What would make 9th edition a perfect release in your eyes?
For me:
- Re-introduce USR's
- All CORE rules and USR's are available on an online document (Which gets updated as needed per FAQ and CA)
- Purchasing a hardcopy gives access to codex rules in a online document (Once again updated per change)
Bonus:
- Official army builder a la Batltescribe
- Official forums to ask rules questions in
I have no wishlist as it'll be more of the same. GW hasn't changed what it's always been it just put on a better pant suit and practices to smile more. If there is ever a 9th it'll just be more of the same. Promises of change with soon to be all over us bloat and madness after maybe initial stages of hope. 8th was my believe them moment and they are squandering it with how it's falling into predictable patterns once more.
I'll agree with these, but they dont need a 9th edition to do them.
on the final thing, GW + forum = bad idea. even if it is just for rules questions, you'll get every jerkwad asking the stupidest questions just trying to gain an advantage. any real questions would be drowned out with inanity.
Racerguy180 wrote: I'll agree with these, but they dont need a 9th edition to do them.
on the final thing, GW + forum = bad idea. even if it is just for rules questions, you'll get every jerkwad asking the stupidest questions just trying to gain an advantage. any real questions would be drowned out with inanity.
I remember the AOL forums and chat sessions. Man...it was bad...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: Drop the "Codex" model of updating one army completely and then waiting years before changing anything about them. Update everyone more regularly.
The update rate is exceedingly fast compared to the past. I don't know that you can update faster than this without totally upending any chance to process new changes in terms of balance.
AnomanderRake wrote: Drop the "Codex" model of updating one army completely and then waiting years before changing anything about them. Update everyone more regularly.
The update rate is exceedingly fast compared to the past. I don't know that you can update faster than this without totally upending any chance to process new changes in terms of balance.
The problem is less the speed of updates and more the wildly uneven rate of updates and the degree to which some armies get "maintenance updates" with almost no content (ex. the current GK book) while other armies get comprehensive overhauls (ex. GSC). We also have issues with armies getting massive buffs and leaving other armies with no tools to do anything about them.
AnomanderRake wrote: Drop the "Codex" model of updating one army completely and then waiting years before changing anything about them. Update everyone more regularly.
The update rate is exceedingly fast compared to the past. I don't know that you can update faster than this without totally upending any chance to process new changes in terms of balance.
The problem is less the speed of updates and more the wildly uneven rate of updates and the degree to which some armies get "maintenance updates" with almost no content (ex. the current GK book) while other armies get comprehensive overhauls (ex. GSC). We also have issues with armies getting massive buffs and leaving other armies with no tools to do anything about them.
Yea you're probably going to see updates come to armies that have models to push alongside the books. GK, in my opinion just needs more to leverage their strength - psychic ability. Access to more lores could easily make them a powerhouse, but still glass cannon in nature.
Hence Psychic Awakening being a possible boon to them.
I don't want 9th ed. I want 8th ed optimized. I don't really care if they make a PDF come with the physical rules, I'm just not going to buy the physical rules if they don't. I don't want USRs available in a document, you should not have to know this glossary of terms by memory and you should not have to look up what a rule does in the main rulebook.
CA2020 including shared WL traits and Stratagems for all factions as well as Relics for each faction and sub-faction. You get access to a limited number of Stratagems for your entire list, somewhere between 3 and 15. New codexes, including FW datasheets, no relics, WL traits or Stratagems. Fully released by 2022, same balance point we had in June 2019 with CA2023, perfectly balanced by 2024.
New codices only include additional datasheets and rules are written without fluff and use common terms instead of individualized terms, so basically USRs, except they're written on the datasheet and don't use names like Deep Strike and Outflank and instead use names like Reinforcements and Flanking Reinforcements. A codex lore and and datasheet compendium, no faction-wide abilities or changes like Combat Doctrines are included in codexes. If faction or sub-faction abilities are to exist they should exist in CA, although I would prefer if they do not. You need 3 sources to play, Codex, CA and Rulebook.
Expansions do not include rules that can be used in every game like specialist detachments, instead, they contain missions, some of which will include faction-specific Stratagems. They also contain different ways to play that have previously been featured in CA and beta-codexes, as well as new and updated datasheets, these datasheets are also available in errata for codexes.
A new codex won't change things a whole lot, balance might change a little bit with pts updates and rewritten datasheets, but relics, stratagems, traits, tactics, doctrines, doctrine focus all being absent means most of the balancing is left to CA and everything can be compared 1-1 and new releases don't have to be taken into account to as large a degree. Expansions like Vigilus will have no impact on tournament play and will instead purely be a casual experience unless you gear a campaign or tournament specifically towards it.
I'd really like the game to be balanced on less terrain-dense tables, it would be amazing if a wide array of different table set-ups were all more or less equally balanced or perhaps leave the 5 big LOS-breaking structures to be imbalanced and make that city-fight or something so both people know in advance that their lascannons are going to be inferior to mortars for that game and that mobility and melee will play a bigger role. All guns all the time should not be the default way of things unless you play with tournament terrain or have ways to cheat yourself into melee.
2 big LOS-breaking terrain pieces, four forests/ruins without boarded up windows and some scatter terrain sounds like a perfectly valid table setup and it's equal to more than what GW uses at Warhammer World tables I think. 3+ big pieces LOS-breaking terrain and boarded up windows on every window should not be required and bases for ruins should not be required to get a more or less balanced game.
I was just looking through some of the battle zone terrain generators for Vigilus Ablaze and they seem utterly unplayable, like a 67% chance of 4 or more of the table's 24 square feet being barren ice with no terrain features and another 1/6 result with zero LOS-breaking terrain. I criticized someone who made something very similar the other month and now I feel bad, his thing was probably as good as the official GW terrain generation rules.
or at least one version of the game that doesn't play like a card game
with models for chits on a big table full of pretty - but mostly useless - terrain features.
Less combo hammer. While I initially liked strats and everyone getting unique faction traits to use from, as usual GW can't control itself and both of the above have spiraled out of control.
I don't even bother with the tactical forum anymore because its all about finding the right trait, cp, reroll aura and ally abuse rather than actual tactics like positioning, accounting for terrain, worrying about being flanked or something getting behind you. GW went to far with stripping rules from 7th to 8th.
or at least one version of the game that doesn't play like a card game
with models for chits on a big table full of pretty - but mostly useless - terrain features.
Yes less combos please. If you want that kind of stuff go play mtg or something. And make legions/chapters/craftworlds/etc feel more unique from each other.
or at least one version of the game that doesn't play like a card game
with models for chits on a big table full of pretty - but mostly useless - terrain features.
Yes less combos please. If you want that kind of stuff go play mtg or something. And make legions/chapters/craftworlds/etc feel more unique from each other.
How do you make chapters more unique without introducing combos? Do you just want lower costs for White Scars bikes/Iron Hands heavy weapons? When you add more unique rules you add more combos.
AnomanderRake wrote: Drop the "Codex" model of updating one army completely and then waiting years before changing anything about them. Update everyone more regularly.
The update rate is exceedingly fast compared to the past. I don't know that you can update faster than this without totally upending any chance to process new changes in terms of balance.
The problem is less the speed of updates and more the wildly uneven rate of updates and the degree to which some armies get "maintenance updates" with almost no content (ex. the current GK book) while other armies get comprehensive overhauls (ex. GSC). We also have issues with armies getting massive buffs and leaving other armies with no tools to do anything about them.
Yea you're probably going to see updates come to armies that have models to push alongside the books. GK, in my opinion just needs more to leverage their strength - psychic ability. Access to more lores could easily make them a powerhouse, but still glass cannon in nature.
