that's why people love putting on those glasses.
I even remember how White Dwarf threw around the term 'Beardy' quite often.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
Safe Terrain Is Now Simple Terrain in the New Edition of Warhammer 40,000
Having the Benefit of Cover will not improve saves of a 3+ or better against weapons with an Armour Penetration characteristic of 0. This means a unit will never have its save improved to 2+ by terrain. Cover is not cumulative.
Terrains is now divided into 6 categories : craters, barricades, debris, hills, woods, or ruins.
Craters : wholly on top. INFANTRY only
Barricades : charges must end within 2" of a enemy unit behind a barricade
In the Fight phase, attacks can be made trough barricades if units are within 2" of each others
Cover bonus : INFANTRY only
Debris : need to be wholly within. No unit category restriction.
Hills, which includes buildings that units can stand on. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. No unit category restriction.
Woods : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Aircraft an Towering models ignore Woods' cover. No unit category restriction for the benefit of Cover.
Ruins : need to be wholly within. Model must be not fully visible to every attacker model. Gives +1AP-ranged when standing above 6" of another model. No unit category restriction for the benefit of cover
To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.
Welp, there it is, now i recognize GW. These terrain rules are so complicated for no reason, why is there that many different rules on how you get cover?
Slipspace wrote: To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.
But the key pieces are more impactful and it's less faffing about. Plunging fire is great and hills are somewhat useful again. Larger terrain pieces affect all models ( but not the 2+/3+ ones ). If lethality is down then it doesn't make sense to hand out cover like candy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VladimirHerzog wrote: Welp, there it is, now i recognize GW. These terrain rules are so complicated for no reason, why is there that many different rules on how you get cover?
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
Slipspace wrote: To repeat what I said in the N&R thread, these rules feel like a step backwards to me. Removing everything except Light Cover puts us right back to 8th and seems to make terrain less impactful overall. I would at least have liked to see them keep Dense as its own type of terrain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: Just a thought... I was looking at the new Dataslates and it occurred to me that there is no unit composition listed. The min/max number of models is easily handled in the points listing, but what about default wargear, available wargear upgrades and their quantities? I'm thinking that the index/codex datasheet will have more detail than the reference cards and the examples we're seeing are the cards.
The key thing to remember about the dataslates is they're effectively a playing aid. They're designed to allow you to use the unit on the battlefield and it's assumed everything will be WYSIWYG. All the pre-game stuff you need to know like default equipment, options and unit size will be in the Codex/Index as that's not directly relevant once you're at the table.
But the key pieces are more impactful and it's less faffing about. Plunging fire is great and hills are somewhat useful again. Larger terrain pieces affect all models ( but not the 2+/3+ ones ). If lethality is down then it doesn't make sense to hand out cover like candy.
I hope we get some more, and more interesting interactions as unit skills. We do already know that at least a variant of Termagaunts gets BoC if around an objective, other stuff could include e.g. increasing an units OC rating if they have BoC or stuff like that.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.
I hope we get some more, and more interesting interactions as unit skills. We do already know that at least a variant of Termagaunts gets BoC if around an objective, other stuff could include e.g. increasing an units OC rating if they have BoC or stuff like that.
Quite likely, but do note that only the CP version of 'gants has that rule.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.
oh i'll get used to it, but i don't get why it couldnt just be the same for everything
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Yea there's a little positioning logic, but it's way easier to check for. Barricades are pretty rare around here so I doubt I'll see that one.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.
oh i'll get used to it, but i don't get why it couldnt just be the same for everything
Wholly within 3" and not fully visible.
Because often craters won't clear the base rim, in which case the model itself is fully visible.
Tsagualsa wrote: Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.
It's common to discuss what each piece of terrain is before a game so that there's no confusion. But the differentiation here is easy enough. Craters and rubble you need to get able to get inside. You can't get inside a barricade.
Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry I literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus I'd play Italian Lizardmen.
Barricade = any object with a vertical element a model can hide behind that's greater than ankle height, limited depth horizontally
Rubble = piles of stuff that aren't greater than ankle height and have a large horizontal surface area
Craters = everyone knows what a crater looks like, come on, but it's a large horizontal surface area with raised edges creating a dip in the middle
If people assign vents or other weird stuff to any of these categories, it's a quick chat before game and doesn't need much debate as it benefits everyone equally really?
First glance is that it's still lawyer-speak word salad, but on further review it does actually seem simpler.
I notice that they're changing terrain to give you cover if you're obscured to any member of the attacking unit, not all members. That means scatter terrain is actually relevant again.
Not allowing cover to benefit 3+ or better against AP0 is a clunky solution to MEQs becoming unreasonably durable against small arms, but it seems positive.
Well, it's not what I would call a clean and simple terrain system, but it's better than the nonexistent terrain of 8th or the keyword mess of 9th.
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Also, good luck argueing the difference between rubble, debris and barricades in practice. Sorry i literally need to do this If i wanted to game with a thesaurus i'd play italian Lizardmen.
Honestly that might be the best hobby related joke I've seen the last two years
At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.
The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.
oni wrote: Posted this in the other 10th thread...
At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.
The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.
most hills i've played with are usually 2" tall at most, trees are usually taller than that
Ruins - fully behind - not visible and cover. Fully within - cover and can shoot out and be shot at.
I reread it, and I now see the place where it says that Ruins fully block line of sight for shots that pass through the footprint. I still think this info should have been in the little box with the picture of the terrain and its rules headings- that's why I didn't see it in the first pass.
Woods, however, DO allow shooting through the footprint with a -1. I guess the textual distinction on the rule card is "never wholly visible" as opposed to "obscured."
Ruins - fully behind - not visible and cover. Fully within - cover and can shoot out and be shot at.
I reread it, and I now see the place where it says that Ruins fully block line of sight for shots that pass through the footprint. I still think this info should have been in the little box with the picture of the terrain and its rules headings- that's why I didn't see it in the first pass.
Woods, however, DO allow shooting through the footprint with a -1. I guess the textual distinction on the rule card is "never wholly visible" as opposed to "obscured."
so far I like the terrain rule. seems easy enough and that's nice. I make all my own terrain still need to make hills and woods again, I've been putting it off for a year. I'm going to shoot for hills that top at 4 or 5 inches with a few levels as ways for models to make their ways to the top, those usually look good. Trees I'm not so sure yet I thought about pipe ruins as count as trees to fit with my terrain theme. May still go that way.
Oh, and Craters as well, need to bother with a few of those at some point.
