There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?
Really?
If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?
Really?
If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.
But if armies are at -1 to hit things on turn 1 then it results in the first round being less critical.
Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.
HMint wrote: Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.
HMint wrote: Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.
So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?
No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).
HMint wrote: Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.
So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?
No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).
What counts as leaving? Just a mm outside is good enough?
What if you move out of deployment you can shoot? Nah that probably makes it worse again as gunlines set up to inch forward first turn.
I like some of this, but the gunline could just reposition in their zone and wait.
I think the premise, Daedalus, is that a shooting army could not hit targets that stayed in their own DZ on turn 1.
That way, a melee/short-ranged shooting army can stay in their DZ and be safe, though if they go first, they have to choose whether to wander out of their DZ and get into other advantageous positions (and therefore be shot), or remain in their DZ turn 1 and not be shot, but also not gain ground.
I actually like the rule, honestly. It makes Turn 1 more maneuver centric, from both sides (though two gunline armies would just stay parked in their DZ turn one, and open fire turn two, but those games are boring anyways).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the premise, Daedalus, is that a shooting army could not hit targets that stayed in their own DZ on turn 1.
That way, a melee/short-ranged shooting army can stay in their DZ and be safe, though if they go first, they have to choose whether to wander out of their DZ and get into other advantageous positions (and therefore be shot), or remain in their DZ turn 1 and not be shot, but also not gain ground.
I actually like the rule, honestly. It makes Turn 1 more maneuver centric, from both sides (though two gunline armies would just stay parked in their DZ turn one, and open fire turn two, but those games are boring anyways).
Ok i'm going to add this as a potential suggestion to the doc.
HMint wrote: Make the restrictions for shooting armies the same as for melee armies: In the first turn you can shoot stuff normally, but only if its outside your opponents deployment zone.
Everything within the deployment zone is safe. Just as the shooting army is safe within its own deployment zone.
So turn 1 is essentially a maneuver phase?
No, everything leaving the deployment zones is fair game: These units can be shot at and surely can be charged by a suited melee army without having to rely in deep strike.
Would also help to relief a bit of the first turn advantage, as the player having to move out first will draw more fire (but he does not have to if he does not want to).
What counts as leaving? Just a mm outside is good enough?
What if you move out of deployment you can shoot? Nah that probably makes it worse again as gunlines set up to inch forward first turn.
I like some of this, but the gunline could just reposition in their zone and wait.
Well, yes they could just sit there and wait, but it would mean they also give up that turn and don't get to have free shooting phase while the opponent has to wait for turn 2 to do anything useful.
I mean, playing gunline should still be a viable tactic, it just does not need a buff.
Why would anyone ever leave the deplyoment zone turn 1 then?
- to grab objectives
- to spread out and deny deepstrike turn 2 (so it would still kinda buff them, as they could get more deny out of less screen. More time to set up and prepare)
- to challenge infiltrating units
- to set up in favourable positions behind cover /LOS blocking terrain
I like this especially because it allows the player going second to set up their defenses. Like defensive psi powers and such. Which is currently a big part of why going second hurts.
36" BCs become 18" BCs - so they've gotta move 6" forward, and start directly opposite their target. Or go second.
Virtually-infinite range units won't be as impacted (Prisms, Railheads, artillery), that's true. But even the Lasgun - 1 shot @ 12", 2 @ 6" for top-of-one?
Ideally, going 1st or 2nd should be a choice. Should we consider changes to just top of 1, or all of 1?
Humble suggestion here: go play a lot of games with the beta rules and see how they work in practice before you start complaining about what's wrong with them.
Bharring wrote: 36" BCs become 18" BCs - so they've gotta move 6" forward, and start directly opposite their target. Or go second.
Virtually-infinite range units won't be as impacted (Prisms, Railheads, artillery), that's true. But even the Lasgun - 1 shot @ 12", 2 @ 6" for top-of-one?
Ideally, going 1st or 2nd should be a choice. Should we consider changes to just top of 1, or all of 1?
No, I mean they'll be 36" after halving.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
meleti wrote: Humble suggestion here: go play a lot of games with the beta rules and see how they work in practice before you start complaining about what's wrong with them.
I don't disagree with that and I will be doing that, but my lists don't rely on first turn alpha melee, which is absolutely disproportionately affected here.
The way I read them, they need refinement, but a well-crafted version might help the game a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Won't know until we try them!
The reason it seems like the beta rules are always used is because most of the beta rules have been no-brainers. The first two I played more often than not *before they were beta rules*. Everyone just wanted to play that way.
Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)
The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Honestly, I think the best fix to first turn Alpha strikes would be the same thing I've said since day one would be a good fix for a myriad of problems in the game: make every single round and every single phase of the game alternate. One player moves a unit, then the other. One player shoots with a unit, and then the other, etc, etc.
One thing I know for sure, though, is that this beta rule is not the way to fix it; it pretty indisputably affects CC armies more than shooting armies, and destroys a degree of balance the game hasn't had in years.
Formosa wrote: Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)
Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.
I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.
So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.
How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?
Really?
If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.
Hey to be fair, they didn't just make assault irrelevant in the first turn, they made it irrelevant in every turn with their lovely "terrain upper stories are un-assaultable" rule.
Enemy sticks objectives up there, parks a shooty unit, and Bam, there's one objective and one unit you can never do anything about with assault.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Honestly, I think the best fix to first turn Alpha strikes would be the same thing I've said since day one would be a good fix for a myriad of problems in the game: make every single round and every single phase of the game alternate. One player moves a unit, then the other. One player shoots with a unit, and then the other, etc, etc.
One thing I know for sure, though, is that this beta rule is not the way to fix it; it pretty indisputably affects CC armies more than shooting armies, and destroys a degree of balance the game hasn't had in years.
Uhm, the limitation is only on the first turn. Which, if both players chicken out and sit there, still leaves the advantage of shooting first to the player going first.
auticus wrote: I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.
So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.
How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.
Make all guns have less than 24 inch range then. You talk about no maneuvering how the hell do you think gunlines play.
I'm not sure it takes anything as drastic as some of these recommendations. How about a simple All units count as having moved the first turn? That'll mean -1 to hit for most of the weapons that allow gunline alpha strikes to be too strong, but won't hurt lots of other units that aren't the problem.
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
Do you think that completely removing an entire phase of the game (Combat phase), on the most critical round of the game (Round 1), for armies that live and die by the Combat phase; is equal to a -1 to hit for shooting?
Really?
If Melee armies can't deep strike, then Shooting armies shouldn't be able to shoot - period. Let the first battle round be for movement and jockeying for position, if we're going that route.
Soooo, what your saying is just play Warmachine? Starting to think about making that my main game (again) until GW figured out how their own game plays.
Formosa wrote: Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)
Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.
They'll probably need to faq this but i would argue that the leman russ's data sheet and rule allows you to treat 3 squadron'd leman russ's as a single unit up to deployment, allowing you to field a total of 9 russes.
The rules in question
This Unit contain 1 Leman Russ battle tank. It can include 1 additional Leman Russ Battle Tank (Power Rating +10) or 2 Additional Leman Russ Battle Tanks (power Rating +20) Each Model is Equipped with a battle cannon and heavy bolter.
Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independantly and is treated as a seperate unit for all rules purposes.
It's gonna be important to get a resolution on this as most vehicles in the guard codex can be placed into squadrons.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I'm not sure it takes anything as drastic as some of these recommendations. How about a simple All units count as having moved the first turn? That'll mean -1 to hit for most of the weapons that allow gunline alpha strikes to be too strong, but won't hurt lots of other units that aren't the problem.
Does nothing against weapons that rely simply on massed fired and the law of averages. Still disproportionately penalizes CC armies, because a gunline at -1 still has a chance to do something, albiet at a penalty. A CC army with no ability to charge doesn't.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Honestly, I think the best fix to first turn Alpha strikes would be the same thing I've said since day one would be a good fix for a myriad of problems in the game: make every single round and every single phase of the game alternate. One player moves a unit, then the other. One player shoots with a unit, and then the other, etc, etc.
One thing I know for sure, though, is that this beta rule is not the way to fix it; it pretty indisputably affects CC armies more than shooting armies, and destroys a degree of balance the game hasn't had in years.
Uhm, the limitation is only on the first turn. Which, if both players chicken out and sit there, still leaves the advantage of shooting first to the player going first.
Okay, I missed the 1st turn part. Change that to
"sounds like a really boring round that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending half an hour staring at some pretty models.
If you can't fire at units in their deployment zone turn one, all that's going to happen is neither player moving turn one, and turn two effectively being turn one, but for some reason called turn two.
I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).
Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)
but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
How Do we improve the beta rules? Seems pretty easy to me.
Tactical Reserves: Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.
Part 2: New global Stratagem. 2 CP: Dug in: Your armor saves cannot be reduced by more than 1 on the 1st shooting phase of the game to a minimum of a 6+.
It might not be the perfect dialed in fix, but it's pretty good, and excellent for army diversity. How many Mawlocs, Drop Pods, Terminators do you expect in the meta with the GW version of this rule? My version creates a role for those units in the game again. It also tackles alpha strike in a meaningful way. It's not platitudes about "More Terrain" or a fix to a subset of alpha strike (deepstrikers). It tackles the problem head-on in a meaningful way.