Hence Psychic Awakening being a possible boon to them.
also GW HAS unleashed model updates from the rules. you still occasionally get big splash releases, and when those occur a new codex does come out (IMHO more because GW figures people are gonna not want to deal with a half dozen or more new data sheets not being in one central location) but you also see things like the admech tank that came out. It WOULD be nice to see stuff like that happen more often, not tied to a big event, not tied to a codex, just the odd "SUPRISE NEW MINI" release
+ terrain that impacts the game
+ battlefield management as a core skill
+ true line of sight dying in a garbage fire
+ IGOUGO dying in a garbage fire
+ positioning that matters other than knowing that garbage troops make great screens and to bubble wrap your stuff to stave off the alpha strike
+ listbuilding toned down and combos / synergy being toned down so that they are not exclusively what the game is about
+ a wider bell curve of power that does not churn yearly so that we are not forced to buy new armies every year to be able to have fun games without getting our faces rubbed into the table and told to git gud (see also: making list building *not as* important) (pps - refer to the *not as* portion in the statement about list building before flying off into anger about making list building not count at all)
Scrap 8th entirely and redesign the core rules to have mechanical depth closer to past editions. The biggest weakness of 8th is it's completely lack of substance in it's core rules resulting in extremely dull gameplay that requires piling on rules from the codex, supplements, buff auras, and stratagems. All this does is create combos to exploit and less to do with any sort of tactical gameplay. Also it's probably a very good idea to sack whoever decided that 8th's core rules where acceptable.
Better terrain rules, USRs (a core set of 5 to 15 rules), unit types with their own mechanics, mechanics that make positioning matter, mechanics that reduce combat effectiveness without just being "kill everything" (falling back, pinning, blind, jink snap shooting etc). Basically having compelling gameplay without the need to have a bunch of tacked on rules to have "combos" of modifiers.
The best chance for 9th would be an act of God like a meteor strike or Godzilla attacking Nottingham and a whole new team being brought in to right the rules with zero influence by marketing/legal/upper management.
I would like to see BETA units. Units that come out with rules, and then GW revises after a couple months of community feedback (Tournament/Meta).
I would also love to see more rules dedicated to how weapons interact with different targets. AT Weapons should be better at AT than Infantry weapons, and Vice Versa. You should get negative modifiers for using the wrong weapon on the wrong target type.
12" flamers standard, anti-infantry only.
Meltas becoming Assault 3, S8 AP4 D4 12" AT only guns.
Relics costing points not CP
CP being flat standard per detachment. No more, no less. Can't gain extra through play. 15 per Brigade, 7 per Battalion.
Most of my suggestions are going to be "more like kill team."
-Dying at the end of the round instead of the enemy turn.
-Some form of alternating activation, whether that's by unit or by detachment.
-Command points coming by turn rather than a fixed pool at the beginning of the game, preventing combohammer
-Simplify but toughen up terrain rules, absolutely remove True LOSBS that allows you to fire all guns at full power at something you can see a tiny fraction of. A vastly simple, far more impactful terrain system than 8th has right now would be "If all models in a unit are at least partially obscured from the firing model by terrain or models other than those in the target unit, that unit receives the benefit of cover. VEHICLE and MONSTROUS CREATURE models must be 50% obscured or more."
-Army composition, rather than detachments, determines your command point generation. Only one faction? Bonus. Certain percentage of your points or more spent on troops? Bonus. Turn starts and your warlord is alive? Bonus.
I think the biggist thing for GW is working out what scale they want, and make sure each Faction can build to that scale from there own book.
Knights should have infantry, and other support units.
With the idea that a codex is made to play the same game, and less units stuck in limbo of a system trying to do to many things badly.
Use kill team for there single unit game.
Can't see the point around USRs to be honest as they invariably give rise to more exceptions down the road.
While I have a whole list of wishful thinking to make 40k something of a different, more thematic game...
I would settle for just speeding up the current one.
So take marines. They have a host of different rules, re-rolls, etc, etc. Players tend to optimise to them, so just make them part of the statline. Extra attack in first round of combat universal special rule? Just give them an extra attack on their profile. Bolters do a whole host of different stuff at different times? Really rationalise away the many different types and make them mostly assault weapons so they are a more constant beast (and have far fewer special rules, i.e. can rapid fire out to full range if x, or y, or who cares just give them 2 shots).
I think a lot of the rules for re-rolling, extra attacks, etc. etc. can just be rolled into profiles, yes things might get marginally better or worse, but they would require far less interpretation and memory games. Re-roll x would be a lot better as just +1 to hit – anything to reduce the amount of dice having to be constantly re-rolled.
One departure to the above would be a game slowing slightly tweak of the wound table. If a weapon is more than twice as strong as the target (i.e. str 8 vs toughness 3), auto wounds. If a target is more than twice as tough (toughness 8 vs str 3), auto fails.
And finally – better scenery rules. GW needs to reconcile its desire to make terrain with holes in it, its desire for some bizarre ‘true’ line of sight despite the silliness that entails, and the fact games like this work best with terrain that actually blocks line of sight.
or at least one version of the game that doesn't play like a card game
with models for chits on a big table full of pretty - but mostly useless - terrain features.
Yes less combos please. If you want that kind of stuff go play mtg or something. And make legions/chapters/craftworlds/etc feel more unique from each other.
How do you make chapters more unique without introducing combos? Do you just want lower costs for White Scars bikes/Iron Hands heavy weapons? When you add more unique rules you add more combos.
You can have special rules that make factions more unique without combos and strategems. Look at 30k. It has rules and units that add flavor to the armies without strategems.
Removal of Command points and stratagems. Much like Formations in 7th. they're becoming bloated and unbalanced. In my specific group and your mileage may vary here, they are beginning to detract from the game. If not removal, then a severe reining in.
Fixed number of command points given per turn, much like Kill team. Remove the link between army composition and amount of command points.
A larger core set of stratagems located in one place rather than the same functional stratagems named differently in every codex.
A smaller selection of faction specific stratagems in the codex. Think around 5 per codex. Maybe one 1 army generic and the remaining for the core chapters / hive fleets / clans / dynasties etc.
Strats should be situational "I gotcha's" that add to the core rules / feeling of the game. Rather than a game in and of themselves.
Removal of CP rerolls and restriction on aura rerolls. We already roll 3 sets of dice for every action (hit, wound, armor) sometimes a 4th roll (Damage). Rerolls have ballooned that to 6 or 7 rolls for every single action. If you're unwilling to remove rerolls then, note, CP rerolls must go.
Rerolls auras have to be activated at the start of a phase, using command points and only work for the phase they're activated. If your captain wants to give rerolls of one, it costs 1 cp, only affects units 6 - 9" away and only lasts that shooting phase.
Return of USR's, it doesn't have to be the large selection of USR's from previous editions, but there is enough duplication that some USR's would be much appreciated. Updating one rule instead of updating 20 codexes to reflect the same rule change would be nice. For example, the rule below if foudn to need an update would only have to be updated one time instead of x number of times for each book.
Inspiring Presence - USR The HQ model with this USR can spend 1 command point at the beginning of a combat phase to give all units wholly within 9" rerolls of to-hit rolls of 1 in either the shooting or assault phase or during overwatch.
This USR can be activated one time during each phase in a turn as long as the 1 command point is spent each time it's activated.
Bring back restrictions on allies.
Removal of semi-annual faqs, instead I'd rather see a rerelease of the core rules plus erratta plus chapter approved in a new book each year. remember the core rules were supposed to be only 8 pages or something like that. so it's not out of the realm of possibility to update those 8 pages, release updated point costs and missions and call it a yearly book.
A death to Bubble Rules. Almost wholesale, although a few exceptions could be made. DeathBubbles have mostly replaced DeathStars.
Bring back Golden BB style threats to vehicles (but without reducing their average durability). So even a single Fusion Gun as a small chance to be devastating, but the game is no more killy overall.
Chapter Tactics go away. Some could stay as some form of "Operational Tactics" - either a rule you can pick from or maybe a Stratagem that impacts your army? Either way, less bloat from "free" rules to differentiate mostly-identical armies/units (a Dark Angel Marine is just as stealthy as a Raven Guard or as killy as a Blood Angel).
Weaker, less impactful Stratagems - performing unique and flavorful effects, sure. But they shouldn't completely redefine the game. This is a wargame, not a CCG.
Release all codices at the same time, with the same design philosophy and utilizing the same game mechanics. Certain armies/units/whatever will always be better than others, if nothing else due to the vast quantity of them (see indices), but doing them one at a time will never work.
They will never do this, because they factor new books into packages/cycles with new models.