Over all these are easily playable rules and the 3+ save rule is fair I would say but also with plunging fire suddenly 3+ saves may start to find cover from some AM troopers, which is a little funny but fair I would say.
Yeah, sorry- meant +1 save. That's just me being lazy and not looking up the "Benefit of Cover" rule before typing.
Still happy about not being able to shoot through the footprint of ruins- that's a huge improvement over the previous obscuring rule that demanded terrain be a particular height to obscure.
I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
oni wrote: Posted this in the other 10th thread...
At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.
The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.
most hills i've played with are usually 2" tall at most, trees are usually taller than that
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
"I don't know what you mean, of course doomstalkers have retractable legs to hide behind single storey buildings!"
INFANTRY get cover from small terrain. Everyone else gets cover except for 2+/3+, aircraft, and titanics as long as the model is partially obscured.
Most units can simply ignore terrain for purposes of cover except blocking LOS via big terrain or ruins.
And that's about it.
Except that
craters/rubble : INFANTRY on top of it
Barricades/pipes : INFANTRY wholly within 3" + not fully visible
debris/hills/woods/ruins : ANY not fully visible because of it
so 3 different ways to check if you have cover or not.
Not to sound too condescending but that's really not difficult to track or work out compared to what we have today.
oh i'll get used to it, but i don't get why it couldnt just be the same for everything
Wholly within 3" and not fully visible.
So virtuallo never in forests and hills. Much of rubles etc also won't give one in practice
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
oni wrote: Posted this in the other 10th thread...
At best I'm lukewarm to these terrain rules. They do not strike me as being very comprehensive.
The woods... as written you can have one model in the open and high up on a Hill shooting another model in the open, high up on a Hill with absolutely nothing obscuring LoS, but if theirs Woods in the valley between the high Hills, the target receives the Benefit of Cover.
most hills i've played with are usually 2" tall at most, trees are usually taller than that
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Most battlefields do not have 24” tall buildings on them. If yours do, houserule how high you have to be to see over the Woods.
You know I'm the first one to give GW gak for crappy rules writing, but I think they would have to be legitimately insane to make allowances for the two lunatics out there trying to put an eight story tenement on a 40k table.
It's totally outside of the game's scope, if you want to play a game that lets you shoot across a park at another skyscraper just go play battletech or something.
Did you know the game also breaks down if you try to play it on a sphere? Also, who gives a gak?
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
While technically true, I think you'd have to be cognitively impaired to believe this is intended. It is an example of exactly why the rules in 9th sound like they're written in legalese. It gets easier to write rules when you count on your players to have a modicum of common sense; I don't mean that as an insult to you- what you've seen here is correct, the text as written means exactly what you say it does... But man, I didn't even see it because I know absolutely what the intent of the designers was, and this certainly isn't it.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Fully intact buildings and hills are now treated the same. So, you can replace 'Hills' in my post with 'buildings' or even 'ruins' and the same issue is present.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
While technically true, I think you'd have to be cognitively impaired to believe this is intended. It is an example of exactly why the rules in 9th sound like they're written in legalese. It gets easier to write rules when you count on your players to have a modicum of common sense; I don't mean that as an insult to you- what you've seen here is correct, the text as written means exactly what you say it does... But man, I didn't even see it because I know absolutely what the intent of the designers was, and this certainly isn't it.
100%. It's a tabletop game. Tabletop games only function on social interaction and subjective agreement within a suggested system. They need to stop pretending there's a way to write the rules to a point it plays like a video game, which it seems like they might be starting to come back to. It's precisely the reason we got TLoS counting spikes and chains and banners. The worst crime against immersion of all time.
Voss wrote: I definitely like attaching 'Towering' to models rather than the wound limitation. That got really stupid, as the game produced models that could hide that were twice the size of models that couldn't.
I wonder if they'll have the good sense to attach "Towering" to things that actually "Tower": IE, are really TALL, and not just anything that they consider "big".
"I don't know what you mean, of course doomstalkers have retractable legs to hide behind single storey buildings!"
Pretty much. Though I was more wondering if "Towering" is just the new "Super Heavy/LoW", and we'll be right back to a super heavy tank that can get completely behind a Ruin getting the same benefit (or lack thereof) as a Knight that sticks up halfway over it. But yeah, "Towering" should be a "really tall walker/monster" thing.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
*should* be, but I guarantee, given its mechanic and thus balance effects, it will be applied unevenly and thier WILL be cases of units either having or not having it that make you "eh?".
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
My point is that the weird cover issue is enabled by GW's official terrain lineup. You don't need 24" high buildings with 8" high woods, just GW's fully official buildings with GW's fully official woods. It isn't supposed to be an uncommon or unusual scenario et all.
If a model on the roof of building that is 24" high shoots at a model on the roof of a different building that is also 24" high, but there is a Woods between the buildings that is only 8" high, the target still receives cover because the attack passes over a Woods.
Sure, but that's a really contrived example.
The Fronteris buildings are roughly the same height as GW's Woods, so the example stands with GW's official building and forest models. It can't really get any less contrived than that.
Right so as long as we have two buildings opposite each other and a forest in between and units on each building and the target models are fully visible ( which on the fronteris buildings there is that wall that can block vision ) then we have to worry about a weird cover issue.
My point is that the weird cover issue is enabled by GW's official terrain lineup. You don't need 24" high buildings with 8" high woods, just GW's fully official buildings with GW's fully official woods. It isn't supposed to be an uncommon or unusual scenario et all.
Yah, Ruins that are higher than 8" are not uncommon.
So standing in a ruin 6" above ground level increases you AP by 1 if you shoot at ground level. By that logic every knight should also have its AP increased by 1. And aircraft should have that too. Anything that is at least 6" tall and shoots at ground level shoudl have better AP.
I don't hate these rules, though they could be better. I like that terrain seems to function as just area terrain in many cases, and being even partially obscured grants cover instead of peeking through windows negating it.
I'm curious what "towering" means, because I don't quite understand if GW understands how tall trees are. If its something like an imperial knight, I mean, a quick online look says 9-12m tall. A search on titans say 40-80 feet tall (woo on units altering). Just a casual lookup of common trees like Oak or Maple, and the heights are 50-70ft (~15-21m) on average, with possibility of over 100 feet (30ish m). So unless all forests in warhammer world are short, maintained trees for say gardens, it just seems odd that anything could be considered "towering" to them.