Battle Brothers: Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist
Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.
Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.
GW if you are reading this (and I suspect you are), please consider our ideas. We are happy you are putting in the effort, and trying, and hope that together we can improve the fun and diversity of the game.
blackmage wrote: but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Formosa wrote: Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)
Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.
They'll probably need to faq this but i would argue that the leman russ's data sheet and rule allows you to treat 3 squadron'd leman russ's as a single unit up to deployment, allowing you to field a total of 9 russes.
The rules in question
This Unit contain 1 Leman Russ battle tank. It can include 1 additional Leman Russ Battle Tank (Power Rating +10) or 2 Additional Leman Russ Battle Tanks (power Rating +20) Each Model is Equipped with a battle cannon and heavy bolter.
Vehicle Squadron: The first time this unit is setup, all models in this unit must be placed within 6" of each other. From that point onwards, each operates independantly and is treated as a seperate unit for all rules purposes.
It's gonna be important to get a resolution on this as most vehicles in the guard codex can be placed into squadrons.
Oh I really did not notice that rule, that changes things considerably then what I was thinking.
blackmage wrote: but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed?
Because you don't understand game design probably. What game are you aware that got their balancing done right at the on-set and didn't need multiple iterations to improve its mechanics?
LoyalGuardsman69 wrote: I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).
Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)
The problem with saying that drawing on tournaments is "data driven" is it doesn't take into account whether that data represents an accurate cross section of the game. It's like saying a poll on whether people are content with their standard of living that only questions rich, white people is "data driven" when applied to everyone in the country. Things like Adeptacon draw particular types of lists because those are what are considered competitive. At Adepticon this year, for example, of the top 16 lists, 5 were Nids, 4 were Chaos, 6 were Imperium. 93.75% of the top lists split between like 20% of the available factions. Issues that may have arisen from the types of lists people were playing at Adepticon hardly represent and are hardly applicable to every other army.
Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.
Okay, why those specific units, and why specifically not every other deep striking unit.
Anyone can come up with a reason why their unit should or should not be affected. Any change to deep striking needs to have solid grounding, and create a level field. To me, that just seems like saying "except these units from major, competitive armies, because reasons."
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.
Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.
Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.
I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.
LoyalGuardsman69 wrote: I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).
Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)
GW has a tremendously perfect track record for balancing, and it's impossible to know more than them when it comes to game design; or critical thinking.
LoyalGuardsman69 wrote: I'm not sure the beta rules need any change, not yet at least. GW's been working with pro gamers to get this out and these results are data driven (adeptacon).
Instead of spitting in GW's face we need to do them the service of playing out these rules for a few months, and adjusting away from these more abusive play-styles (deepstrike, spam, soup, smites, etc)
GW has a tremendously perfect track record for balancing, and it's impossible to know more than them when it comes to game design; or critical thinking.
/s
And I've seen the logic on this forum and it's gak a lot of the time, too. I wouldn't be so quick to claim that many here would do better.
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.
Formosa wrote: Leman Russ can only be taken as 1 per data sheet and not 1-3 in matched play with rule of 3, that or just make all tanks 1-3 line leman Russ (predator, falcon etc.)
Were people taking tons of squadded Leman Russes? It just seemed to me that Squadding actually makes it overall worse then the previous tactic of taking as many leman russes in individual slots rather then all together.
Separate gives better CP access(not really problem), squadroning limits bit deployment but also cuts down on drops=better chance to get +1 for first turn.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.
Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.
I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.
I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?
GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"
GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"
NH Gunsmith wrote: Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.
Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.
I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.
I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?
GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"
GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"
GW is the ultimate troll.
That's what you get when you try to apply game wide rule changes to combat few problematic units.
From my point of view, what needs to be done is adding a new 'Imperial Agents' faction keyword to the datasheets for Inquisition, Officio Assassinorum, Adeptus Ministorum (but not Adepta Sororitas stuff except for Sisters Hospitaller and Dialogus) and Astra Telepathica units so that they can be used together in a single detachment without having to do stupid lore-destroying things like fielding Assassins in threes or having Sisters of Silence drag along Astropaths and Primaris Psykers to fill compulsory FoC slots. That then means we can lose the silly exception-to-an-exception rules for fielding Assassins and SoS in HQ-less vanguard detachments.
For Legion of the Damned, it makes more sense fluff-wise to keep them in their own isolated detachments (like GK or DW in Inquisition armies), so I'd rather see them get some new units (i.e. HQ choices) to make them viable. Or maybe let them bypass the normal -1CP cost of taking a single squad in an auxilliary detachment, since a single unit showing up to help out feels appropriate. You could actually do that with Assassins as well.
Sim-Life wrote: Global -1 to hit on ranged attacks to represent the army just having gotten into position in addition to the deep striking stuff.
I think going with +1 to WS/BS (-1? whatever, make it harder to hit them) is a better call. Still allows for fancy abilities to go off on 6s, and wont make plasma overcharge a 1/3 chance to die. I would be 100% ok with my deep strikers being disoriented and having worse melee/shooting for the turn they arrive as a balance.
You want to make a shooting alpha better?
No he means making 3+ shooting a 4+. (ie adding 1). With a -1 it makes plasma overcharge on a 2, whereas his way means it is just harder to hit.
auticus wrote: So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.
How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.
Unfortunately this.
It actually would not need all that much work by GW, but they seem somewhat entrenched in their way of wanting games to work. Everything else is a sticking plaster on an open wound.
tag8833 wrote: Battle Brothers: Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist
Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.
Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.
That's a great way to solve the inquisition problem.
I would also like if the inquisition also had access to Chimeras, and maybe Taurox.
For Ynnari:
- The Ynnari keyword becomes eligible as a detachment faction keyword
- When you take an Ynnari character, all your Aeldari detachments become Ynnari. It's an all-or-nothing thing.
auticus wrote: I'll never play the game so long as this turn 1 place your units wherever you want on the table and charge mechanic is the norm. Seriously... no maneuvering is a game dead to me.
So the beta rules are a step in the right direction for me.
How do you make brainless turn 1 charge something that could work? By making alternating activations how the game works instead of IGOUGO.
Make all guns have less than 24 inch range then. You talk about no maneuvering how the hell do you think gunlines play.
There are a solid dozen wargames that are set in modern or sci fi times that seem to do just fine. The fact that "gunlines" can exist is another failing of the core rules of 40k. The truth of the matter is that an all gun or an all melee army SHOULD fail. "Gunlines" exist because the terrain rules are ridiculously barely existent and cover is garbage.
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Yes, because being 16.666% more durable than other Space Marine Chapters is negative (sorry, except for two units!).
Stop pretending that the ONLY thing Iron Hands had was the ability to stack a 6+ on two units. Firstly, it's a tiny buff in the first place - probably didn't need to be removed, but it's not gamebreaking that it is. Instead, think of it this way - all your Dreads can have the 6+ as well as the Venerable - mini Venerables, if you will.
It's not "useless". It doesn't make Iron Hands "unplayable". That's blatant hyperbole and you know it. It would be warranted if they lost the ability to take their 6+ as well as another save (as I actually thought it said, when you were crowing on about it being making Iron Hands unplayable), but two units lost a 6+ save??!? Sky must be falling down.
I don't think it needed to be done, but it's not this big deal like you're making it out for the majority of Iron Hands players.
blackmage wrote:but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Being playtested has never meant being perfect.
Plus, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GW have a different idea of playtesting compared to how most of Dakka seems to play. I think GW are playing more relaxed, fluffy games, not trying to break the rules to get the best chance of winning. However, the competitive community does EXACTLY that - their idea of a good time is push the rules to their extremes and spamming the best things to do that. GW's playtest team probably didn't think of doing this, because that's not how they envisioned the game being played.
Anyway, onto my suggestions for fixing the beta: Don't need to change the Brigade/Battalion CP. Leave them as 3/9 respectively. Instead, put in a rule like:
Logistical Nightmares: Command Points generated by a detachment may only be spent on Stratagems that are used on units with the same <Faction> keyword as the detachment that created them. For example, an Imperium army is made up of a Cadian Brigade, a Catachan Patrol, an Ultramarines Battalion and Ultramarines Spearhead detachments. The 9 Command Points the Cadian Brigade generates can only be used on Stratagems that affect Cadian units. The two Ultramarines detachments may share their Command Points between eachother, as they are both Ultramarines. The Catachans have no access to Command Points, except the 3 from being Battleforged, which may be used to benefit anyone in the army.
NH Gunsmith wrote: Why not just make it so the player going first can't bring stuff in from Reserves? Actually makes people think about going first or second, or whether seizing the initiative is worth it.
Same problems (though in a more minor form) as GW's version. Alpha Strike shooting is still boosted by removing it's natural enemy (turn 1 assault) from the ecosystem.
I agree that alpha strike assault can be pretty intense. I think it can be mitigated by screening your army. Long range shooty alpha strikes like Guard Artillery, Dark Reapers, or Tau Riptides are much harder to mitigate, and much less fun to play against. My opinion is that a fix to alpha strikes should also addresses shooting alpha strikes and not only assault based ones.
I completely understand, but I really can't see any other way of trying to make that jank rule work since between the DE shutting off Strategems and this Beta rule, what is the point of even playing Blood Angels?