Digital living ruleset updated for free or for a fee. Frankly I don't care if it's the latter simply due to how ridiculous it is to reference rules/errata all over the cussing place. My time is valuable (as evidenced by the amount of it I waste on forums ), and I'm willing to pay for that convenience.
In the same spirit, I'd like an end to all those mono-pose models that GW seem very fond of these days. Let us have kitbash-friendly models, with round joints for limbs and the head.
Character kits should include more customization options. If a character may have either a bolt pistol or a plasma pistol, both should be included in the character kit.
Vankraken wrote: Scrap 8th entirely and redesign the core rules to have mechanical depth closer to past editions. The biggest weakness of 8th is it's completely lack of substance in it's core rules resulting in extremely dull gameplay that requires piling on rules from the codex, supplements, buff auras, and stratagems. All this does is create combos to exploit and less to do with any sort of tactical gameplay. Also it's probably a very good idea to sack whoever decided that 8th's core rules where acceptable.
Better terrain rules, USRs (a core set of 5 to 15 rules), unit types with their own mechanics, mechanics that make positioning matter, mechanics that reduce combat effectiveness without just being "kill everything" (falling back, pinning, blind, jink snap shooting etc). Basically having compelling gameplay without the need to have a bunch of tacked on rules to have "combos" of modifiers.
Past editions weren't any better, the rulebook was just longer and more convoluted.
or at least one version of the game that doesn't play like a card game
with models for chits on a big table full of pretty - but mostly useless - terrain features.
Yes less combos please. If you want that kind of stuff go play mtg or something. And make legions/chapters/craftworlds/etc feel more unique from each other.
How do you make chapters more unique without introducing combos? Do you just want lower costs for White Scars bikes/Iron Hands heavy weapons? When you add more unique rules you add more combos.
You can have special rules that make factions more unique without combos and strategems. Look at 30k. It has rules and units that add flavor to the armies without strategems.
No it doesn't. They're marines, they play like marines. Even with unique units they're just the same army 18 times outside of their combos.
No model no rules forever. Oh so you want me to buy a 40 dollar rulebook and several model kits I have to frankenstein pieces of together to get the loadout I actually want?
Gadzilla666 wrote: You can have special rules that make factions more unique without combos and strategems. Look at 30k. It has rules and units that add flavor to the armies without strategems.
I don't play HH so I'd appreciate some education. Unique units is not an option for 40k, especially not for custom chapters. Most HH characters don't buff their units, so it doesn't combo with anything. Fewer rules, fewer combos. When you have 3 different abilities that all improve a unit then that unit will become greater than the sum of its parts, the only way to fix it entirely is to not have all those rules or to make the rules so specific that the units become better at a lot of things, but not great at any one thing or all things. You'd have to change Captains to only work against Infantry and Lieutenants to only work against Vehicles and Monsters in order to stop the most basic combo in the Space Marines codex. Stratagems exacerbate the issue, but it's baked right into the datasheets of most 8th ed factions.
Dark Angels get a bonus to their melee attacks when using swords against equal-WS targets, there is a Rite of War that makes melee attacks against high T targets more effective. That's a combo against Dreadnoughts which will often be equal WS and always high T.
White Scars get a bonus to bikes, they also get a Rite of War that grants an additional bonus to bikes, that's a combo.
I don't see how you can give several additional rules or benefits to a unit without creating combos, unless you limited each unit to a maximum of 1 buff and then just gave out different buffs with different units.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You can have special rules that make factions more unique without combos and strategems. Look at 30k. It has rules and units that add flavor to the armies without strategems.
I don't play HH so I'd appreciate some education. Unique units is not an option for 40k, especially not for custom chapters. Most HH characters don't buff their units, so it doesn't combo with anything. Fewer rules, fewer combos. When you have 3 different abilities that all improve a unit then that unit will become greater than the sum of its parts, the only way to fix it entirely is to not have all those rules or to make the rules so specific that the units become better at a lot of things, but not great at any one thing or all things. You'd have to change Captains to only work against Infantry and Lieutenants to only work against Vehicles and Monsters in order to stop the most basic combo in the Space Marines codex. Stratagems exacerbate the issue, but it's baked right into the datasheets of most 8th ed factions.
Dark Angels get a bonus to their melee attacks when using swords against equal-WS targets, there is a Rite of War that makes melee attacks against high T targets more effective. That's a combo against Dreadnoughts which will often be equal WS and always high T.
White Scars get a bonus to bikes, they also get a Rite of War that grants an additional bonus to bikes, that's a combo.
I don't see how you can give several additional rules or benefits to a unit without creating combos, unless you limited each unit to a maximum of 1 buff and then just gave out different buffs with different units.
I think we are talking about different definitions of "combo". Rules like rites of war or character buffs make units better but still generally require good positioning, use of cover etc to work. What I'm complaining about is the strategem mechanic encouraging the building of lists just to generate as many cp as possible in order to stack strategems on units as much as possible instead of using them as situational tools. This sometimes makes the game feel like less of a war game and more like a card game. Many players even like to throw their cards on the table when playing strategems just like in a card game. I'm not opposed to buffs that add to a factions fluff but rules that encourage list building in order to get cp in order to play buffs takes away from the wargame ascetic for me personally. That said obviously others quite like those mechanics. Since this thread is just a wish list for what we would like to see in a new addition I was just throwing my 2 cents in.
I played 2nd edition through 3.5/4th (high school through shortly after college). I was unimpressed with the revamp that 3rd had created so I quit playing. I came back for a peek at 7th edition (while building a retro 2nd edition army). I found that the game was still operating on the rotten bones of the 3rd edition revamp. I was unimpressed and didn't bother buying back in.
I stated here on Dakka during the days of 7th that I couldn't fathom a revision of 40K that would get me interested again. 8th came out and changed my mind, for a while at least. I enjoyed the early days of 8th edition. Sadly I'm right back to where I was two years ago. 8th has become increasingly boring/unfun/obnoxious, and I can't see a way going forward that I'd suddenly fall back into it.
GW lost me as a true customer a couple years back. I mainly buy used models or parted out combo-boxes with eBay sales, etc. I cannot support their pricing methods anymore, and the ever increasing link between sales/game design. I've just absolutely fallen out of love with 40K. At my age I think it's just a game style I'm no longer interested in. Furthermore the way GW operates now I can't see buying any products from them going forward. Their sales policies/practices are silly and borderline insulting.
It's been a fun ride, and I won't be throwing my armies away, but I'll be playing 2nd edition or Index-hammer if I play in the future. After 25 years GW has more or less completely driven me away from supporting them.
I just want the damage via shooting to not be so insanely powerful that units like small skimmers are pointless to take, or elite units like terminators dont need a 4++/5+++ to even be viable.
No model no rules forever. Oh so you want me to buy a 40 dollar rulebook and several model kits I have to frankenstein pieces of together to get the loadout I actually want?
Feth. That.
Or as people normally did, buy one kit and modify it however you want to fit, make your own, or buy a third party kit.
The issue was never "buy several kits to make this unit", it was "GW simply does not make a distinct separate model/kit for this unit". This incentivized other to make a kit, cutting GW out of the revenue loop.
Besides, its not like you dont already have to do that with many existing kits. Want a dev/havoc squad all with the same weapon? You're gonna need to buy multiple kits because they simply don't inclue enough weapons to do so.
Keep 8th edition as the back bone... but fix vehicle/terminators rules.
IE, if unit type is "Vehicle" or model equipped with Terminator dreadnought armour, then instead of the usual armour test based on D6 (and terminators getting additional inv save)... Make it something like a save is 4+ on 2d6 with no invulnerable saves. (stormsheilds termies make save at 3+).
That would emphasize your opponent to bringing high APAT weapons and making those units worth taking...
Go back to 4th edition, but replace the horrible old vehicle rules with today's "vehicles are big multi-wound models" rules, and replace all the movement-related rules with 8th edition's Movement stat.