Hmm. Not sure how I feel about these. Mostly neutral but also mildly confused, I guess?
Scattered thoughts:
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
It just feels weird that my striking scorpions don't have an incentive to be in cover against bolters.and lasguns.
* So theoretically, a model on a somewhat tall sealed structure (hill) will theoretically always have cover against anything infantry-heigh on the ground, right? Like, I can have my marines standing right at the edge of a sealed structure. The models on the ground below can see99% of that model, but the backs of their heels are over the lip of the structure, so they get cover, right? How does that interact with bases? Is the base part of the model? Or does it block line of sight to my marines' toes?
* More thoughts on base weirdness. Does this mean that my tactical rocks actually might let me ignore certain types of cover by making the model physically tall enough to look down at a shorter hill?
* Plunging fire is neat. Seems like it could just apply to any units at a lower elevation in generally rather than needing the enemy to be on the ground, but that would only really come up for those of us who like really tall terrain.
* On the whole, these rules seem fine, but they don't excite me. Probably a mostly horizontal change.
EDIT: It has been a while, but I feel like I didn't have this many questions about the 9th edition terrain rules.
kurhanik wrote: I don't hate these rules, though they could be better. I like that terrain seems to function as just area terrain in many cases, and being even partially obscured grants cover instead of peeking through windows negating it.
I'm curious what "towering" means, because I don't quite understand if GW understands how tall trees are. If its something like an imperial knight, I mean, a quick online look says 9-12m tall. A search on titans say 40-80 feet tall (woo on units altering). Just a casual lookup of common trees like Oak or Maple, and the heights are 50-70ft (~15-21m) on average, with possibility of over 100 feet (30ish m). So unless all forests in warhammer world are short, maintained trees for say gardens, it just seems odd that anything could be considered "towering" to them.
Most miniature wargamers are conditioned to have a warped sense of scale for things like buildings, plants and natural formations. Many players living in large-ish cities doesn't particularly help either, as your usual decorative tree isn't going to be allowed to grow into a mighty log it could be. Regular Imperial battle titans are between 20-30 m tall, which is pretty big all right, but way smaller than normal buildings or large trees. Even on our very mundane planet without any scifi weirdness trees can theoretically grow to around 130 m (redwood pines, for example) before they can't support their water transportation anymore. Similarly, water features like rivers should easily take a batter part of a normal battlefield on the table but are almost always represented with piddly little streams.
But that's not the theme here. Showing those larger features in meaningful ways is something you do at Epic scale, like hiding behind huge factories in Titanicus before city-smashing guns atomise your cover. In 40k, where the fight really happens at the pub-side brawl level, it's easier to have those 10 m knights feel towering over trashcans and burning cars where your knife-wielding infantrymen are busy stabbing each other in the throat. If it's larger than the burger grill at the corner, it sure feels towering in that grill queue punch-out
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
.
This is a necessary part of the game math.
First of all it gives AP0 a larger role.
Secondarily, it provides a drawback to the first point of AP, which otherwise would be disproportionally better than the other AP increments.
* Not sure how I feel about not being able to improve saves to 2+. I get that easily-accessible 2+ saves are a pain, but also it feels weird that an AP-1 weapon is functionally paying for AP that won't matter wihle an AP0 weapon is not. So if you're trying to kill marines, it's probably more points efficient to *not* use the armor piercing guns and instead just use the (presumablly cheaper) AP0 guns? Then again, AP-2 and better would probably still be worthwhile even with cover, so maybe I'm overthinking it.
.
This is a necessary part of the game math.
First of all it gives AP0 a larger role.
Secondarily, it provides a drawback to the first point of AP, which otherwise would be disproportionally better than the other AP increments.
It is a little counter-intuitive though, right?
"Which guns do you use against the armored infantry?"
"Anything but the anti-infantry armor piercing weapons. Either drown the enemy in non-armor piercing rounds, or go after the armored infantry with anti-tank guns. But whatever you do, don't shoot at them with guns that are designed to get through infantry armor."
Not that it makes AP-1 useless by any means. It's still useful against Sv4+ and worse against marines standing out in the open.
These cover rules seem bearable, if rather clunky.
However, it really seems like we should be going back to a cover save, rather than the "+1 to a model's armour save except sometimes not except again for the exceptions to that exception."
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
vipoid wrote:These cover rules seem bearable, if rather clunky.
However, it really seems like we should be going back to a cover save, rather than the "+1 to a model's armour save except sometimes not except again for the exceptions to that exception."
Yeah, I was kind of thinking that. One of the main complaints about the old cover save system was that marines had no reason to use cover unless they were facing sufficiently gnarly AP. So cover just wasn't a thing when your marines were being shot at with lasguns and bolters. This seems like a half-step back towards that situation, just with a bit more granularity. I suspect I'll still prefer this to the old cover save system, but it does feel like a slightly weird choice.
Tyel wrote:Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
Sure. It's just a bit of a weird quirk. Won't ruin my game experience (may even improve it), but it's not as intuitive and is probably going to be one of those abstractions that feels a bit odd.
Insectum7 wrote: Yah, Ruins that are higher than 8" are not uncommon.
Being inside ruins is different from being on top of an enclosed building. Ruins will always grant cover and so that particular interaction is irrelevant.
p5freak wrote: So standing in a ruin 6" above ground level increases you AP by 1 if you shoot at ground level. By that logic every knight should also have its AP increased by 1. And aircraft should have that too. Anything that is at least 6" tall and shoots at ground level shoudl have better AP.
Not got mine out to measure but a knight is what, 8" tall more or less? The weapon points aren't 6" off the group for the arms generally and might be bobbing about or ducking, also the model itself is not elevated more than 6" off the ground in this instance. A marine stood on a 6" high floor is about the same height as a knight carapace weapon for their bolter level?
Where I'm going with this is I understand what you're saying but if you consider dynamic movement of the unit, being 6" tall is not the same as firing from a platform 6" up, so I wouldn't expect the same to apply and if it did, just bake it into the profiles.
p5freak wrote: So standing in a ruin 6" above ground level increases you AP by 1 if you shoot at ground level. By that logic every knight should also have its AP increased by 1. And aircraft should have that too. Anything that is at least 6" tall and shoots at ground level shoudl have better AP.
Not got mine out to measure but a knight is what, 8" tall more or less? The weapon points aren't 6" off the group for the arms generally and might be bobbing about or ducking, also the model itself is not elevated more than 6" off the ground in this instance. A marine stood on a 6" high floor is about the same height as a knight carapace weapon for their bolter level?