GW: "Hey we gave you some sweet assault rules in your Codex!"
GW a few months later: "LULZ! So you wanted to use your rules?! Gotcha!"
GW is the ultimate troll.
Or you know you can still use them. Death Company can still turn 1 charge with a stratagem, and turn 2 is when you were (or should have been) bringing your heavy hitters in anyway. I mean were people actually letting you deepstrike charge things other than screening units? and if so other than happening a turn later what has changed?
Honestly IME this was prior to the FAQ
My opponent has a screen I need to kill before I can effectively deepstrike in and do damage to his core.
Now it is still
My opponent has a screen I need to kill before I can effectively deestrike and do damage to his core.
The change is much worse for armies relying on deepstrike shooting over screens, than it is for assault that needed to kill screens in the first place. Unless your game plan was turn 1 I deepstrike charge my opponents screen, which often resulted in your own units dying after killing 40 points of guardsman.
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Yes, because being 16.666% more durable than other Space Marine Chapters is negative (sorry, except for two units!).
Stop pretending that the ONLY thing Iron Hands had was the ability to stack a 6+ on two units. Firstly, it's a tiny buff in the first place - probably didn't need to be removed, but it's not gamebreaking that it is. Instead, think of it this way - all your Dreads can have the 6+ as well as the Venerable - mini Venerables, if you will.
It's not "useless". It doesn't make Iron Hands "unplayable". That's blatant hyperbole and you know it. It would be warranted if they lost the ability to take their 6+ as well as another save (as I actually thought it said, when you were crowing on about it being making Iron Hands unplayable), but two units lost a 6+ save??!?
Sky must be falling down.
I don't think it needed to be done, but it's not this big deal like you're making it out for the majority of Iron Hands players.
blackmage wrote:but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Being playtested has never meant being perfect.
Plus, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that GW have a different idea of playtesting compared to how most of Dakka seems to play.
I think GW are playing more relaxed, fluffy games, not trying to break the rules to get the best chance of winning. However, the competitive community does EXACTLY that - their idea of a good time is push the rules to their extremes and spamming the best things to do that. GW's playtest team probably didn't think of doing this, because that's not how they envisioned the game being played.
Anyway, onto my suggestions for fixing the beta:
Don't need to change the Brigade/Battalion CP. Leave them as 3/9 respectively. Instead, put in a rule like:
Logistical Nightmares: Command Points generated by a detachment may only be spent on Stratagems that are used on units with the same <Faction> keyword as the detachment that created them.
For example, an Imperium army is made up of a Cadian Brigade, a Catachan Patrol, an Ultramarines Battalion and Ultramarines Spearhead detachments. The 9 Command Points the Cadian Brigade generates can only be used on Stratagems that affect Cadian units. The two Ultramarines detachments may share their Command Points between eachother, as they are both Ultramarines. The Catachans have no access to Command Points, except the 3 from being Battleforged, which may be used to benefit anyone in the army.
I don't hate this, but I would argue that it should be at the Codex level, since that's the level that unlocks stratagems and sort've the traditional base level of an army.
So, like, Cadians and Catachans could use each other's command points, because they're both AM and have access to the same stratagems, but not Ultramarines, Coven of Strife and Kabal of the Black Heart can use each other's command points, because they're both DE and have access to the same stratagems, but not Biel-Tan, etc, etc.
If all it takes for iron hands to become unplayably useless (aka I can't win) is not being able to stack 2 or 3 6+ FNP saves, balance is tighter than you are making it out to be.
The suggested logistical nightmares rule. I like the idea but I see 2 problems. 1 keepin track of this might be a logistical nightmare in and of itself. 2 this means again cheap spammable units become better. And They don't need buffing.
Also whilst this doesn't exist in matched there are scenarios/ open play cards in open and narrative that have bordering deployment zones.
I don't think we need rules limiting alpha strikes. I think firepower needs to become more expensive and toughness needs to go down in cost.
On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.
blackmage wrote: but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Ah this joke.
Most playtested =/= perfect balance
oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?
gwarsh41 wrote: On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.
unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.
gwarsh41 wrote: On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.
unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.
GW pretty much admitted that they never intend for players to exploit the rules as they clearly do. That shows that GW is quite casual. They made this game to have fun and write the rules with "fluffy, cool stuff" in mind. The rules work perfectly fine as they were written, until players stop playing for fun and just want to win.
People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.
Breng77 wrote: People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.
And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
Breng77 wrote: People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.
And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
-
Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.
blackmage wrote: but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Ah this joke.
Most playtested =/= perfect balance
oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?
There are multiple layers to that equation. A unit properly costed can still be spammable and create extreme rock/paper/scissors moments.
If you took a time machine back to this forum with 8th came out the discussions were not revolving around deepstrike. So Dakka^2 in it's infinite wisdom wasn't keyed in on it either.
gwarsh41 wrote: On the subject of playtesting, we don't know what sort of playtesting GW does. They acknowledge that this game is in tournaments, but don't have tournament specific rules. Their playtesting might be with a more casual mindset. People losing all their marbles are obviously not the ones who play casually.
unless ur IQ is same like a stone (pls not your in specific i m talking in general) you dont need to playtest for tournaments to understand that let repeat a single choice until you have points to spend can be broken, what's hard to understand in "i can spam 7 flyrants or 15 oblys " or like in past 200 brimstone/razorwing flock? do you really need to be a pro player to understand that? GW playtest is 0, period, facts talk by itself, they needed tons of FAQ a CA now another massive FAQ release and in near future another CA, yeah sooooo playtested. they cant ever spot basic abusive mechanics in their own game.
GW pretty much admitted that they never intend for players to exploit the rules as they clearly do. That shows that GW is quite casual.
They made this game to have fun and write the rules with "fluffy, cool stuff" in mind.
The rules work perfectly fine as they were written, until players stop playing for fun and just want to win.
-
agree Galef, but when you dare to put something called "matched play" you should be more careful about testing cause also a lobotomyzed monkey knows that competitive players if not properly limited exploit all the weak point, that was painfully learned already in 7th edition, in 8th they kept doing same kind of mistake, not limitations, and now we see the result with this massive faqs
blackmage wrote: but if this was the "most playtested edition ever" (as i read many many times in past months), why now so massive fixes are needed? contradictory seems to me
Ah this joke.
Most playtested =/= perfect balance
oh now is a joke? interesting, if you playtest how you cant see how abusive can be massive 1st turn DS , or how you cant see how abusive is multiple units repeated until you have points to spend (eg. 7 flyrants) is that a joke?
There are multiple layers to that equation. A unit properly costed can still be spammable and create extreme rock/paper/scissors moments.
If you took a time machine back to this forum with 8th came out the discussions were not revolving around deepstrike. So Dakka^2 in it's infinite wisdom wasn't keyed in on it either.
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Painfully learned in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th blackmage, GW has no excuse for not expecting this kind of powergaming and “the most playtested” version ever means nothing when these people clearly don’t know what they are doing, that needs to stop immediately, they need to play the most abusive lists possible and fix them as needs be, not drop an FAQ 45 days late because they have noticed something the entire (dakka) community already knows, I pay my money for a quality product, 8th is feeling less and less like a quality product and a series of badly thought out patches that COULD end up ruining the game.
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Breng77 wrote: People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.
And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it?
I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda
-
Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.
This.
If you're doing testing, and you're not testing the extremes the system can take, then you're not testing.
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Talking about clairvoyance:
And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.
You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:
i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables
You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.
Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.
Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.
Breng77 wrote: People view the game through their experience. Often playtesters are trying to test many units at once and so they don't do things like take 7 flyrants or 200 of the same model. If you play a game that matches what GW pictures as the fluff (look at their studio armies) you won't find those types of things. Now I'm not saying this is a good way to playtest, just that how you playtest matters as much or more as do you playtest.
And that is my point. GW doesn't envision any player using 7 Flyrants or 200 of the same model. That's ridiculous in their mind (as it is in real life) so why would the rules have to prevent it? I truly think GW gives the player base far too much credit to not break the rules, which is why so many players get mad a GW for not "fixing" the rules. It's a catch 22....kinda -
Any test that does not include the words "try to break it" is a bad test.
This.
If you're doing testing, and you're not testing the extremes the system can take, then you're not testing.
But GW doesn't think in those extremes and that's the difference. They are testing the game within the limits of what they think are reasonable lists. The game is designed to be played with reasonable lists, so why would you need to test the extremes? (I know the answer, obviously)
I get what you guys are saying, I do. But those ultra competitive lists are so far down the list of "important issues" for GW that I can completely understand why they do no initially consider them. They are dealing with them now, and you should give them credit for that engagement. The game is made to have fun and play out scenarios. It's a game with plastic toys. GW treats it as such.
First of, scrap the battle brothers rule. It doesn't really do much besides punishing fluffy Inquisition armies and stuff like that. If it is felt that soups need to balancing, then do this: armies which have IMPERIUM, AELDARI or CHAOS as their only common keyword do not receive the normal 3 starting CPs. Now some may feel it is not enough, but it at least does something to the soup builds that people have issues with.