Vankraken wrote: Scrap 8th entirely and redesign the core rules to have mechanical depth closer to past editions. The biggest weakness of 8th is it's completely lack of substance in it's core rules resulting in extremely dull gameplay that requires piling on rules from the codex, supplements, buff auras, and stratagems. All this does is create combos to exploit and less to do with any sort of tactical gameplay. Also it's probably a very good idea to sack whoever decided that 8th's core rules where acceptable.
Better terrain rules, USRs (a core set of 5 to 15 rules), unit types with their own mechanics, mechanics that make positioning matter, mechanics that reduce combat effectiveness without just being "kill everything" (falling back, pinning, blind, jink snap shooting etc). Basically having compelling gameplay without the need to have a bunch of tacked on rules to have "combos" of modifiers.
Past editions weren't any better, the rulebook was just longer and more convoluted.
6th and 7th were actually massively worse.
For me 7th is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better because it's actually fun to play. And thats with all it's horrible imbalances and bloaty rules. Rather have something that has potential to be fun (when properly self regulated so armies going up against each other whee roughly in the same ball park of power) than a game like 8th that is so bare bones and bland that it can't be fun for someone like myself. And it's not a case of rose colored glasses as I gave 8th a good go but never had fun. Go back and play games of 7th and I'm instantly back to having a good time. That's even with using trash tier armies like Orks.
EDIT: To increase clarity, the rules below would not use Initiative to determine who struck first. I would probably advocate simultaneous attacks (charging can grant +1 A and/or +1WS in this instance).
I want WS and BS to be numbers again and both to be compared to initiative (which should also be back as a defence stat).
I want your reflexes to actually mean something, I want genestealers and Harlequins to be really hard to hit, I want "Speed as a defence" to mean something.
Equal or lower 4+
Higher 3+
Half or less 5+
Twice or more 2+
Now shooting is not as easy, modifiers go onto BS and WS rather the hit roll which is severely limited. targeters = +1BS, master craft = +1WS ETC.
This would solve a lot of problems with shooting vs melee, and open up more variety in units.
No model no rules forever. Oh so you want me to buy a 40 dollar rulebook and several model kits I have to frankenstein pieces of together to get the loadout I actually want?
Feth. That.
Or as people normally did, buy one kit and modify it however you want to fit, make your own, or buy a third party kit.
The issue was never "buy several kits to make this unit", it was "GW simply does not make a distinct separate model/kit for this unit". This incentivized other to make a kit, cutting GW out of the revenue loop.
Besides, its not like you dont already have to do that with many existing kits. Want a dev/havoc squad all with the same weapon? You're gonna need to buy multiple kits because they simply don't inclue enough weapons to do so.
I'd even go as far as saying that the idea that people needed to go out and buy extra kits for their options is wrong. If you were playing an army for a long enough time, you were going to end up with a bit box unless you intentionally threw anything you didn't use out. That meant you probably had something already that would at least get you a decent part of the way, and id you didn't there might have been someone in your local community that did (I literally bought a pack of tau suit weapons for a few dollars of someone from a flgs and have been adding them to my orks)
Games workshop could absolutely fix the problem of No Model No Rules if they were willing to do upgrade packs for things other than space marine chapter stuff, but I think the problem is that the reason No Model, No Rules exists, aside from the Chapterhouse case, is the same reason for the removal of the USR: A lack of trust in the players to actually understand their rules.
Hellebore wrote: I want WS and BS to be numbers again and both to be compared to initiative (which should also be back as a defence stat).
I want your reflexes to actually mean something, I want genestealers and Harlequins to be really hard to hit, I want "Speed as a defence" to mean something.
Equal or lower 4+
Higher 3+
Half or less 5+
Twice or more 2+
Now shooting is not as easy, modifiers go onto BS and WS rather the hit roll which is severely limited. targeters = +1BS, master craft = +1WS ETC.
This would solve a lot of problems with shooting vs melee, and open up more variety in units.
No, that would just mean that melee armies struggle even more.
Hellebore wrote: I want WS and BS to be numbers again and both to be compared to initiative (which should also be back as a defence stat).
I want your reflexes to actually mean something, I want genestealers and Harlequins to be really hard to hit, I want "Speed as a defence" to mean something.
Equal or lower 4+
Higher 3+
Half or less 5+
Twice or more 2+
Now shooting is not as easy, modifiers go onto BS and WS rather the hit roll which is severely limited. targeters = +1BS, master craft = +1WS ETC.
This would solve a lot of problems with shooting vs melee, and open up more variety in units.
No, that would just mean that melee armies struggle even more.
Under the current design I think melee army’s are just bad, and it won’t change until they really think about what melee army are supposed to even be. In so many cases GW seems to expect a melee army to just derp into a gun line and somehow survive long enough to get there. With no real support designed into them
Leads so much to very swingy poor strategic games.
Aye, but initiative was one of the reasons why Orkz sucked.
As for melee: Considering GW didn't manage to fix melee for basically ever now. i have no real hope that it will get better or equal as valid too shooting ever.
Also GW does not expect to run (Da jump and telly porta) but units not having access to these kinds of things automatically suck. (E.G. Khorne berzerkers.)
Not Online!!! wrote: Aye, but initiative was one of the reasons why Orkz sucked.
As for melee: Considering GW didn't manage to fix melee for basically ever now. i have no real hope that it will get better or equal as valid too shooting ever.
Also GW does not expect to run (Da jump and telly porta) but units not having access to these kinds of things automatically suck. (E.G. Khorne berzerkers.)
You didn't read what I wrote then, nowhere did I say that Initiative was used to determine who struck first, it just determined how easily you were hit - as a defence stat. I would actually expect combat to happen simultaneously in this system, both sides determine casualties from those alive at the beginning of the round.
And this system would reduce the effectiveness of shooting by making it harder to get 2+ to hit (you'd need BS8+ to hit a space marine with I4 on a 2+).
Not Online!!! wrote: Aye, but initiative was one of the reasons why Orkz sucked.
As for melee: Considering GW didn't manage to fix melee for basically ever now. i have no real hope that it will get better or equal as valid too shooting ever.
Also GW does not expect to run (Da jump and telly porta) but units not having access to these kinds of things automatically suck. (E.G. Khorne berzerkers.)
True, initiative I think should be more a defence style stat. Rather than what it was used for before.
The issue really is, that GW thinks a pure melee army is even a thing that works in game with tau needed to stay out of it by design. They need dedicated units to get them there, but they need to be used to create movement around the battlefield. Rather than just run into the enemy as soon as possible. Or other issues that remove responses to make them even viable :(
Not Online!!! wrote: Aye, but initiative was one of the reasons why Orkz sucked.
As for melee: Considering GW didn't manage to fix melee for basically ever now. i have no real hope that it will get better or equal as valid too shooting ever.
Also GW does not expect to run (Da jump and telly porta) but units not having access to these kinds of things automatically suck. (E.G. Khorne berzerkers.)
Shooting can be the main focus for 40k, but to make melee more viable a few things needs to change no matter what. We can have 60/70 5 shooting and 30/40 % melee thats fine.
Honestly, IDK why we fight on each side others turns, why is that a thing? We dont shoot on each other turns (other than OW).
If we change melee to focus on just your turn like shooting, tweak the melee a bit it would be more fun and balance i think, now you have to really decided, do i melee or fallback. Gives more tactical depth.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Release all codices at the same time, with the same design philosophy and utilizing the same game mechanics. Certain armies/units/whatever will always be better than others, if nothing else due to the vast quantity of them (see indices), but doing them one at a time will never work.
Eldarain wrote: Outside of Formations getting out of hand and Invisibility I quite liked 7th.
If you remove formations and some of the redundant USR its a great edition.
No it's not. It still suffers from every weapon that's not Ap1 or Ap2 being useless, tanks made of paper with useless special rules that only make them worse than anything else, monsters being simply better than anything else, an absolutely obnoxious psychic phase with no tactics whatsoever, a nearly useless CCphase with no options for the player, nearly useless morale phase (okay, that one 8th kept), random psychic powers, random Warlord traits, for Daemons even random equipment and overall useless Bloat with the most obvious being tank shock or soulblaze.
Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Not sure how you would make their Move stat count?
Additionally GW need's to close the "tri-point" bs
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Not sure how you would make their Move stat count?