Where I'm going with this is I understand what you're saying but if you consider dynamic movement of the unit, being 6" tall is not the same as firing from a platform 6" up, so I wouldn't expect the same to apply and if it did, just bake it into the profiles.
There’s also the Towering keyword mentioned, so that may have Plunging Fire as well.
TL/DR if folks could spare the Pearl clutching until we have the full picture, that’d be grand.
Hmm. On that note, assuming skimmers are still good at hopping up on top of terrain, does that mean I can start sticking my wave serpents and raiders up on top of ruins to get plunging fire onto the enemy's down below? That would be fluffy and add some interesting verticality to the game. Bunch of kabalites shooting out of a raider onto the squishy mon-keigh below.
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.
My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.
My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.
Yeah, you'd basically just say, "Hey, can we say these trees are thick enough to count as ruins?" right? And then by virtue of not physically have a platform to set your models on, you wouldn't have to worry about plunging fire, etc. Unless you *do* have a place to set the models in which case shooting down from tall trees seems valid.
glad that the terrain rules not only seem clean and simple but that there is an actual point to painting and using nice scatter terrain. Seems like you are going to be able to create much more dynamic battlefields that still provide cover
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.
My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.
I definitely wouldn't object to room to maneuver. Its more a reaction to how hard they swung the pendulum last time.
I just hope that they also clean up Schrodinger's Walls, that seem to only exist to block incoming gunfire and specific unit types.
vipoid wrote: These cover rules seem bearable, if rather clunky.
However, it really seems like we should be going back to a cover save, rather than the "+1 to a model's armour save except sometimes not except again for the exceptions to that exception."
You're right, but the problem is that it doesn't benefit Astartes players, so they're unlikely to write that rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Getting rid of Breachable or treating ruins as difficult ground of some sort would be a good move imo.
What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?
Lord Damocles wrote: What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?
RAW it kicks in.
Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.
Lord Damocles wrote: What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?
RAW it kicks in.
Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.
Hmm. So this is me being a little silly/pedantic, but I wonder if they'll clearly define where "ground level" begins/ends. Like, lots of ruins I've played with have bases that are just a millimeter or two thick and pretty much just there to sprinkle some flocking on. *Technically*, that means that a model standing on those ruins is some distance off of the table/play mat itself, but we'd still probably consider it ground level. So then let's go the opposite direction. Say my ruins feature a crumbling stair case with each stair being roughly half an inch higher than the last. At what point on that staircase am I no longer on "ground level" and thus no longer affected by plunging fire? Can I theoretically be several inches off the ground and still be at "ground level?" If so, how many inches? If not, where's the cut-off?
(Obviously the simple answer is to just try and clarify with your opponent beforehand and roll off if there's a dispute, but it's still worth talking about, I think.)
Insectum7 wrote: Yah, Ruins that are higher than 8" are not uncommon.
Being inside ruins is different from being on top of an enclosed building. Ruins will always grant cover and so that particular interaction is irrelevant.
As noted already, there are GW terrain pieces that are over "woods height", ruins are only one of them, and could just be the piece of terrain occupied by the firer. There's also the case of a piece of terrain being on a hill.
Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.
Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.
Glad to see its per model instead of needing the entire unit to qualify for cover. That said I still wish they went back to having actual cover saves instead of AP being able to defeat cover (never liked the 8th system of making low armor useless against AP even when taking cover). Have they said about how wound allocation is done yet?
That said I am a bit unsure about all the focus on vertical mechanics when vertical stuff rarely came up due to 40k's generally terrible movement system for trying to get models up or down something. The abstraction that a bolter can only shoot 24" gets weird when each floor of a building is 3-4". The bolter couldn't hit the top of a 6-8 story building in this scenario.
Daedalus81 wrote: Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.
Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.
Lord Damocles wrote: What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?
RAW it kicks in.
Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.
Yeah?
What happens if the ruin is inside a depression, such that the second floor is at ground level?
Lord Damocles wrote: What happens if a shooting unit is on the second floor of a ruin at the bottom of a slope, such that a target unit on ground level at the top of the slope is actually higher up..?
RAW it kicks in.
Edit: no it wouldn't, they're not at "ground floor" any more, as they're on a hill of some kind.
Yeah?
What happens if the ruin is inside a depression, such that the second floor is at ground level?
Same thing. Ground floor will the the lowest floor point on the board. If the ruin is in a depression, logically the rest of the board is on a hill. Which is stupid, because its a stupid example. If you wanted to play a game with a mysterious 6"+ deep bowl cut out the board with a building in and decide the rest of the board isn't a hill, then yes, the rule would take effect for those firing laterally at the other units.
Jidmah wrote: I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.
I insist on gaming on a board that fits on the inside of a cube, and have some very pointed questions about vertical and horizontal distances!
Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
Imho these vignettes we've been shown aren't the full rules, who knows if they even fall apart at the edges... Ultimately, there will be cases where you just have to find a solution with your opponent (such as fully modelled boards, where there is no clean delineation between many things) and trying to cover every eventuality is a futile exercise. It's still a social game, some level of cooperation between participants is necessary. That does not mean that designers should get lazy and have the players do all the lifting, but a bit of common sense is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
You call it an edge case, I'd call it an illogical mental construct to try and be nit picky. That will never really happen, even if it does there are 2 very simple solutions. Stop trying so hard to make something clear and simple sound like an impossible puzzle.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
How to Fix Edge Cases? Maybe Just Don’t.
So now how do we fix the edge cases we just identified? If you can’t restructure your logic so that there is no edge case, you have two options: prevention (limit the boundaries) or support the scenario.
You do not have to and nor should you support every edge case. There is an infinite number of scenarios you would run into. Edge cases are impossible to completely avoid. So keep it simple! For example, if you aren't releasing your product internationally, then don't worry yet about translating to different languages.
Especially early in the design, your focus should remain on the happy path as not to get too distracted. Focus on your core functionalities! Every time you support a new edge case, chances are you are adding complexity and bugs. So it's up to you to prioritize the cases with higher risks.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
Terrain rules are one of the trickier parts of a ruleset to get right, unless you strictly mandate the exact dimensions of each terrain piece. They are the one area where a small amount of pre-game discussion is likely required, just to define the various types in use. If these edge cases were ever to come up they can be dealt with at that point. I'm not convinced they ever will come up except in some really weird cases where you're already playing on a highly non-standard board anyway. In those instances you need to more carefully define terrain in the first place. This is a complete non-issue, IMO, unless you can show some practical examples of the kind of thing you're worried about.