As for the deep strike limitation, I understand what they're trying to do here, but if the long-ranged shooting alpha is not dealt with, then this change causes more harm than help. I'm not sure how to address the dominance of gun lines, but I think that really needs to begin with overhauling the utterly pathetic terrain rules of this edition. The suggestion that armies count as moving on the firs turn is not bad either, and it is an easy fix. Again, probably not enough, but definitely better than nothing.
As for Tournament suggestions, the unit cap is stupid, scrap it. If there are units that people keep spamming then, address those units. They're probably too cheap for their effectiveness. Furthermore, I'm not so sure the detachment limit is really needed either. I think capping the CPs might be better balancing method. For example, in a 1500 point tournament you can never have more than twelve CPs (or whatever feels appropriate, I'm not sure about the exact number here) regardless of how many detachments you have, and you cannot exceed that limit even via CP generation gimmicks.
GW rules team sitting around the office coming up with ways to kill alpha strike reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns wants to get rid of the dental plan and Homer keeps hearing Marge tell him that Lisa needs braces... GW really missing the opportunity here to counter two problems #1. alpha strike making the game less fun and #2. creating better/ more nuanced terrain rules. I think #2 is a fairly universal bugbear. If there were better terrain rules (there are some good suggestions in the "proposed rules forum" that I didn't personally suggest) but something that would mitigate shooting and allow defenders to set up around terrain without having to be "entirely within" and also possibly have a way to protect non-infantry, then we could still allow for DS on T1 as a viable strategy. There really wouldn't need to be any artificial "turn 1 rules" which seem arbitrary and silly to me. Also, just as an aside: the "rule of three" itself will go a long way in mitigating alpha strike, But GW always has to come with the triple nerf.
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Talking about clairvoyance:
And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.
You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:
i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables
You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.
Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.
Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
March faq. March doesn't end on March 1st. Check your calendar.
All units set up on the table are considered to have moved even if they did not move on turn 1. Getting to the battle!
Most heavy weapons eat a -1 to hit. Leman Russ tanks and Fire Prisms do not get double their main cannons. It doesn't need to be a huge change, but that should be enough to shake things up.
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Talking about clairvoyance:
And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.
You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:
i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables
You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.
Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.
Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
"45 days late" is hyperbole and "good to terrible" is the most vauge, non-commital thing I've ever seen. It literally describes everything ever. The entirety of human history could be described as "good to terrible" yet somehow your tone implies that this is a bad thing.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
I apologize if you feel like I've attacked you - that's not my intention.
You're being intellectually dishonest (unintentionally) about what it means to be a FAQ released in March. We can split the difference (and hairs) at 30 days, but calling it 45 is representative of your narrative and goals.
So why am I bothering with this? Because I see a lot of arguments based on heavily skewed reasoning and I think it's hugely detrimental to a good discussion where we accomplish something that moves the game forward.
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Talking about clairvoyance:
And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.
You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:
i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables
You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.
Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.
Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
"45 days late" is hyperbole and "good to terrible" is the most vauge, non-commital thing I've ever seen. It literally describes everything ever. The entirety of human history could be described as "good to terrible" yet somehow your tone implies that this is a bad thing.
No it’s not, it’s cold hard maths, and “good to terrible” was just an example my post is further up if you would like to read it.
Formosa wrote: Painfully learned in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th blackmage, GW has no excuse for not expecting this kind of powergaming and “the most playtested” version ever means nothing when these people clearly don’t know what they are doing, that needs to stop immediately, they need to play the most abusive lists possible and fix them as needs be, not drop an FAQ 45 days late because they have noticed something the entire (dakka) community already knows, I pay my money for a quality product, 8th is feeling less and less like a quality product and a series of badly thought out patches that COULD end up ruining the game.
45 days late is not cold hard math unless they said FAQ drops March 1. A March FAQ could have come out March 31st. So the FAQ was between 16-46 days late.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
I apologize if you feel like I've attacked you - that's not my intention.
You're being intellectually dishonest (unintentionally) about what it means to be a FAQ released in March. We can split the difference (and hairs) at 30 days, but calling it 45 is representative of your narrative and goals.
So why am I bothering with this? Because I see a lot of arguments based on heavily skewed reasoning and I think it's hugely detrimental to a good discussion where we accomplish something that moves the game forward.
“I’m sorry for attacking you”
Tries to character attack again
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
If I need to pay a bill in March, and I pay on April 1st, I'm late. But if they try to charge me for being 32 days late when they have specific terms for being 1-3 days late, that's not gonna fly. I'm one day late.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Smaller deployment zones?
What if someone wants to play a Green Tide? I'm sorry, but RC cars are the clear answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, in all seriousness, some kind of roving objective rules could be fun.
I would be satisfied with a slight change to the Deep Strike rules.
Instead of restricting deepstrike "during a player’s first turn" to your deployment zone change it to only affect the first player turn. So the player that goes second can react and deep strike anywhere - but it still allows the first player a chance to position.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Smaller deployment zones?
What if someone wants to play a Green Tide? I'm sorry, but RC cars are the clear answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, in all seriousness, some kind of roving objective rules could be fun.
Ideally if your scenarios require the opponent to leave their deployment zone to not lose to the scenario, the Green Tide has less board space to cross to reach them then they do deploying farther up field.
I've played roving objectives before (in 6e/7e, not 8e). It's a lot of fun, but it's not a great idea for the competitive scene. You can get hosed bad by their movements.
(we used scatter dice)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like rollaway's idea of impacting only top of 1, but I think I've said that in several places.
Step one is to playtest the rules so that we actually know how the work over the course of hundreds if not thousands of collective games. Any “fixes” that we brainstorm now are meaningless emotional outcrys that will be rightly ignored by tournament organizers and GW.
Having it only affect the top of the first round could work, would require more of a tactical decision in deciding whether to go first or second - would you rather have a proper deep strike but have to weather an entire shooting phase at partial strength, or would you rather get to shoot first?
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
Feb 28 Formosa's Boss: I need the 'Knee Jerk Report' for March.
Formosa: Ok, boss!
March 3rd Formosa: Phew, ok, there were several knees we had to track including a torn meniscus and...
Formosa's Boss: You're fired.
Formosa: Wait what?
Formosa's Boss: The report is late.
Formosa: No it's not - it's still March!
Formosa's Boss: Yea, well, I wanted it March 1st. You're two days late. You're fired.
What a complete and utter crap show, these fools haven’t a clue on what they are doing
I'm not sure how you maintain objectivity and process changes with an open mind.
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
Feb 28 Formosa's Boss: I need the 'Knee Jerk Report' for March.
Formosa: Ok, boss!
March 3rd Formosa: Phew, ok, there were several knees we had to track including a torn meniscus and...
Formosa's Boss: You're fired.
Formosa: Wait what?
Formosa's Boss: The report is late.
Formosa: No it's not - it's still March!
Formosa's Boss: Yea, well, I wanted it March 1st. You're two days late. You're fired.
What a complete and utter crap show, these fools haven’t a clue on what they are doing
I'm not sure how you maintain objectivity and process changes with an open mind.
Nice try but March is March and April is April, if my boss wanted that report in March and I gave it to him in April, yep I’d be in trouble and they would rightly say “well... you had all of March to do it”
Try whatever mental gymnastics you want to make this fit YOUR narrative, whatever way you swing it, the FAQ was late, considerably so.
Nice try but March is March and April is April, if my boss wanted that report in March and I gave it to him in April, yep I’d be in trouble and they would rightly say “well... you had all of March to do it”
Try whatever mental gymnastics you want to make this fit YOUR narrative, whatever way you swing it, the FAQ was late, considerably so.
I'm not attempting to say it wasn't late. Not at all.
You're calling it 45 days. They said March. You inferred March 1st.
Your boss said March, but you didn't infer March 1st. Curious.
Anyway you can have the last word after this since this is a waste of our time. Sorry for getting it started.
The new rule doesn't really effect my local meta and I know it's a rule to combat specific armies in particular but it's still not the end of the world. Like, does everyone forget the scatter and you might have a chance for that unit to be completely gone? I realise it's a big issue now because people solely base their army around the alpha strike and have as much as they can in deep strike so even the rule to have only half the power level in reserve is probably enough in most cases.
We'll try the rule with our gaming group, see how it goes. One way of alleviating the whole thing would be to maybe only be able to deep strike half your reserves on the first turn, or maybe they only come in on a 4+ on turn 1? Best thing to do is try it, muck about with the rule when your opponent agrees and report the feedback.
Daedalus81 wrote: There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?
(Note: I still advocate trying them)
1) Shooting range halved during turn 1
OR
2) during turn 1, shooting weapons have a -1 to hit penalty per -AP of the weapon [ie -3AP = -3 to hit] they shoot with (even dark reapers and their damned ability)
2) during turn 1, shooting weapons have a -1 to hit penalty per -AP of the weapon [ie -3AP = -3 to hit] they shoot with (even dark reapers and their damned ability)
IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game because I don't understand how range works".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
boundless08 wrote: Like, does everyone forget the scatter and you might have a chance for that unit to be completely gone?
Nope, definitely not forgotten. It was a great rule and it should come back.
IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game because I don't understand how range works".
.