Additionally GW need's to close the "tri-point" bs
very easy:
Fallback is counted as a move, +d6 however the combatants pursue with m+d6 aswell.
High movement units which are generally expensive can tie down units that way and break battlelines.
Secondly, the unit not falling back get's a bonus round that only generates half as many hits so that falling back actually is a punishment.
Further: tripointing has to do with consolidation ruling, i have no concrete idea of that but yes something must happen. Maybee the ability to sacrifice hostages?
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Not sure how you would make their Move stat count?
Additionally GW need's to close the "tri-point" bs
very easy:
Fallback is counted as a move, +d6 however the combatants pursue with m+d6 aswell.
High movement units which are generally expensive can tie down units that way and break battlelines.
Secondly, the unit not falling back get's a bonus round that only generates half as many hits so that falling back actually is a punishment.
Further: tripointing has to do with consolidation ruling, i have no concrete idea of that but yes something must happen. Maybee the ability to sacrifice hostages?
In previous editions you just moved through units while falling back, I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that. I don't know about your fall back mechanic, you'd basically never be able to get out of a 1-on-1 combat with a unit with higher M stat. I guess that makes sense. I love tri-pointing, I think it's a great mechanic and it's part of why melee is so much better in 8th than 7th, that and consolidating into units you haven't charged instead of your units going on auto-pilot trying to get as many models into base contact as possible while keeping distance from units they didn't charge, because... Reasons.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Not sure how you would make their Move stat count?
Additionally GW need's to close the "tri-point" bs
very easy:
Fallback is counted as a move, +d6 however the combatants pursue with m+d6 aswell.
High movement units which are generally expensive can tie down units that way and break battlelines.
Secondly, the unit not falling back get's a bonus round that only generates half as many hits so that falling back actually is a punishment.
Further: tripointing has to do with consolidation ruling, i have no concrete idea of that but yes something must happen. Maybee the ability to sacrifice hostages?
Maybe just "At the end of the Movement Phase, your opponent may move any units that began the phase within 1" of enemy units but no longer are. Note that these moves may end within 1" of enemy units."
That would allow faster units to tie up slower units, and prevent a speedbump backing away from CC from hiding behind what they were protecting. This makes "falling back" act like a crumbling line. It makes Guardsmen *want* to hold - if they fall back, what's killing them eats the things the Guardsmen are protecting.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
Yeah, they literally just need to translate overwatch to melee. Falling back, whether deliberately or because you lost combat, should be dangerous.
I personally am not a fan of "melee overwatch" for fall back. The problem with fallback is not that it's preventing damage, but rather the unit being able to leave meant your unit is very vulnerable, likely in the enemy army's double tap range and out of cover. This is also the problem is that overwatch is a lot of dice roll for not a whole lot of point, and makes a problem where being worse at it means you do more damage at it.
I'd much rather prefer that, if a unit that was in melee is no longer in melee because the other unit(s) have fallen back, then the unit can make a consolidation move. This allows for a more tactical though to if you should fallback than taking more damage since:
A) The unit could consolidate back into the unit trying to escape, if you didn't move far enough away. This prevents one inch fallbacks, which is something of a headsctracher when the artilery battery nearby is going from "The risk is too great!" to "firefirefirefirefirefirefire" (an actual reason to bring back blast plates....)
B) The unit could consolidate into another unit, which means the falling back unit has to consider if the unit stuck in melee is less important than leting the melee unit spread out into their ranks, or might force the army to spread out before falling back, giving the army with the assault units a way to displace their enemy into better positions for them. It's give melee an better Crowd Control element, rather than just being a missile that you fire at the enemy than then explodes.
C) It could allow the assault unit to move into cover or out of line of sight, as long as there's a unit they can move towards in that direction, rather than the unit hanging out in the open where the shooting army wants them to be.
D) Since it'd have to be "if not in melee", it could allow an army to fall back an important unit while keeping another behind to pin the melee unit down. This could give a reason to take counter charge units in shooting armies, rather than just an endless parade of screens.
I think this is better than just getting to do some extra damage against a unit that the other player may not care about in the first place.
The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
Hellebore wrote: The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
I like the idea only you get to attack on your turn, when its your turn you can A) stay in combat to shoot pistols and melee or B) Fallback but take a free strike against you (maybe not full melee, like each model get 1 attack dice or something).
This is how almost EVERY pvp style board game / monster cracker game works and makes sense
Could make fallback a LD check on 2d6. Some units could modify it, a unit with fly would have a - 1 to the roll while units like wyches could have a +1 or +2. But that also adds dice rolling that may or may not be necessary
What I'd prefer is just that a flying unit (or any other unit that may fire when they fall back) that falls back always suffers a -1 to hit penalty on top of any other penalties it may have. Because when it comes down to it the biggest problem with assaults aren't actually assaults themselves but lists that are composed completely of flying unit that can't be locked down.
The fact that a flying gunline can't be compromised at all by a melee force is a bit ridiculous . It allows the opponent to sometimes just ignore board control, which is quite silly.
Although I would give harlequins a pass on this, because that is what harlequins do
An all-new rules team, composed of creative individuals, skilled in technical writing, willing to re-examine their work, who are capable of admitting mistakes.
A total re-write.
Alternating activation by unit.
A comparative system, rather than fixed rolls.
An evasion stat.
Removal of armor saves.
Universal Special Rules that are:
A) Actually universal.
B) Have names that describe what they do.
C) Are more interesting than boring nonsense like "fight twice, reroll, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, etc." but instead are more active.
Unit types. With rules the tactually matter, such as bikes gaining the MEDGe version of hit-and-run.
Turn-by-turn scoring of victory points.
Asymmetrical objectives. 40k's version of Schemes & Strategies, etc.
Objectives that are deeper and more interesting than " whoever has more guys standing on these 6 points at the end of the game wins."
No chapter tactics. Instead a core ruleset that facilitates different play styles organically.
Stat cards for units. Every kit comes with all of the appropriate rules for using everything that kit can build.
A suppression system.
A Force Organization Chart. Limits on the number of units in a category that can be taken are important for balance, and helps to make infantry matter.
No more rolling to cast psychic powers.
Psychic powers and equivalents are chosen, at their specified points cost.
Valid uses for each weapon.
Templates.
Superheavies, gargantuans, and primarchs banished to Apocalypse.
Fix 8th slowly and incrementally; continue releasing new content via campaigns and KT/ BSF; tweak rules via Big FAQ's and CA.
Bring Apocalypse to tournaments so that people who prefer Alternate Activation and delayed damage get to just play the game that they already have rather than trying to make this game into that one so that everyone is forced to play the way that they prefer to play.
And I know, they're all going to say "but why should I have to buy another box?" , to which I reply "If you'd rather buy an entirely new edition than a $200 box of cards that allow you to do everything you claim to want to do without messing it up for everyone else, then your motivation isn't really financial, is it?"
You mean like what 40k has as opposed to AoS or something else? Like 7th edition with comparing WS against WS or maybe the evasive stat you're looking for?
Universal Special Rules that are:
A) Actually universal.
B) Have names that describe what they do.
C) Are more interesting than boring nonsense like "fight twice, reroll, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, etc." but instead are more active.
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Turn-by-turn scoring of victory points.
Asymmetrical objectives. 40k's version of Schemes & Strategies, etc.
Objectives that are deeper and more interesting than " whoever has more guys standing on these 6 points at the end of the game wins."
ITC Champions/Nova missions are good for things other than just tournaments.
Stat cards for units. Every kit comes with all of the appropriate rules for using everything that kit can build.
I thought all kits already came with datacards, I don't think it's reasonable to put every single rule for a unit in the box, you'd need the base rules and spell out army-wide rules which shouldn't be required.
No more rolling to cast psychic powers.
Psychic powers and equivalents are chosen, at their specified points cost.
That's a really bad idea, psychic powers are powered by the warp, it's thematic that they are random.
Hellebore wrote: The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
That would allow all vehicles to fall back and shoot unless you take them hostage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Am I the only one who would like to see the return of legacy of ruin and similar rules?