Do we have any idea if LoS will change at all? Really hoping they go back to an "ignore wings, aerials, etc" system instead of the "if I can see the tiniest bit of one model I can wipe the unit" crap they have now.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
How to Fix Edge Cases? Maybe Just Don’t.
So now how do we fix the edge cases we just identified? If you can’t restructure your logic so that there is no edge case, you have two options: prevention (limit the boundaries) or support the scenario.
You do not have to and nor should you support every edge case. There is an infinite number of scenarios you would run into. Edge cases are impossible to completely avoid. So keep it simple! For example, if you aren't releasing your product internationally, then don't worry yet about translating to different languages.
Especially early in the design, your focus should remain on the happy path as not to get too distracted. Focus on your core functionalities! Every time you support a new edge case, chances are you are adding complexity and bugs. So it's up to you to prioritize the cases with higher risks.
A quote from a book on writing software.
TL;DR: You're wrong.
designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.
designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.
I've seen the very same reasoning used by bad software developers for why they wrote terrible and unnecessarily software to handle edge cases which will never be relevant.
On top of that your argument not just wrong, but the reverse is true, as you can talk to your opponent about unhandled edge cases, while usually software will not change no matter how much you want it to.
You are also wrong about the impact of software compared to impact of game rules. There is software which can destroy companies, hurt or maim people or cause natural disasters by malfunctioning. Doesn't really compare well to getting an unjustified -1 to AP, does it?
So, despite your lack of actually addressing the point, you are also wrong in all your attempts at deflection.
Designing a system is the same as designing a system. Claiming otherwise just shows that you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.
I've seen the very same reasoning used by bad software developers for why they wrote terrible and unnecessarily software to handle edge cases which will never be relevant.
On top of that your argument not just wrong, but the reverse is true, as you can talk to your opponent about unhandled edge cases, while usually software will not change no matter how much you want it to.
You are also wrong about the impact of software compared to impact of game rules. There is software which can destroy companies, hurt or maim people or cause natural disasters by malfunctioning. Doesn't really compare well to getting an unjustified -1 to AP, does it?
So, despite your lack of actually addressing the point, you are also wrong in all your attempts at deflection.
Designing a system is the same as designing a system. Claiming otherwise just shows that you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Good enough for a second try?
To add to this, are there any real world examples of these edge cases, I'm talking personal experience, not some random historical diorama photo off Google etc.
Tyel wrote: Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...
I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"
I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'
Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.
My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.
Same, it'll be nice for scatter terrain to have a purpose besides making the battlefield nice, and I'm happy that large and or spiky models will be easier to maneuver with less walls and giant ruins on every piece of the board.
I'm surprised they're not letting rules obstruct line of sight, unless they plan on having two types of terrain for woods, one where fire will get through and one that's a dense jungle and you can't even see the enemy.
Jidmah wrote: I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.
GW has you covered. Tho I can't [edit: mistyped, oops] remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.
It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.
Jidmah wrote: I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.
GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.
It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.
These "cliffs" are barely 3" tall and I doubt it would have any impact on the rules as they are presented
Jidmah wrote: I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.
GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.
It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.
I have played literally hundreds of games on that board and those cliffs aren't high enough to cause the issue. Even the tallest ones (the two on the left side) are barely as high as your average infantry model. A primaris marine on a tactical rock can probably easily look onto them. There is no way to have a ground floor as high up as 6" on this board. Assuming you have a ruin that fits on them in the first place.
See here:
Spoiler:
Note that these are the old ruins, if I remember correctly, each of their floors was slightly more than 3" tall.
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Why make terrain and cover less relevant ?
See, this is an issue of mine, we play a highly lethal wargame, right? So to migitated there are mechanics like armor and invuls, etc. But more importantly the most relevant factor should be terrain, cover and manouvre by extention.
Why not run a dual system that provides a cover safe respectilvly improves an armor save if you have better armor?
that way you'd incentivise shocktroops / heavy troops, transports, and weaponry to dig enemies out of cover like artillery, nades and flamers without artificially poking holes in the rules that are breaking the inuniverse consistency?
f.e.
light cover 5+ coversafe/ + 1 to armorsave
heavy Cover 4+ coversafe/ +2 to armor.
If you run that with area cover or true los is irrelevant, but atleast it would lower lethality and make terrain even if one can draw los through it, more relevant / binary.
Jidmah wrote: I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.
GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.
It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.
I have played literally hundreds of games on that board and those cliffs aren't high enough to cause the issue. Even the tallest ones (the two on the left side) are barely as high as your average infantry model. A primaris marine on a tactical rock can probably easily look onto them. There is no way to have a ground floor as high up as 6" on this board. Assuming you have a ruin that fits on them in the first place.
See here:
Spoiler:
Note that these are the old ruins, if I remember correctly, each of their floors was slightly more than 3" tall.
The "cliffs" are also very notable as a hill and the GW wording of the board was that they can be used to create a hill, which is in turn, a defined terrain type.
I went googling for examples, there is this, which is explicitly not a 40k board, but for wild west exodus:
Spoiler:
This has a similar elevation, but the raised areas are very clearly NOT the "ground floor" so no real complexity:
Spoiler:
And a personal favourite of mine that I've experienced first hand, which would admittedly be confusing in current rule, but is arguably not a 40k table:
And a personal favourite of mine that I've experienced first hand, which would admittedly be confusing in current rule, but is arguably not a 40k table:
Spoiler:
All of these examples are very cool, especially the last one, but that is what i meant by 'fully modelled table' - in this case, you need to discuss how you handle stuff beforehand, and there is no really realistic way how ruleswriting could have prevented that discussion, at least not without becoming very wordy.
To add to this, are there any real world examples of these edge cases, I'm talking personal experience, not some random historical diorama photo off Google etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.
Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.
Eldarsif wrote: I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.
I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.
Sorry for the late reply. I'm talking about the homebrew system in my signature, which includes in theory all factions (Custodes and Votan are missing currently as nobody is playing them). While loyal Marines have the biggest selection of things simply because there is so much material out there for them, everybody is getting as much customisability as the previous codizes and fluff allow.