IOW i have an Eldar/Astra/Tau Gunline and - surprise - i'm perfectly happy with unbalanced odds in my favor
Long-range shooting is supposed to be effective on turn 1 and faster to open fire than short-range shooting and melee. That's how range works. Putting arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions on long-range guns so they can't do anything until turn 2 or later is completely missing the point.
Yep - this talk of nerfing ranged weapons on turn 1 in nonsensical garbage. The way you fix the beta rules to make them work is pretty simple. You straight up remove the deep strike restriction they made but you leave the restriction that 50% of your armies points has to start on the board. This would make a list like 7 tyrants and 4 mawlocks impossible to run effectively but it doesn't completely destroy armies that rely on deep strike alpha.
Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)
Then when it comes to their point changes - make warlocks cost 30, Walock bikers cost 50, make shining spears cost 38, make reapers cost 42.
Notice how my suggestions don't do anything but deal with the actual problem - these aren't blanket fixes like GW is doing.
Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)
That sounds pretty fair, indirect buff to LR's as their bs4 and T8 will become more valuable for direct line fire and surviving the enemy response. I've seen other ideas attached to this one for allowing units with vox casters to restore iLOS weaponry's BS4 as well, which could make for a fun balance point, guard player pays the points to build a vox network to improve his arty but has less points to spend on special weapons/sponsor's/units as a result, or he saves the points but takes a hit to his shooting.
It would make vox's worth taking and serve as a price increase to the average infantry squad. If nothing else it could make a good stratagem.
I don't think first turn deepstrike is fun or good for the game. Deepstrike should be something you do with a few units at a tactical point in the game, not something you do with half your army so it doesn't have to get shot at.
From the indications given by the community team (and therefore likely to at some point be clarified by FAQs) strategems that allow units to redeploy still get you move out of your deployment zones, so BA, orks, and GK are still better at deepstrike than anyone else, which makes a ton of sense, they just have to allow some counterplay by starting on the board to do it.
As for the changes nerfing assault and making shooting better, you are assuming that shooting and assault deserve to be equal, and that if they aren't equal, then the game is going to be in ruins.
Assault is very effective at a number of things, and has a tactical place and use, but GW doesn't owe it to you to make assault just as good as shooting units in their space combat game. I personally think that assault units should be very effective in melee but have to risk something or invest in something to actually get to the enemy. Deepstriking the first turn isn't that at all.
And even then, if you look at the number of armies that can still pull off first turn assaults... it's something like all of them, even post FAQ.
The more important thing here is that the game is fun and tactical, and for the most part I think the changes move us closer to a more enjoyable game.
All that being said, with proper terrain and missions it doesn't even look like gun lines are going to be dominating the game as much as people think they might. Many armies with fast assault elements will be able to easily tie up shooting armies, and more mobile armies or lists with lots of board control should still be able to score objectives and so on better than just a pure shooting list.
As for the 0-3 rule, it seems straight up good for the game to me. Even if all units were priced perfectly, there is always going to be an advantage to bringing a lot of the same unit because of the concept of redundancy. Points changes can minimize this to some extent, but not all the way. So forcing players to make more choices and build some variety into their lists doesn't seem like a bad thing to be either. There are still some issues, and perhaps some exceptions that should be made for armies with only a few HQs (dark eldar for example), or changes made to guard squadrons if they prove to be too effective, or to strategems like killshot, but again this all seems like a move in the right direction.
What I don't understand is what sort of people are looking at these changes and saying "but I like playing against 8 of the same unit!" or "but I want my enemy to drop on me during the first turn before I can do anything!" or though that any of the recent popular tournement winning lists looked like they might be fun to play against or seemed good for the game.
These changes are really looking like they are going to change up the meta in a good way. Armies will be more varied because of the 0-3 rule, and games should actually go past the first couple turns.
While not a suggestion, here is my 2 cents about the balance.
I have spent many years playing online video games, including several MMOs, with both PvE and PvP focuses.
The big thing I have learnt about balance is that it should always, always be done around the top-tier of players.
The big thing I have learnt about dev teams/in-house play-testers, is that they simply aren't able to think about their game in the objective manner required to properly balance a game around the top 1%.
These teams have a vision in their heads about how they feel the game should be played, and it is near impossible to move away from this idea for long enough to see how the playerbase will try to abuse their systems. (Especially now that forums and Discord communities are a thing, as a hive mind of 1000+ players can run so many more options through a simulator in far less time.)
This is by no means a defence for poorly written, poorly tested rules and balance, but it is an attempt at an explanation.
Over the years, I have seen that most companies, (especially old-school ones), are painfully slow to accept flaws in their ways, and are even slower at adopting new ways of doing things.
Realistically, there needs to be some form of invitational tournament, where new rule sets can be properly torn down, digested and broken by the kinds of players who will be most affected by them.
Cos let's face it, your average casual player isn't going to notice any difference between a balanced (or as close to it as you can hope for) set of rules, and a broken mess. As long as they can roll some dice, and have a laugh with mates and beer, they are happy.
TL;DR - This is an incredibly common issue, spanning several decades and several types of gaming. In-house playtesting will never have the scope to really try to break the ruleset.
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.
Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.
Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?
It really wasn't.
It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.
Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.
Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?
It really wasn't.
It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.
How were Shield Drones getting a 6+ FNP? They're not affected by Ethereals.
Jackers wrote: While not a suggestion, here is my 2 cents about the balance.
I have spent many years playing online video games, including several MMOs, with both PvE and PvP focuses.
The big thing I have learnt about balance is that it should always, always be done around the top-tier of players.
The big thing I have learnt about dev teams/in-house play-testers, is that they simply aren't able to think about their game in the objective manner required to properly balance a game around the top 1%.
These teams have a vision in their heads about how they feel the game should be played, and it is near impossible to move away from this idea for long enough to see how the playerbase will try to abuse their systems. (Especially now that forums and Discord communities are a thing, as a hive mind of 1000+ players can run so many more options through a simulator in far less time.)
This is by no means a defence for poorly written, poorly tested rules and balance, but it is an attempt at an explanation.
Over the years, I have seen that most companies, (especially old-school ones), are painfully slow to accept flaws in their ways, and are even slower at adopting new ways of doing things.
Realistically, there needs to be some form of invitational tournament, where new rule sets can be properly torn down, digested and broken by the kinds of players who will be most affected by them.
Cos let's face it, your average casual player isn't going to notice any difference between a balanced (or as close to it as you can hope for) set of rules, and a broken mess. As long as they can roll some dice, and have a laugh with mates and beer, they are happy.
TL;DR - This is an incredibly common issue, spanning several decades and several types of gaming. In-house playtesting will never have the scope to really try to break the ruleset.
They tried to balance MWO around the top tier players or with their advice, it’s nearly killed the game, you need to balance around the majority not the minority, if that takes more work due to having to filter out the “noise” so be it, that’s what they are being paid to do.
Useing MWO as another example these “top” players and teams play Inner Sphere, so because of them the Clans have been nerfed nearly every patch while the IS have been buffed nearly every patch, the heavy bias is pretty astounding.
The thing is that a lot of the majority of players are really bad, and will end up losing to a lot of really bad or gimmicky stuff. Stuff that shouldn't be nerfed.
Your MWO example doesn't sound like they're balancing stuff around the top players, it sounds like they're biased towards them. If everyone at the top is using a particular faction, it suggests that that faction might need to be nerfed, not the other way around.
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.
Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.
Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?
It really wasn't.
It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.
How were Shield Drones getting a 6+ FNP? They're not affected by Ethereals.
First unit that came to mind with FNP. I hadn't slept yet, but the point is still the same even if its another unit. Riptides having 2 6+ FNP before the FAQ was a thing, I didn't want to use stim injector as an example because of the "flowchart doesn't apply to Tau" ruling.
If we're talking about how to make the Beta Rules work, surely the first concern is to get the RAW to match the RAI as closely as possible.
Battle Brothers appears to be in sync in that regard - though I'm curious as to how much of an issue mixes of factions within a detachment were compared to mixes of detachments from different armies.
The one with the RAW vs RAI disparity is Tactical Reserves, specifically the second paragraph. The first paragraph seems to work as written, though using the combination of points and power level seems a little odd. Equally, the third paragraph seems fine, asides from maybe benefiting from a clarification regarding units within transports.
Is fixing the second paragraph just as simple as replacing the "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn" clause with "any unit that was assigned to Tactical Reserves during deployment and then arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn" ?
Fafnir wrote: The thing is that a lot of the majority of players are really bad, and will end up losing to a lot of really bad or gimmicky stuff. Stuff that shouldn't be nerfed.
Your MWO example doesn't sound like they're balancing stuff around the top players, it sounds like they're biased towards them. If everyone at the top is using a particular faction, it suggests that that faction might need to be nerfed, not the other way around.
That’s a fair point, bad players can skew the numbers but that’s the “noise” I was talking about, it would take more work to square it away but ultimately it would make the game more fun (subjective I know) for the majority... possibly, I’m not a fool and understand it’s not an easy thing to do, but as I said, it’s their job.
And yep MWO is heavily biased towards IS top players, of which the main development team is part of, it also causes issues that this team doesn’t actually play their own game and understand it as well as most of the players, something GW itself is/has been guilty of.
The beta rules don't need to be changed until we've had a chance to play them and figure out if they work or not.
They could be perfect for all we know.