It's not really any different than Relics and WL traits which are easy to spam for SM. I think vehicle honours might help people that don't play UM say that they have a legendary tank commander as well or a Daemon in the case of CSM.
vict0988 wrote:
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
vict0988 wrote:
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
That just leads to bloat in the rules as well, And makes it harder to remember specific rules. Comes off more as lack of creativity than good creativity, when it comes down to it. Most of these rules should be for effects that any army will or should have access to. Individual rules left to give some units there specialty when needed.
If the same rule is given a new name in half the books, it also becomes a bit of bloat to update it when its needed, as well as putting them in a single place like they should be.
Something like deep strike, can mean many things. Teleport in, sneak in before battle, fell out of a plane like orks probably do. Its a strike Deep in the enemy controlled lines.
Steady could be used to remove heavy weapon negatives. You can also do things like, Steady on stationery. It only gains benefits when it did not move. As a way to give artillery some differences to normal heavy weapons.
USRs actually clear up bloat, they don't add to more. Currently the state of bespoke rules, which I thought was a bad idea, is leading to much of this bloat. As instead of My unit having Deep strike, but it's all the same for units that do this. They all have different rules all written out that equate to that.
What is more bloat, a unit gaining Deep strike, and you can check the same source for every unit that has it. On the other side, each unit has a different bespoke rule " Warp Jump " " Grav chute insertion " " Teleportation " " Ambush " Etc, etc, etc.
Now, if I'm playing someone who doesn't know my army and I say my bespoke rule they look at me like I have two heads and I need to explain it. If it was all the same rule, maybe described in fluff how its done for each unit or faction, they'd just need to know the core USRs to know what the heck I'm talking about.
Getting rid of USRs was dumb, and I don't know why they ever thought it would somehow deal with bloat when all these special snowflake rules do the same things and are the very love child of the bloat god.
Fair enough, but dial some back then and make a cut down version of the main book affordable for people. Like those little, light copies that came out in the starter sets. I loved those rule books.
Not Online!!! wrote: The issue was that GW decided to force people into buying a BRB to get access to the USRs.
And that there was way to much USR's.
This sorta come up on one of the mini wargaming Q&A, about why they had so much trouble with 40kUSRs over other games, Like warmachine, infinity and the like.
And the answer was giving that it was that 40k just had so much more of them. Heavy paraphrase, but it kinda stuck with me on 40k design all these years.
At the Time 40k had less, and i think this is why its sorta such a issue in 40k. Its so many issues that for what ever reason they do not even make efforts to fix.
A lot of it is this weird obsession with narrative, but headed by people with no idea of the narrative on the battlefield of the game they design. A weird mashing of ideas, that really would make no difernce on the battlefields of 40k, but needed to be represented as they focus on narrative so much.
(not sure about the right words >.< English is hard.)
vict0988 wrote: If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
IMO fluff should be in the fluff section, I'm mostly ambivalent whether USRs use rational names like Reinforcements or legacy names like Deep Strike, but calling it From Golden Light makes no sense. We need words that allow us to explain rules to each other, it's clear as day when you look at how people talk about the game while playing and while talking about the game that some kind of shared vocabulary is needed. Imagine if you could not say dog or chair, I have two of those animals with the fur and the teeth and they like to bark at strangers. I am sitting in one of those pieces of furniture that are made for sitting in.
Alternating Activation (Commander units can activate multiple units, ala Bolt Action)
One model, one attack roll. One damage roll. No save rolls, no super saves no I-failed-the-save-but-get-to-save-again FNPbs. (Vehicles act based on crewmen - for example, a tank has a driver, turret gunner, two sponson gunners - so it can move and make around 3 attacks - at no penalty)
Kill anyone who suggests rerolls.
Terrain rules that affect movement and line of sight.
Overwatch - but you have to have prepared for it.
Melee Overwatch - but you have to have been unactivated.
Optional/Advanced rules for facing and unique characters - either prebuilt or make your own (similar to the 2019 CA).
An online army builder.
Free base rules and base troop datasheets.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
Precisely. This is also the approach of any sane editor whenever you have content that gets reproduced across multiple documents.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
The name is very important, now you just end up with a bunch of rules with two seperate names for a bunch of factions. Why it may not seem like much, it’s a huge burden of complication on the design. And a big portion of bloat in a game is just knowing which rules are named what when they are referenced.
The whole point of having USRs in the first place is so you can have special rules on units to make them interesting and special.
It ads little flavour for taking up so much in the design. All you would find with this design is people getting annoyed at the use of the snowflake flavour names and pull you right out of that narrative.
When it comes down to it, most rules that would fit into the proposed USRs would not need a new name, and others just a new name to fit there purpose a bit better.
This will never happen, but for me what would be perfect is if GW expanded upon the rules from Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth. Use those rules as the core system, which will have nothing bigger than Contemptor Dreadnought. In the rules have lists for all the current factions, have more asymmetric missions, along with secret missions, and a bigger range of hex map sections to create some very interesting games.
Along side this keep Apocalypse, as that should be the large scale conflict game. Where as the Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth will be a platoon/company level game.
With regards to the name being important, of course. Striking Scorpions shouldn't have "DEEP STRIKE", as they're not deepstriking onto the table. THey should have "Strike from the Shadows: This unit has DEEP STRIKE".
Minor "bloat" of the datacard having a rule that just says "use this USR". But it fixes the "unflavorful" problems of USRs.
Bharring wrote: With regards to the name being important, of course. Striking Scorpions shouldn't have "DEEP STRIKE", as they're not deepstriking onto the table. THey should have "Strike from the Shadows: This unit has DEEP STRIKE".
Minor "bloat" of the datacard having a rule that just says "use this USR". But it fixes the "unflavorful" problems of USRs.
Deep strike can mean a strike deep within enemy lines, or anything similar. Doing it a few times is ok, but a whole system like 40k leads it to a lot of mental bloat. And up and undermining of your own systems writing.
Better would be on a full data sheet have it state that striking scorpions strike from the shadows and have Deep Strike as a rule. But on any rules specific card simply say Deep Strike on its own.
If it’s even worth the time for the devs to come up with names as such.
So... in order to play my unit of Rangers in this world where they have written: "Appear Unbidden: this unit has DEEP STRIKE", I would have to crack open another book just to read that blurb?
Blandness was only one facet of why they went away from USRs. USRs are great... after years of playing and having the time to integrate all of those things into your head. Otherwise, you're flipping to a unit sheet in the codex, then pulling out the BRB and flipping to that sheet, and then reading your opponent's codex to see how your rules interact with his rules... and then calling in a lawyer and English professor to argue over the tense and meaning and contractual obligations of...
You know...
Typical game in 7th edition.
I would never want to go back to USRs, having the full spread of unit abilities printed on my unit directly, while it may still have wording problems, at least cuts out SOME of the constant back-n-forth of USRs printed up in some other manual.
About the only thing that is really disappointing me with 8th right now is the lack of terrain rules and how bland it is: is it +1 armor or -LoS? But that can be easily fixed with homerules, sorry tourney players. Still, nothing in the game that says tournament organizers cannot houserule their terrain, a la ITC. So... really... why do we need 9th now? Just to have to buy more books? All the GW haters sure are empowering GW to rake you for more cash on disposable books (the ONLY part of your army that doesn't survive edition-to-edition).
Why would you have to open another book to read a USR? I havent seen anyone pro USRs say they must be handled stupidly like GW does it. You could still have the full rule on the datasheet. Have a summary of all USRs in both the core book and each codex. Only place you wouldnt have the full ruling would be in summary/reference pages that are only listing the models stats and the name of their rules.
Reason most people want USRs isnt to make the datasheets smaller but to set a standard and make the game clearer. If it works like "Deep Strike" it should probably have the USR "Deep Strike" so its easy to communicate with your opponent what it does. Hiding the rules would hinder what we most want out of USRs.
Dysartes wrote: If we did go back to having USRs - and it is something I'd agree with - I think two things would need to happen to improve the usability.
A, Any USRs used within an article or book are reprinted in full in the book.
B, A reference sheet of the full set of USRs is available as a download.
Realistically, a list In a rule book or play document would be enough. Free would be great. One of the reasons to have them in a seperate book, is so you can have them open alongside your army rules.