Further examples (note that "weapons" do not include unit specific items like "Earthsaker artillery cannon")
Inquisition:
Speaking from experience and feedback of my local playerbase of ~12-16 regular players, you can have a somewhat well balanced game and variety even with wildly different profiles in each army.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
I assume for balance reasons. Honestly, I was really hoping they'd go back to old cover rules where it's a separate save and you pick between armor, cover, and invuln. That would have avoided the issue I'm guessing they're trying to avoid (it being undesirably difficult to dig out a well armored unit from cover, making the game too stationary as 3+ armies would prefer sit in cover the whole game if the terrain allows). I'm, of course, speculating on their reasoning though.
It is kind of weird that 40K still has the save/invuln system where you only get one or the other, but they seem adamant on doing something else for cover.
I mean, if you want to poke holes in the logic of the cover mechanics, does it really make sense that putting a protective energy field on a suit of armor doesn't actually make it any more durable against small arms?
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
I assume for balance reasons. Honestly, I was really hoping they'd go back to old cover rules where it's a separate save and you pick between armor, cover, and invuln. That would have avoided the issue I'm guessing they're trying to avoid (it being undesirably difficult to dig out a well armored unit from cover, making the game too stationary as 3+ armies would prefer sit in cover the whole game if the terrain allows). I'm, of course, speculating on their reasoning though.
Somewhat balance reasons. I suspect much of it is trying to drive how people are 'supposed to' play. GW often gets a bug in their ear about space marines in particular aren't being played in the 'right' way, and in some cases have gone off on rants about it. (their first major buff to T4 and 3+ armor, way back in the day, had a lot of weird language about how it wasn't suitable that marines were being overly threatened by the more recent-at-the-time (xenos) army lists).
So I suspect this is someone's solution to the setting narrative that marines are supposed to be aggressive, not cautious and hug cover. Mind you, if there's still a lot of AP>0 weapons out there, they still will, but nevermind.
[It also conflicts with the Phobos marines, who are much more modern special forces in theme than the knight/crusaders theme or the original psycho-tropically altered criminals, and so their de facto operation should be hugging cover and being smart/cautious. But that's a different issue]
I'm happy it seems like it will be much easier to make a variety of different battlefields that also provide cover. Plus there is now a point in making a lot of small nice looking scatter terrain outside of just looks
GW haven't confirmed what Torrent does yet, have they? It'll be interesting to see what the full picture is for the Heavy Flamer - and whether IGNORES COVER is going to be a standard ability on Flamer-type weapons.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
Who should benefit more from cover?
A Marine, clad in power armor; or a Cultist, in a stiff t-shirt and a few bits of metal strapped on somewhere?
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Why make terrain and cover less relevant ?
See, this is an issue of mine, we play a highly lethal wargame, right? So to migitated there are mechanics like armor and invuls, etc. But more importantly the most relevant factor should be terrain, cover and manouvre by extention.
Why not run a dual system that provides a cover safe respectilvly improves an armor save if you have better armor?
that way you'd incentivise shocktroops / heavy troops, transports, and weaponry to dig enemies out of cover like artillery, nades and flamers without artificially poking holes in the rules that are breaking the inuniverse consistency?
f.e.
light cover 5+ coversafe/ + 1 to armorsave
heavy Cover 4+ coversafe/ +2 to armor.
If you run that with area cover or true los is irrelevant, but atleast it would lower lethality and make terrain even if one can draw los through it, more relevant / binary.
Because the most common profile in the game is T4 2W with a 2+ save in cover. It immediately makes any ap0 D1 weapons completely worthless and not worth bothering with. This is why so many weapons gained ap, or have abilities to stack it; so that they can actually deal with Space Marines sitting in Light Cover. The knock on effect of this though is that every other non-power armour faction gets hurt by this more than Marines actually do.
For instance it currently takes 60 lasgun shots to down a single Intercessor in cover. That is an absurdity and it's why Take Aim exists as an order. But now ordinary Guardsmen are doing obscene damage to things like GSC or Eldar units, and worse yet that same order is applying to things like Kasrkin who are now hitting on 2's with ap3 weapons.
The 10th solution is a little awkward, but it actually does address that issue. Ap0 D1 weapons still aren't amazing, especially vs Marines, but they're not completely pointless anymore and so don't require buffs which then endanger other non-Marine factions more.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
But having more ignores cover weapons (especially if they are not AP0) introduces issues with weakly armored units not being able to take proper advantage of cover. Granted, in the current system, high AP weapons are effectively "ignores cover" anyway...
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
Who should benefit more from cover?
A Marine, clad in power armor; or a Cultist, in a stiff t-shirt and a few bits of metal strapped on somewhere?
They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.
It also doesn't tackle inconsistencies like only some Bullgryns get benefit of cover because they brought the wrong shield.
It also doesn't matter when someone talks about, like in one of the threads, a 3+ to 2+ = a 5+ to 3+, because point cost is still a thing.
GW haven't confirmed what Torrent does yet, have they? It'll be interesting to see what the full picture is for the Heavy Flamer - and whether IGNORES COVER is going to be a standard ability on Flamer-type weapons.
We don't need to know what Torrent does: we see it ignores cover, and there's nothing to stop GW to give that to other Flamer based weapons too.
They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.
No they shouldnt, cover should have diminishing returns.
If you're wearing a t-shirt, the wooden barricade might slow the bullets just enough so that 1/3 of them don't hit you at lethal speed
If you're clad in armor, it doesnt matter if the bullets are slowed by the wooden barricade, it still wasnt gonna pierce the ceramite armor you're wearing
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
But having more ignores cover weapons (especially if they are not AP0) introduces issues with weakly armored units not being able to take proper advantage of cover. Granted, in the current system, high AP weapons are effectively "ignores cover" anyway...
Which created incentive to use Flamer based weapons. Oh look, another problem solved!
They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.
No they shouldnt, cover should have diminishing returns.
If you're wearing a t-shirt, the wooden barricade might slow the bullets just enough so that 1/3 of them don't hit you at lethal speed
If you're clad in armor, it doesnt matter if the bullets are slowed by the wooden barricade, it still wasnt gonna pierce the ceramite armor you're wearing
And 1/3 speed of the bullet doesn't make the Power Armor even more effective against said firearm?
And 1/3 speed of the bullet doesn't make the Power Armor even more effective against said firearm?
No, because the armor can already tank the full speed bullet.
Look, its clear you just want the tabletop to reflect bolterporn but having an entire faction of semi-elite dude all save on a 2+ by hugging terrain is bad for the game and unfluffy.