Generally speaking I think the most controversial change is the no deep strike outside of deployment zone on turn 1 so I'm assuming it'll be the most thoroughly scrutinized.
It looks like 'battle brothers' is the next most discussed change so that'll probably have a fair few 'tests'.
No-one seems too upset about the 'rule of 3' so I'm guessing that's going to go ahead.
No-one seems too upset about the now official smite changes (apart from Tzeentch daemons perhaps).
If they want more ideas for beta rules I'd like to be able to hit targets at range on a 6 always, regardless of the modifiers.
They tried to balance MWO around the top tier players or with their advice, it’s nearly killed the game, you need to balance around the majority not the minority, if that takes more work due to having to filter out the “noise” so be it, that’s what they are being paid to do.
Useing MWO as another example these “top” players and teams play Inner Sphere, so because of them the Clans have been nerfed nearly every patch while the IS have been buffed nearly every patch, the heavy bias is pretty astounding.
That sounds like balancing for the top tier, rather than balancing around them, which is a subtle yet important difference. If IS are the most heavily played AND are getting buffed every patch, then ofcourse you will just get a horrible mess.
You have to be very careful with getting advice from top tier players, especially in tabletop gaming, as the WAAC mindset can worm its way into that advice. The best thing to do is use the raw data collected at an event, or series of games.
Taking a video game example (as it was my life for a few years), in FFXIV, the dev team completely ignore all 'top tier' players. They do not acknowledge that their game is played that way, and only very rarely acknowledge mistakes (i.e. if the community manages to make a certain class work better than intended). In that game, top end content is all PvE, and classes that buff other classes are king. The dev team will not acknowledge this fact, and instead balance around the idea of 'assume no one will try to stack party buffs, cos we wouldn't'. This means that certain classes are flat out broken, (some since they were added to the game 3.5 years ago), while 3-4 other classes are complete dead-weight that no one runs, and as such they are actively excluded.
While FFXIV is not a wargame, is does highlight perfectly why in-house testing simply isn't enough. I am in no way claiming that this is easy, or that I could do it, but when you release a game, you need to expect that the first thing players will do is break it, so you need to prepare accordingly.
Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)
That sounds pretty fair, indirect buff to LR's as their bs4 and T8 will become more valuable for direct line fire and surviving the enemy response. I've seen other ideas attached to this one for allowing units with vox casters to restore iLOS weaponry's BS4 as well, which could make for a fun balance point, guard player pays the points to build a vox network to improve his arty but has less points to spend on special weapons/sponsor's/units as a result, or he saves the points but takes a hit to his shooting.
It would make vox's worth taking and serve as a price increase to the average infantry squad. If nothing else it could make a good stratagem.
Yeah man - units typically have a means to get around stuff like this. That's totally fine. Like maybe just being within 6" of a master of ordinance would make you ignore LOS penalties or a stratagem or vox like you said.
Dysartes wrote: Battle Brothers appears to be in sync in that regard - though I'm curious as to how much of an issue mixes of factions within a detachment were compared to mixes of detachments from different armies.
Of the top 16 at Adepticon I count 4 armies that use soup detachments. So it was definitely a thing that was done, despite what many seem to claim.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The beta rules don't need to be changed until we've had a chance to play them and figure out if they work or not.
They could be perfect for all we know.
Generally speaking I think the most controversial change is the no deep strike outside of deployment zone on turn 1 so I'm assuming it'll be the most thoroughly scrutinized.
It looks like 'battle brothers' is the next most discussed change so that'll probably have a fair few 'tests'.
No-one seems too upset about the 'rule of 3' so I'm guessing that's going to go ahead.
No-one seems too upset about the now official smite changes (apart from Tzeentch daemons perhaps).
If they want more ideas for beta rules I'd like to be able to hit targets at range on a 6 always, regardless of the modifiers.
I would dig this and maybe something like the scout sniper rule where you get an extra mortal wound or something
tag8833 wrote: How Do we improve the beta rules? Seems pretty easy to me.
Tactical Reserves: Part 1: On Turn 1, you can only deep strike in your own TABLE HALF. Drop Pods, Tyrannocytes, Mawlocs, Primaris Rievers, and terminators are immune from this restriction.
Part 2: New global Stratagem. 2 CP: Dug in: Your armor saves cannot be reduced by more than 1 on the 1st shooting phase of the game to a minimum of a 6+.
It might not be the perfect dialed in fix, but it's pretty good, and excellent for army diversity. How many Mawlocs, Drop Pods, Terminators do you expect in the meta with the GW version of this rule? My version creates a role for those units in the game again. It also tackles alpha strike in a meaningful way. It's not platitudes about "More Terrain" or a fix to a subset of alpha strike (deepstrikers). It tackles the problem head-on in a meaningful way.
Battle Brothers: Grey Knights gets Ordo Malleus
Sisters of Battle gets Ordo Heritucs
Deathwatch gets Ordo Xenos
(maybe) Custodes gets Ordo Specialist
Assassins and Sisters of Silence get (Ordo) allowing them to pick Ordo Xenos, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Heriticus, or Ordo Specialist.
Every faction mentioned and inquisition are all improved, and in a pretty fluffy way that allows you to do away with soup detachments.
GW if you are reading this (and I suspect you are), please consider our ideas. We are happy you are putting in the effort, and trying, and hope that together we can improve the fun and diversity of the game.
I would like to thank Tag for the constructive suggestions above and discuss the concerns that have been mentioned.
In regards to part 1. As mentioned there are non-standard deployments for which the above suggestion may not work clearly. I would propose that table half be replaced with "wholly within 12" of your deployment zone" since standard maps have 24" between zones and the original 9" from enemy models would still be in effect. Doing so would lessen the nerf while still not permitting charges and most rapid fire or melta type boosts to ranged. Not that I think charges shouldn't be doable but advancing across the map ought to be made available to the pertinent armies if not already.
Regarding part 1a. I assume the list provided is not in it's complete state. There was a comment about playing favorites but that can be dismissed by adding more units as necessary. I agree that the units above should, following review, be allowed to ignore the general rule. The criteria for permitting the exclusion should be based on role and efficacy. Drop pod/tyrannocyte role is to deliver infantry behind enemy lines, it should be able to do that. We should also consider the worst case scenario. Could somebody more familiar with SM please provide a worst case for a drop pod embarked units? I suspect the beta rule was made to prevent glass cannons and obliterators from wrecking face without interaction and that troops based detachments got the bonus CP to give screens a reason to still be taken. So units that pale in offensive comparison to obliterators and can survive the return fire, or are deepstriking transports should be able to come in first turn.
Question: Does anybody think the alpha legion/raven guard/sygies/alaitoc? stratagem should remain as is? I always thought that they were stronger than deepstriking anyways.
Part2. Not bad, genestealers and daemons probably won't care but having to pay CP if your enemy is packing long range shooting is still punitive like now.
Question: Does anybody think the alpha legion/raven guard/sygies/alaitoc? stratagem should remain as is? I always thought that they were stronger than deepstriking anyways.
I personally think they should be next for the chopping block. Or at minimum they should have to be deployed during the deployment phase before you know who is going first / if someone stole initiative.
Just because you pay 3CP to do it, doesn't mean you should be able to start 3x6 aggressors or a bazillion electropriests 9" from the other player's lines and auto win 50% of casual type games.
IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).
I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.
It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.
I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?
I agree that we should play with the beta rules. Make our minds up on each point. Send our feedback to GW with well laid out and clear points. Then hope when the time rolls around that we'll like the finalised changes. Bit of a banal point but it's pretty much what can be done. Some of the FAQs were good, some bad.
Battle Brothers I don't think will make much difference. Most of the soup like lists I've seen had factions split into different detachments in order to keep the benefits of the faction. So can't see a big change.
Tactical reserves has two sides to it and not sure how well it will hold up. Shooting armies are relieved that their backline isn't now threatened turn 1 forcing them into a defensive game plan. But Melee armies are outraged (probably very justifiably) because they now have to endure a turn of shooting without hitting back, which is indeed a shame and I don't want assault armies to be hit too hard. But there are some work rounds for several factions. And don't forget last edition reserves were limited to starting turn 2. Which considering they are intended as forces in reserve to bring in during the battle isn't that insane. So haven't made my mind up on this one yet. It could be countered by allowing a set number of deepstrikes turn 1, Or to extend the turns in which deepstrikers may arrive to turn 4. Maybe both. . Or -1" to charge rolls on turn 1. There are a plethora of ways GW could have limited first turn charges without stopping turn 1 deepstrike entirely.
Psychic Focus is one that confuses me as it seems that it was introduced to nerf smite spam. But the two armies I've heard of doing smite spam a lot, are the ones that have been exempt from the rule. Just seems odd. And the using a power once per turn regardless of the number of psykers seems rather foolish to me. Could limit it to being used 3 times or not at all frankly.
IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).
I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.
It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.
I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?
As an ultra marines player I too want to see the guy reworked. Have him come down in buff power - but buff the rest of the dang codex which is full of crap over-costed units.
Idea's for RG. Remove reroll W aura. Make his reroll hits aura 12" like the rest of his buffs. Have him extend the range of ancient banner to 12" also. Bring him down to 310 points but remove his get up after death ability. Let Ultra marines take him as an HQ. LOW for anyone else.