But the idea for USRs is that everyone is learning them to some degree, so they are quick reference if needed but are just something learned overtime. Like other rules in a rule book.
Of corse, this requires GW to write well. One of there big issues is a consistent horrible mess.
But take striking scorpions above. The unit can have its rules, infantry. Eldar. Everyone knows what armour means, when it’s not written on the sheet. Or even in the codex.
And it also has deep strike.
You give an exarch power strike from the shadows. This allows the exarch and there unit to be placed in combat when they Deep Strike.
Flavour both in game and in the rules usage.
Not that complicated on there own. And should be easy to pick up for most 40k players.
But now you give a seer a power, could use conceal or other spell like name. When cast place a unit within 12 inch into reserve.
3 layers of complexity that should be fairly easy to players to get.
And is very Eldar, and has special interaction with the scorpion unit.
For the opponents seeing scorpions, they only need to know that they can be put into combat via Deep strike, and a seer can put them back into deep strike range.
Purifying Tempest wrote: So... in order to play my unit of Rangers in this world where they have written: "Appear Unbidden: this unit has DEEP STRIKE", I would have to crack open another book just to read that blurb?
You do realize that you do need to now? It's in multiple FAQs, and written out many times with minor variations.
Purifying Tempest wrote: So... in order to play my unit of Rangers in this world where they have written: "Appear Unbidden: this unit has DEEP STRIKE", I would have to crack open another book just to read that blurb?
Blandness was only one facet of why they went away from USRs. USRs are great... after years of playing and having the time to integrate all of those things into your head. Otherwise, you're flipping to a unit sheet in the codex, then pulling out the BRB and flipping to that sheet, and then reading your opponent's codex to see how your rules interact with his rules... and then calling in a lawyer and English professor to argue over the tense and meaning and contractual obligations of...
You know...
Typical game in 7th edition.
I would never want to go back to USRs, having the full spread of unit abilities printed on my unit directly, while it may still have wording problems, at least cuts out SOME of the constant back-n-forth of USRs printed up in some other manual.
About the only thing that is really disappointing me with 8th right now is the lack of terrain rules and how bland it is: is it +1 armor or -LoS? But that can be easily fixed with homerules, sorry tourney players. Still, nothing in the game that says tournament organizers cannot houserule their terrain, a la ITC. So... really... why do we need 9th now? Just to have to buy more books? All the GW haters sure are empowering GW to rake you for more cash on disposable books (the ONLY part of your army that doesn't survive edition-to-edition).
This honestly sounds mostly like 8th anyway, or GW still sucks at rules so much that they make something simple to complicated for there players. Anyone that can handle 8th, should be able to handle USRs done to a competent level.
We can teach 8 year olds this stuff without much issue in other games.
Paying money is fine for a quality product as well, it’s just not something coming out of GW now in any way for 40k
Also, years of playing to learn rules is a bit worrying. I not sure I have encounter a modern rule set that is complicated enough that it should take years to learn. No one will be perfect, but learning the basics of two dozen USRs should not be that hard for you over a few weeks.
The other note is that if you have a smaller corpus of more common USRs (Deep Strike, FNP, etc), it's easier to keep track of. It only takes a game or two to know what Deep Strike does. You can consult the book (ideally any of the books that reference it should have it), but you'll probably only need to once every couple dozen games - even when using it.
If you have hundreds of USRs, though, you'll never remember many of them. And it'll be hard to find the right one.
Bharring wrote: The other note is that if you have a smaller corpus of more common USRs (Deep Strike, FNP, etc), it's easier to keep track of. It only takes a game or two to know what Deep Strike does. You can consult the book (ideally any of the books that reference it should have it), but you'll probably only need to once every couple dozen games - even when using it.
If you have hundreds of USRs, though, you'll never remember many of them. And it'll be hard to find the right one.
It's a balancing act.
GW has just handle them so bad for the last few editions that it has ad a lot to the mental burden, but even now players do not realise how many rules they probably remember. A well written rule set does wonders for mental retention.
It also serves as quick hand for telling a player what a unit does during a game. It’s building blocks, you use USRs so you can have more unique rules, not less.
Personally, 8th edition is fine. We don't need a 9th. 8th is more of a living game system that updates as we go along and that's fine. If I had to suggest any updates or changes they would simply be:
1. Make terrain usable again. At the moment terrain is almost pointless.
2. Update every army equally, not just focusing on space marines.
Otherwise the game is perfectly fine in my opinion.
BlackLobster wrote: Personally, 8th edition is fine. We don't need a 9th. 8th is more of a living game system that updates as we go along and that's fine.
If so, they should still publish a new version of the core rulebook (edition 8.1, 8.2, etc.) every three years or so. It's annoying to have the rules spread between several books, FAQs and erratas.
Also maybe make points costs available for free, in a printable document that gets updated every year. When they correct a unit's points cost and only publish it in Chapter Approved, they are essentially making us pay for their poor calibration of the unit.
Putting aside the structure of the rules, the basic problem with 8th edition's gameplay is that compared to prior editions, it plays less like a tabletop wargame and more like Magic: The Gathering, due to:
- A focus on combos, buffs, and power-ups (auras, strategems, etc) that boost units to insane levels of capability.
- Bad terrain rules means everything can see and shoot everything else and nobody is slowed down by anything; scenery is basically just decorative and plays little real role in the average game.
- Existence of Imperial Knights makes everyone load up on anti-tank guns so that vehicles smaller than Knights generally stand no chance, ruining realistic take-all-comers combined-arms armies and encouraging rock-paper-scissors armies that chase the metagame.
- Excessive access to speed-boosting abilities (Advance, 2D6" charge ranges, charge-after-advancing rules, "move twice" strats) means that everything is fast so you can't really outmaneuver anything anymore, and there's no point in taking transport vehicles.
Unless they fix these problems at the root causes, nothing will really change.
BlackLobster wrote: Personally, 8th edition is fine. We don't need a 9th. 8th is more of a living game system that updates as we go along and that's fine.
If so, they should still publish a new version of the core rulebook (edition 8.1, 8.2, etc.) every three years or so. It's annoying to have the rules spread between several books, FAQs and erratas.
Also maybe make points costs available for free, in a printable document that gets updated every year. When they correct a unit's points cost and only publish it in Chapter Approved, they are essentially making us pay for their poor calibration of the unit.
.
I said something similar to my opponent at our club meet last week, although i was referring to points, I find that if I don't use Battlescribe I get lost as to what the current points values are. We've got the codex, any updating FAQ and an annual CA.
just put DEEP STRIKE : this unit can blah blah blah... on the datasheet.
If you want a fluffy explanation of how the deepstriking is done exactly, just read the codex's unit description : Scarab occults emerge from a rift in reality to join the fight, Sicarian infiltrators hide unseen, etc.
Also add an appendix to the BRB and codex that describes the USRs if needed.
the datasheet doesn't need to have fluff in it since people that care about the fluff will actively look for the details on how a unit operates. The datasheet should only have the rules needed for the tabletop.
The main benefit from USR's is to get rid of abilities that "are the same but actually not really because someone copy pasted from memory".
How many abilities are : "your warlord/relic holder can reroll one x,y,z roll per game and some form of CP regeneration" but with slight variations.
Having Monitor malevolus be :
Once per battle, you can re-roll a single hit roll, wound roll, or damage roll made for your warlord. In addition, if your army is battle-forged, roll a d6 each time you or your opponent uses a stratagem. On a 6, you gain a command point,
and Labirinthine cunning be :
Roll a d6 each time you or your opponent spends a command point to use a stratagem. On a 6, you gain one command point.
is ridiculous in my opinion, it adds memory issues and opens up cheating possibilities (oh, sorry, i was playing monitor malevolus as if it was labirinthine cunning)
Pointed Stick wrote: Putting aside the structure of the rules, the basic problem with 8th edition's gameplay is that compared to prior editions, it plays less like a tabletop wargame and more like Magic: The Gathering, due to:
- A focus on combos, buffs, and power-ups (auras, strategems, etc) that boost units to insane levels of capability.