Now marines don't need to cower behind terrain when facing AP0 shitters, they can just move towards them and let the ceramite do its thing.
you've been shown the math on how much more space marines benefit from cover right now, going from a 3->2 is muuuuuch more impactful than going from a 6->5 which means its MORE important for dudes wearing portable tanks to cower in cover than for cultists. Completely backwards
No, because the armor can already tank the full speed bullet.
Armor isn't just a homogeneous block. It has weakspots like joints and eyes, Marines aren't 100% impervious to lasguns after all, just like 99.999%. And a wooden fence may actually matter for that remaining 0.001%
Still not something work utterly messing the tabletop for.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
Giving everyone more access to ignoring cover does literally nothing to address the issue of some armies getting more benefit from cover than others and being incentivized to play in ways contrary to the fluff.
If anything, it might make the illogic of it worse, when flamers start becoming disproportionately effective against Marines.
And 1/3 speed of the bullet doesn't make the Power Armor even more effective against said firearm?
Look, its clear you just want the tabletop to reflect bolterporn but having an entire faction of semi-elite dude all save on a 2+ by hugging terrain is bad for the game and unfluffy.
I feel like there is a lot more to unpack here than just Marines hugging cover for a 2+ save. Surely, there must be other incentives to get that Space Marine shock assault feeling going than making them benefit from cover less against the dreaded lasgun volley. If you know what I mean.
How about Space Marines just auto win against Xenos or IG? You’re clearly the Hero Protagonists so we will just admire each other’s models and then catch the early bus home.
As a long time non-marine player I am sick to death of folks wanting to shrug off all of my small arms fire and then whinging that I am taking more and more MW or high AP weaponry to have some chance of dealing with MEQ.
The AP0 thing isn’t logical but it does prevent heavy infantry being frustrating to deal with.
Not Online!!! wrote: My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?
Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights
A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and
B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.
Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.
But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.
Giving everyone more access to ignoring cover does literally nothing to address the issue of some armies getting more benefit from cover than others and being incentivized to play in ways contrary to the fluff.
If anything, it might make the illogic of it worse, when flamers start becoming disproportionately effective against Marines.
Flamers don't magically become better vs Marines than Plasma in cover though assuming they did ignore cover. Thats half a wound per Flamer and almost half the time a dead model for Plasma. That's not accounting potential sources of ignoring cover either.
Does it make then MORE effective than normal? Sure. Does it make it so it's not a trap choice? Sure. Is it going to be taken all the time over Plasma if you think Marines will hug cover? No.
Well, if you want to ignore the actual point, I'll leave you to it.
I don't know what you're talking about with fences stopping bullets, but I know that Marines hiding in the treeline while nigh-immune to small arms was garbage from both a fluff perspective and as a play experience, so I'm really not bothered by this solution even if it's a clunky and not particularly simulationist one.
You can say one thing when it comes to the new Benefits of Cover, GW obviously considered many things before they decided on this rule. I personally find it fine, since all the alternatives have drawbacks that GW decided they didn't want to deal with.
But if you find it offensive, what would you rather have? The options are:
Additional Save - An additional save, like a FNP Save. A fine idea, except it is either too good (4+ Cover Save on top of you normal save?) or not worth the time of an addition roll (who wants to roll for a 6+ Cover Save? all day long?).
Replacement Save - Like an Invulnerable Save. Makes Cover only good for those with bad saves or against powerful weapons.
To Hit Modifier - Like 9th Edition Dense Cover. This is heavily punishing for armies with bad BS scores (5+ and even 4+ to an extent). It also constricts design space for special rules to provide a negative BS modifier.
Bonus to Armor Save - The rule they decided on. GW added a stipulation to prevent good armor (2+, 3+) from succeeding more often against AP 0 attacks, which prevents them from being too difficult to wound. This is an important consideration given they are reducing AP overall to improve durability. You don't want Cover to improve durability too much. There will still be plenty of opportunities for Cover to matter for those units given all the heavy weapons in play.
I just get the feeling that some people will never be happy unless an IGOUGO abstract simulation of a game represents reality to a tee. Something that will never happen. People would probably be happier playing computer games as they are able to represent reality slightly better than a boardgame.
At some point you have to accept the fact that this is a game and games have to take stuff into account to keep the game fun.
The arguments made here also seem to forget that GW could have very well tested out giving power armor cover and more, and found it unpleasant and unfun. They might also have tested -1 to hit, and found it unpleasant and unfun. I just know that 1+ save Terminators are not fun to play against if you don't have AP at all.
All this talk about cover, and who gets cover, and ignores cover, and saves while in cover just kind of makes me miss the old system. You know, a separate cover save that you can take instead of an armor save - most times it meant say Guard or Orks actually got a save vs super common attacks (ie: bolters and their ap:5), but it also meant that Marines facing an ap:3 pieplate could still get some defense going. The fact that most Ignores Cover weapons were ap4 or worse also helped. It made it so Marines and other 3+ save or better troopers were fine marching in the open under a hail of bullets, and only needed to take cover in certain circumstances (like when advancing on a Leman Russ Battle Tank). It also meant that for the most part, a Marine in cover always had a save, due to their naturally good save and most ignores cover not having big penetration.
Meanwhile something like a Guardsman gained great benefit from cover, but had to fear the occasional flamer flushing them out.
The system just had a lot more back and forth to me than a +1 armor save.
Lord Damocles wrote: Yes it's an edge case example, but that's the point - the rules shouldn't fall apart at the edges to such a point that it becomes necessary to declare that the entire board is a hill in order to get plunging fire to work.
Or, you know, don't create edge cases when you have 100% control of terrain placement.
Eldarsif wrote: I just get the feeling that some people will never be happy unless an IGOUGO abstract simulation of a game represents reality to a tee. Something that will never happen. People would probably be happier playing computer games as they are able to represent reality slightly better than a boardgame.
That's a disingenuous read on it if I ever heard one.
The issue is one of intuitive action. Intuition suggests that infantry taking cover would recieve some sort of benefit. However the game declares instead that no benefit is gained (for AP0 weapons). That's not intuitive, and can feel weird. There's a lot of places that can appear in the game, where results are counterintuitive, but there's an argument to be made that if it's a basic action for the "introductory faction" the rules should be intuitive. The idea of taking cover is something everybody understands, so if it does something a bit odd, it can feel off.
I say this as a huge fan of the 3-7th paradigm too. That cover system was not intuitive, but the results were good. Bridging the gap between intuitive action and gameplay result is the ideal, obviously.