Then - reduce cost of all PA/TDA/Gravis - extend chapter tactics to all marine vehicals. Rework stratagems so every chapter has something useful - not just raven gaurd.
RG = Raven Guard in what I wrote, not Roboute Gilleman.
I play a successor chapter (homebrew - Wings of Dawn), so I don't get Big G anyways (I know I can counts-as, but my chapter has nothing with a profile anywhere close to Big G. Wouldn't fit their modus opperendai even if I could come up with a cool counts-as).
I think one of the things TDA need most is a nerf to Plas. But I agree with reworkign CT and stratagems. For all SM.
-Overwatch only triggers on succesful charge.
-second player may deepstrike freely with half his reserves.
-units taken from outside the army faction doesnt generate cp.
-TDA crux becomes 4+ invul.
IH is trash, because RG is simply better. Same could be said about the other FnP traits out there (I still play Uthwe - it's what my guys are, so it's what I play).
I love IH (and Uthwe's) traits (but my Marines have always been children of UM). But ever since RG was put out (the first such trait), it was obvious how bonkers it was.
It'd be really nice to see the RG-style trait rebalanced. But think about all the complaints about gunlines, and AM gunlines specifically. What's the RG-style trait best against? AM gunlines. Most other armies want to get within 12". Many must to actually shoot. Further, Guard and Tau gunlines hit on 4+ instead of 3+, so the trait has an even larger impact on their gunlines.
I want those traits fixed, but if they're most effective against the big boogyman (AM gunline), wouldn't fixing it buff said boogyman?
If Iron Hands at least had a decent Strategem it would be at least mediocre. However not they don't get any form of stacking, they have a bad Strategem, and their relic is blech. There's no amount of synergy.
Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.
Overwatch is done before charges are rolled, so you could end up losing models crucial to calculating the distance. The proper way to fix overwatch is to remove overwatch.
-second player may deepstrike freely with half his reserves.
Iffy on this. First turn advantage is a thing that needs to be addressed, but I feel this is not something a universal enough solution.
-units taken from outside the army faction doesnt generate cp.
Iffy on this as well. If they want to discourage souping, a better way of doing so would be eliminating the need for CP batteries in the first place, since a lot of elite armies and otherwise just have difficulty getting the stratagems they need to play how they want. And that would require an overhaul of CP generation on a whole.
-TDA crux becomes 4+ invul.
No, the last thing 40k needs is invulnerable saves becoming better and more widespread than they already are. Invulnerable saves are tossed out like candy at the moment, and it just ends up being really bad for the constant arms-race that plagues the game. Armour saves need to become less trivial, invulnerable saves need to be rarer and less potent, and small arms need to be more important.
Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.
Just no. This just means that -1 to hit traits are pretty much mandatory. Get rid of them and balance gun the gunlines. Many long-ranged shooting units just need an point increase. Oh, and if armywide -1 does not exist, then you can give indirect fire -1 to hit.
1. Actually play a bunch of games with them.
2. Make detailed notes about the impact they're having.
3. Take a breather, and come back to your notes a couple of days later. Let any game based frustration fall away before finalising - add any reflective amendments, without editing the initial notes.
4. Feed it back to Games Workshop - not to Dakkadakka. Not speculative feedback, but game based feedback. Describe the action, outcome, and why you feel it to be problematic. Suggest possible solution or indeed solutions.
Done and done.
Particular on note 4, I'd like to quote a post above. Purely for convenience, I'm not singling out their comment specifically. Nor am I trying to cast doubt upon or denigrate his opinion.
Fafnir wrote:No, the last thing 40k needs is invulnerable saves becoming better and more widespread than they already are. Invulnerable saves are tossed out like candy at the moment, and it just ends up being really bad for the constant arms-race that plagues the game. Armour saves need to become less trivial, invulnerable saves need to be rarer and less potent, and small arms need to be more important.
See, here we have comments. But no rationale. Why does Fafnir believe this to be the case? What's the experience behind them? If invulernable saves should be rarer, what's the metric there? Less bubble ones? Only on elite units?
When he says small arms need to be more important - in what way? One thing that springs immediately to mind is how few small arm weapons in the game are actually affected by Invulnerable Saves, as a great many lack any kind of AP. So immediately, I want to know more about where his opinion is rooted.
Again, for clarity, I'm not having a pop at Fafnir or his opinions. His comment just happened to be a handy point of reference.
Be specific. Point out where you feel X doesn't work, suggest what a fix looks like to you. Relate it back to gaming experiences, rather than just mathhammering.
This stems from my profession. I'm able to award compensation, and on occasion fairly substantial amounts. But I can't do it on a whim. First, I need to ensure someone has genuinely lost out. Under our rules, I can't base my findings on what might have happened, only on what did happen. But I can also take into account the person's unique circumstances. For example, if Person X's home was needlessly exposed to asbestos, that's a hefty amount on it's own. But if Person Y's home was needlessly exposed to asbestos, and they've previously lost a loved one to Asbestosis, their level of worry is naturally going to be far greater than Person X's, necessitating a higher amount of compensation.
The issue for balancing for the top players, or the general playerbase, is the degree to which "skill" determines performance.
In an MMO for instance - or an RTS - or a class based FPS (from Overwatch to World of Tanks) there are potentially imbalances which occur with an increased skill ceiling.
I am not sure this is the case in 40k.
You can use an army more optimally, but you can't change the fundamental probabilities. A unit won't shoot better in the hands of one player or another unless they are strangely lucky or cheating with dice.
So for the most part I don't think balancing for pros or non-pros should matter. You should be able to do both.
Especially because most imbalances that make for games which are not fun are found at the list building stage.
7 hive tyrants or smite spam, or 5 Storm Ravens, or a carpet of Dark Eldar birds was just as - if not more - broken at a lower level of skill as a higher level of skill. Its just you are less likely to see it. What's the point spending all that money to stomp your friends to the ground and then never getting a game with the army again?
The real question is whether you should be able to build a list which gives you an overwhelming probabilistic advantage. Right now you can - very easily. I think the rule of 3 and DS changes will in some way go to changing that. But more games are needed.
Also the -1 traits aren't a problem. Gunline is too powerful as is. It helps keep it in check.
Just no. This just means that -1 to hit traits are pretty much mandatory. Get rid of them and balance gun the gunlines. Many long-ranged shooting units just need an point increase. Oh, and if armywide -1 does not exist, then you can give indirect fire -1 to hit.
They're pretty mandatory because of gunline, yes. How do you propose to balance gunline besides gutting both the Guard and Tau Codices?
The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.
Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.
I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?
'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.
Crazyterran wrote: The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.
Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.
I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?
'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.
It actually affected a few models. You had Smashbane, Venerable Dreads, Chaplain Dreads, and Relic Contemptors. Ya know, the things that they were supposed to be synergistic with.
And people are upset at the price increase of Rowboat because it doesn't fix the glaring issues of the SM codex. Yeah he needed a point increase, but if they don't fix other issues too then the whole codex takes a dip, as it feels like everything is priced as though you're running him.
It is comparable to making the Grandmaster Dreadknight More expensive but ignoring the rest of the codex that's bad. Which is most of it.
Crazyterran wrote: The Iron Hands change only affected one model. Only the Venerable Dreadnought had a FNP save to stack with the Iron Hand chapter trait. Let's not blow up the 'huge blow' Iron Hands were dealt. Especially since RG were just as survivable.
Getting indignant about this minor change is about as silly as people getting hugely indignant about the Roboute Guilliman price increase number 2.
I think changing the Deep Strike change to table half would be enough. It lets you catch out anyone who moves up. Maybe change the deep strike strategems in the various books to give a unit the ability to deep strike OR if they can already deep strike, deep strike outside of 9" on the first turn?
'Course, in that situation you just get boned if you play against DE, but such is life.
Table half is actually a terrible idea because then it is a straight nerf to only assault units that deepstrike and largely not shooty units. Take obliterators. If I can deepstrike them in my table half in 4/6 deployments I can basically shoot whatever I want as far as range is concerned. The change to deepstrike is fine.
I agree on the Iron hands front they were already not worth taking compared to other chapters. A venerable with 6+++/6+++ is still flat worse against most things than one that has -1 to hit.
"Chapters" are poorly balanced across all factions. Now I'm not sure if the intent from GW is "this is the competitive chapter" and everything else is just fluff, but that is the way things look right now. If you play codex marines you are playing either Ravenguard, or Ultra Marines that is it. No other chapter is worth considering on a large scale, and most are pretty bad (White Scars is probably the only other one I think might be worth it due to their strat).
I think it is because people don't like that there is a vast balance discrepancy in power of various traits, and so when a weak one gets even weaker those who were playing fluffy, but wanting to compete get upset. Honestly Most books have only 1 or 2 traits that are worthwhile, everything else is there for fluff. It would be nice if they were better balanced and led to different "optimal" builds being encouraged within books
Daedalus81 wrote: There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?
(Note: I still advocate trying them)
1) Nerf (= remove) Guard's command pts generation, or give all armies the same capacity to generate CP when sneezing
2) Keep deepstrike nerf turn 1, but nerf shooting turn 1 as well
3) No model can be deployed higher than 4" from the ground
4) release the Ork codex
Bharring wrote: Uthwe and IH have the same trait, in the same way that RG and Alaitoc have hte same trait. A 6+ FNP.