Eldarsif wrote: I just get the feeling that some people will never be happy unless an IGOUGO abstract simulation of a game represents reality to a tee. Something that will never happen. People would probably be happier playing computer games as they are able to represent reality slightly better than a boardgame.
That's a disingenuous read on it if I ever heard one.
The issue is one of intuitive action. Intuition suggests that infantry taking cover would recieve some sort of benefit. However the game declares instead that no benefit is gained (for AP0 weapons). That's not intuitive, and can feel weird. There's a lot of places that can appear in the game, where results are counterintuitive, but there's an argument to be made that if it's a basic action for the "introductory faction" the rules should be intuitive. The idea of taking cover is something everybody understands, so if it does something a bit odd, it can feel off.
I say this as a huge fan of the 3-7th paradigm too. That cover system was not intuitive, but the results were good. Bridging the gap between intuitive action and gameplay result is the ideal, obviously.
If anything you'd think that a unit in cover would just be harder to hit. Or it's harder to hit the cleverly concealed guy in his camo cloak or whatever.
Rounds slam into the trees/rocks/ruined walls etc, or just plain miss & not into thier intended target.
But those that do land? Normal odds of punching any armor & wounding.
But not in the 40k universe....
No, in 40k land that rock will somehow protect you more against armor-piercing shots but not against the ap0 stuff - depending on how good your armor is.
Odd, very odd.
It's a decent abstraction if you think about it. AP0 represents weapons that are only damaging a marine if they hit a weak spot (eyes, some of the joints, etc). 4+ or worse saves tend to armor the torso so it makes sense that cover over the limbs would provide a benefit, but 3+ and better saves are heavily armored and cover likely wouldn't help with the weak spots (if your eyes aren't vulnerable you're just not looking out). When you look at guns with actual AP the cover starts helping again.
It's not completely coherent but you can justify it a bit.
I have (long before this), and I disagree with you.
While it's not as bad an abstraction as some of the other non-sense GWs written, I still think it's a stupid way of representing it.
And if you need to do some sort of mental gymnastics to justify it? That just proves my point.
In about 3 years? I'll probably be thinking the same thing about their next idea of what cover does.
Souleater wrote: How about Space Marines just auto win against Xenos or IG? You’re clearly the Hero Protagonists so we will just admire each other’s models and then catch the early bus home.
I think it says a lot about the current state of the lore and the game that this statement can be made unironically.
Souleater wrote: How about Space Marines just auto win against Xenos or IG? You’re clearly the Hero Protagonists so we will just admire each other’s models and then catch the early bus home.
I think it says a lot about the current state of the lore and the game that this statement can be made unironically.
Souleater wrote: How about Space Marines just auto win against Xenos or IG? You’re clearly the Hero Protagonists so we will just admire each other’s models and then catch the early bus home.
I think it says a lot about the current state of the lore and the game that this statement can be made unironically.
Souleater wrote: How about Space Marines just auto win against Xenos or IG? You’re clearly the Hero Protagonists so we will just admire each other’s models and then catch the early bus home.
I think it says a lot about the current state of the lore and the game that this statement can be made unironically.
I'll have some of whatever you're taking.
Disillusionment? Be my guest.
You mean the lore where we've literally just had a major chaos win in arks of omen, Gman admitting that the Imperium is losing and lies to the population, where the game is reasonably balanced at the minute with admittedly slight uptick to marines after a year of them sucking ass overall and importantly guard are/were in the top 3 armies?
Dudeface wrote: You mean the lore where we've literally just had a major chaos win in arks of omen, Gman admitting that the Imperium is losing and lies to the population
This is actually a major source of my disillusionment, so if you want to get involved then you are at the right spot. Tho Gulliman being angsty over how GRIM and DARK things are was more on the amusing side of things, so maybe not that one.
I'm pretty sure that guilliman thing was a tongue in cheek meme on "lol see it's grimdark" nothing more. Basically GW trying to look cool and not out of touch. The equivalent in a cartoon or sitcom of the old fuddy duddy dressing like a high school student and being all "Yo what's up fellow kids, what's cool?"
I like the new cover system, including units with a 3+ or better not benefitting from 0AP weapons.
From a gameplay perspective it means that MEQ/TEQ don't become this unmovable brick once in cover. It means that your small arms can actually contribute in even a vaguely meaningful way.
From a fluff perspective, why is a Terminator or Marine going to care about Guardsmen plinking lasguns at him? Yes, they're going to hug cover when the melta guns and plasma guns come out but until then the overwhelming majority of small arms fire is inconsequential to them.
Afrodactyl wrote: I like the new cover system, including units with a 3+ or better not benefitting from 0AP weapons.
From a gameplay perspective it means that MEQ/TEQ don't become this unmovable brick once in cover. It means that your small arms can actually contribute in even a vaguely meaningful way.
From a fluff perspective, why is a Terminator or Marine going to care about Guardsmen plinking lasguns at him? Yes, they're going to hug cover when the melta guns and plasma guns come out but until then the overwhelming majority of small arms fire is inconsequential to them.
Wrong. It doesn´t matter if a guardsman or marine stand behind a tree. In both cases the bullet has to penetrate the tree first. So both models will benefit from it. The mental gymnastics of some people...
If anything you'd think that a unit in cover would just be harder to hit.
-1 to hit units in cover makes more sense to me (from a tactical feel)
but I see how that could keep the heavy infantry still hugging terrain (which does go against some of the fluff)
You are free to rage against the rules if you like, but the mental gymnastics aren't even that hard.
Most armor on most models is simply not that resistant to AP0 attacks anywhere. Enough solid hits to the torso will punch through them.
2+ and 3+ armor is only vulnerable at the weak points like the head and joints. Guess what is available to be hit when you are looking and firing from a cover position? The head, neck, arms, and shoulders. Sometimes the foot and legs. Lots of joints showing with the heavily armored torso hidden.
But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.
No, because that would mean minimally armored models (Sv 6+/7+) would receive minimal to no benefit from cover. Give that those are the models who should receive the most benefits from cover, it would be an absurd result.
alextroy wrote: But still, the rule is about finding a compromise between an easy cover system (+1 Armor Save) and not making the best defended units too immune to fire via that rule. Moving a 3+ Save to an effective 2+ Save is something they didn't want to do, so they simply ruled it out by exception. It is not elegant, but it is simple.
Wait, isn't their new motto "Simplified but not simple"?
.
)
ing common sense and don’t apply Plunging Fire.
:strip_icc()/pic3084544.jpg)