Uthwe has many other things - including probably their most iconic power - which explicitly does *not* stack with their 6+ FnP.
IH has two units that could potentially stack 2 FnP rolls, and even then it's a 6+++/6+++.
Uthwe is considered sub-par to Alaitoc.
IH is considered sub-par to Raven Guard.
Everyone is up in arms about IH. Nobody is up in arms about Uthwe.
Marine players will be Marine players after all. I cannot explain why anyone bothers to be up in arms about a bad trait getting worse, when so many bad traits exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?
(Note: I still advocate trying them)
I like the rules as is if I were to tweak things I would go for
1.) Change tactical reserves to be no outside of your zone on the first turn. Not battle round. That way it ensures both players have exactly 1 turn of moving, shooting, assaulting prior to deepstrike alpha strike.
2.) If you want to combat soup, I would have gone for Remove the CP increases for Brigades and battalions. Reinstate those only if all detachments in your army share all keywords. So you get 3 CP for a Battalion and 9 for a brigade, unless all detachments in your army share all keywords, then you get 5 CP and 12 CP. This still gives bumps to Elite armies as they desire, without giving those same armies bumps for including cheap out of faction detachments.
Bharring wrote: Uthwe and IH have the same trait, in the same way that RG and Alaitoc have hte same trait. A 6+ FNP.
Uthwe has many other things - including probably their most iconic power - which explicitly does *not* stack with their 6+ FnP.
IH has two units that could potentially stack 2 FnP rolls, and even then it's a 6+++/6+++.
Uthwe is considered sub-par to Alaitoc.
IH is considered sub-par to Raven Guard.
Everyone is up in arms about IH. Nobody is up in arms about Uthwe.
It's because the option was there originally and was even a highlight for the Iron Hands focus Community article. It's then removed for literally NO good reason.
If Ulthwe had it originally (where would it stack?) and then it were removed I'd be annoyed on their behalf too. In fact I was already irritated at the inconsistency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Why is everyone up in arms over Iron Hands losing stacking FNPs, but nobody cared when Uthwe got told no even earlier?
Probably because CWE deserves all the hate it could possibly get.
Your army has been at MINIMUM Tier 1.5 at worst. Get over it.
For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
Breng77 wrote: For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.
I think until the FAQ has been out for a while this is really premature. As of right now the FAQ does seem to fix a lot of the previous issues. Most of the people knocking it just see, to want to punish players and armies they personally dislike.
I had 2 units of 3 inceptors in reserve, he had Abaddon, 7 Terminators & 3 obilerators in reserve.
We both found it made the game longer and made it less about the turn one finisher, instead we both had time to position and prepare for the deep strike.
Breng77 wrote: For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.
I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.
Breng77 wrote: For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.
I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.
You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?
It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?
But only if you're Iron Hands or Nids or somesuch?
Most FnP already had this rule. This just standardized it. It shouldn't be such that some armies can stack it, others can't, at the whim of whether the writer thought about stacking while writing that codex.
Bharring wrote: But only if you're Iron Hands or Nids or somesuch?
Most FnP already had this rule. This just standardized it. It shouldn't be such that some armies can stack it, others can't, at the whim of whether the writer thought about stacking while writing that codex.
No. I'm saying that sometimes rules change, with the intention of improving the game. So a highlight of what's awesome about one unit in one faction might not be accurate a year later, when the rules change.
I agree IH are a worse tactic than RG. I'm saying that other factions have tactics just as bad. I'm saying that there's benefit in the rules being consistant.
Let me see if we're closer in agreement if I bring it up another way.
I don't want someone to be able to give a Hemlock Uthwe and Fortune, and have it have 3 FnP rules in effect at the same time. I also want FnP to stack in the same way whether it's IH or Uthwe. I don't want IH to get worse.
Of those 3, if they can't be reconciled in the scope of the new rule, which is best to drop? Certainly not substantially buffing Uthwe is more important than not slightly nerfing IH. For simplicity, though, I'd rather FnP were consistent across the game over not slightly nerfing IH.
Breng77 wrote: For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.
I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.
You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?
It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?
The way FNP works in this edition slows the game down in general so doing it 2 (or more) times does in fact slow the game down. The reason for that is how it interacts with multiple damage weapons and needing to make rolls for every individual model. Especially when you have multiple wound model units with multiple FNP rolls. Those rolls aren’t always 6s (Iron hands are but nurgle for instance is not). So part of my aversion is how these type of save work in general and doubling up on that just makes it more annoying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you realize there is not difference in speed of re-rolling 1s and not re-rolling 6s except you roll more dice more often.
Breng77 wrote: For what it is worth I hate the stacking FNP thing, it is too many rolls. I mean you are taking an armor save, then maybe a re-roll, then 1 FNP roll per point of damage, and then a second roll. Especially bad if you can get it on a unit with multiple models. A better fix would have been to make the Trait +1 to FNP rolls or a 6+++ if you don’t have one.
That's not what it is though. So it doesn't matter what you would prefer.
I would prefer not having a ton of extra rolling slowing the game down and it seems GW agrees since they changed this ruling. What they didn’t do was throw the people stacking it anything in return. Which IMO is a shame, but I prefer the fix we have over no fix at all.
You keep saying it slows the game, but are you being honest with yourself in how much?
It isn't like you have to only reroll a specific number like 1. You're just rerolling anything not a 6. This is how many seconds if you know how to count?
The way FNP works in this edition slows the game down in general so doing it 2 (or more) times does in fact slow the game down. The reason for that is how it interacts with multiple damage weapons and needing to make rolls for every individual model. Especially when you have multiple wound model units with multiple FNP rolls. Those rolls aren’t always 6s (Iron hands are but nurgle for instance is not). So part of my aversion is how these type of save work in general and doubling up on that just makes it more annoying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you realize there is not difference in speed of re-rolling 1s and not re-rolling 6s except you roll more dice more often.
Sorry but it's only a slow process if you have trouble counting. You look for anything not a six and just do the reroll as necessary. It isn't hard.
No one step is hard. But an added step that you might need to iterate a dozen + times is.
There are some rules that mean you can't just roll all the FnP at once in many situations. Sometimes, you must do it unsaved-by-unsaved.
Consider Asurmen hitting a unit of 3W 6+++/6+++ models. For each wound, you need to roll the save. Then for each save, you roll d3 damage. Then, you must roll that many FnP. Then, you must reroll all the failures. Then remove if necessary. Then resolve the same minus the save if the to-wound was a 6.
And that's just for one successful wound.
The compounded FnP is only one step, but there are a lot of steps.
Bharring wrote: No one step is hard. But an added step that you might need to iterate a dozen + times is.
There are some rules that mean you can't just roll all the FnP at once in many situations. Sometimes, you must do it unsaved-by-unsaved.
Consider Asurmen hitting a unit of 3W 6+++/6+++ models. For each wound, you need to roll the save. Then for each save, you roll d3 damage. Then, you must roll that many FnP. Then, you must reroll all the failures. Then remove if necessary. Then resolve the same minus the save if the to-wound was a 6.
And that's just for one successful wound.
The compounded FnP is only one step, but there are a lot of steps.
An example, by it's nature, is one example. There are plenty of other multi-wound weapons that can hit multi-wound models.
Your complaint is only ~2 units in IH that can possibly be impacted. Is it really worth the complexity of having every FnP behave differently just so two IH units can get a second 6+ FnP?
It’s not just multi-wound models. Over the weekend I played a game with Custodes against Death Guard. Every Custodes weapon bar Hurricane Bolters and Misericordia is multi-damage. So when shooting Poxwalkers, you have to roll a FNP independently for every single model. It’s not already bad with flat 2 damage Guardian Bolters, but with random damage weapons like Guardian Spears it’s arduous. With a second roll on FNP it’s horrendous.
Iron Hands losing a second 6+++ on their Warlord if they pick that trait and a couple of subtypes of Dreadnought is hardly the worst they (or many other Marine Chapters) have suffered.
kombatwombat wrote: It’s not just multi-wound models. Over the weekend I played a game with Custodes against Death Guard. Every Custodes weapon bar Hurricane Bolters and Misericordia is multi-damage. So when shooting Poxwalkers, you have to roll a FNP independently for every single model. It’s not already bad with flat 2 damage Guardian Bolters, but with random damage weapons like Guardian Spears it’s arduous. With a second roll on FNP it’s horrendous.
Iron Hands losing a second 6+++ on their Warlord if they pick that trait and a couple of subtypes of Dreadnought is hardly the worst they (or many other Marine Chapters) have suffered.
No other chapters suffered a literal direct nerf with the FAQ.
Also I'm sorry but it really isn't hard to roll what you're talking about. First time? Maybe. By the third time you should be slow though.
My Black Templars weep for your loss. Do not talk about nerfs to the vanilla Codex Chapter that has fallen furthest.
On that, Templars did get an indirect nerf - our Chapter Tactic made us the only Chapter in the book to be able to semi-reliably charge first turn off Deep Strike.
And yes, you do get faster at it. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t take a while or stop the groan from both players when you say ‘time to do the Poxwalker/Guardian combat...’