- Bad terrain rules means everything can see and shoot everything else and nobody is slowed down by anything; scenery is basically just decorative and plays little real role in the average game.
- Existence of Imperial Knights makes everyone load up on anti-tank guns so that vehicles smaller than Knights generally stand no chance, ruining realistic take-all-comers combined-arms armies and encouraging rock-paper-scissors armies that chase the metagame.
- Excessive access to speed-boosting abilities (Advance, 2D6" charge ranges, charge-after-advancing rules, "move twice" strats) means that everything is fast so you can't really outmaneuver anything anymore, and there's no point in taking transport vehicles.
Unless they fix these problems at the root causes, nothing will really change.
Just to say a bit of a point. Saying it resembles MTG now, more than ever before is silly. It still only shares similarity’s in the most vague sense to card games.
The game can be bad on its own, and really I think if they take the time to study a game like magic it would probably help the dev team as a whole. The amount of effort that goes into every set is quite a lot, and they also talk about there failures and things they learn.
And a hell of a lot about balance.
Removing the combos, buffs and power ups in there entirety would probably be a mistake as well. It’s basically the bread and butter of some of the factions be design since 3rd. But has been taken to the extreme recently :(
Otherwise I do agree with what you point out as issues.
The knights I am still baffled it made it though design without someone bringing up that issue. These are payed professionals i am lead to beleave.
The real great issue with USR was twofold, and both are easily solvable.
1 - Rules nesting: Referencing rules in two-deep references. You had something like "Reign of terror (codex p89)" and then you flip to codex p89 and it would say "Reign of terror: This unit has the Implacable Conqueror and Relentless rules." and then you had to flip over the BRB to search for those two rules, meaning you just had to flip through one book to start flipping on another book.
Solution: Instead of nesting rules like that you must list out the full rules on a unit entry.
2 - Exceptions: Aforementioned nested rules changing the mechanic of said USR, i.e. "This unit has the Implacable Conqueror USR, but may consolidade 6'' instead of the normal" meaning that you are not really referencing a USR but making it your own.
Solution: Have gradings of USRs, as in "Implacable Conqueror I - Consolidade 3'', Implacable Conqueror II - Consolidate 6''." Meaning you can have a single rule that governs fodder models, veteran models and heroic models with different gradings of those rules.
Avoiding nesting rules and changes to USR are combating the two major issues, in my view, that bloated 7th edition, especially after you piled on nested, modified USR from formations, character bonuses and such.
Allies between all factions legal, but there are penalties for unusual combinations like Custodes with Tyranids. Aeldari and Imperium should be trusted allies.
Your army must have a Primary Detachment from which the Warlord is chosen. Only Strategems for the Codex/Index of the Primary Detachment can be used. Having 32 Guardsmen in a Knight list no longer allows you to use Astra Militarum Strategems.
Allies between all factions legal, but there are penalties for unusual combinations like Custodes with Tyranids. Aeldari and Imperium should be trusted allies.
Your army must have a Primary Detachment from which the Warlord is chosen. Only Strategems for the Codex/Index of the Primary Detachment can be used. Having 32 Guardsmen in a Knight list no longer allows you to use Astra Militarum Strategems.
They should just do them as part of a narrative group of rules, with Some units put into a mercenary like group with points for them in the army’s that can take them. Knights should just get its own household guard and access to some of the IG vehicles.
Harlequins should have some of the craftworld tanks. Inquistors having access to space marines that make sense for there order, all supported within there own lists and pointing as such.
Pointed Stick wrote: Putting aside the structure of the rules, the basic problem with 8th edition's gameplay is that compared to prior editions, it plays less like a tabletop wargame and more like Magic: The Gathering, due to:
- A focus on combos, buffs, and power-ups (auras, strategems, etc) that boost units to insane levels of capability.
- Bad terrain rules means everything can see and shoot everything else and nobody is slowed down by anything; scenery is basically just decorative and plays little real role in the average game.
- Existence of Imperial Knights makes everyone load up on anti-tank guns so that vehicles smaller than Knights generally stand no chance, ruining realistic take-all-comers combined-arms armies and encouraging rock-paper-scissors armies that chase the metagame.
- Excessive access to speed-boosting abilities (Advance, 2D6" charge ranges, charge-after-advancing rules, "move twice" strats) means that everything is fast so you can't really outmaneuver anything anymore, and there's no point in taking transport vehicles.
Unless they fix these problems at the root causes, nothing will really change.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
Here's a specificexample: In a recent game my opponent was looking worried about the huge blob of Orks across the table. "Don't worry, "Orks are slow." I reassured him. After all, they only have a 5" move, right?
LOL
- 5" move + 1" for being Evil sunz
- D6" advance +1" for being Evil Sunz
- Re-rollable 2D6" charge, +1" for being Evil Sunz, and I can charge after advancing from being near a Warboss who grants this aura buff
Wow, my Orks on foot are now regularly making 20-24" charges. Not so slow, huh?
It used to be that I needed a Trukk to pull this kind of long-range surprise attack. I would try to hide the Trukk behind LOS-blocking area terrain, and my opponent would try to maneuver his troops to shoot it or set up interlocking lines of fire so that it would be vulnerable once it moved out in the open. It was fun, and tactical. I felt good when I pulled it off, because it was tricky and effective.
Now I can't use a Trukk this way because the passengers can't charge after disembarking if it moves, and the Trukk is always visible now so it gets blasted off the table almost instantly. And even if these problem were fixed, there still wouldn't be any point since the Orks are already fast enough on foot now with Advance moves and charge-after-advancing and the 2D6 charge range and the Orks' re-roll charge buff and the ridiculous Evil Sunz movement buff. Nonsensically, they're faster on foot than in a transport vehicle! Also, a large footprint on the tabletop has no disadvantages because terrain no longer slows down infantry. So why not spread out and have more board control?
Just one example of how the game's core rules push people to do the same set of like 3 or 4 good tactics, making games static, boring, and predictable.
There is a lot I'd hope for in a 9th ed release but there are three things that would make/break the release for me:
1) Everything needs to be playable at launch. Even if I have to buy an index, I'm cool with that solution so long as my mini can hit the table
2) Alternating Activations. 40k has been the hallmark of all the problems with an IGOUGO system for years and even all its variant forms (kill team, apoc, etc) have started working on alternating activations of some form or the other. The game just involves too many models to keep the other player engaged while his opponent gets through a 20 minute turn. Its incredibly boring right now
3) A better system for rules updating. 8th ed is stuck between this older paper stack of books tradition and the newer digital system. Even if they just release a key for an (Up to date!) digital copy with the paper book or try that binder concept some other games did, something needs to be done. We want rules balancing, but having to shift through a bunch of documents to play is getting tedious
Some things that would put me over the top:
1) Drop specialist detachments and just go with this system we saw in SM 2.0 and is being teased in Psychich awkening. If I go classic faction, give me those bonuses, and if I go custom subfaction, give me a different set.
2) Figure out what deathwatch are now that SM2.0 has taken their breakfast.
3) A mercenary Xenos faction that could do Ork, Tau, Necron. C'mon - you know you want them
4) Abstracted line of sight. I really, really want to do away with this true line of sight nonense that creates problems for those of us who do conversions or don't want to bend down three fett to argue about a vehicle corner
5) PP-style conversion rules. I loved the PP 50% rule. If the model could be recognized for what it was and used at least 50% PP parts they would allow it. It was simple, good for players, and just worked.
5) PP-style conversion rules. I loved the PP 50% rule. If the model could be recognized for what it was and used at least 50% PP parts they would allow it. It was simple, good for players, and just worked. <quote from above, I tried I failed :(
When I look at 40k now, I often think it looks like a hoshposh of rule ideas found in war machine and hordes. Taken to an extreme and misunderstood a little. If you squint a little.
The command system kinda looks like how warcasters and warlocks sort of function and there army’s around them. Some other little things has made me wonder in recent years.
But it’s never really taken the ideas that would probably work very well for the game, a command system on a warlord. With a resource would probably play very well, and have served as a way to tone down but still make characters effect and interesting on the battlefield. >
Apple fox wrote: 5) PP-style conversion rules. I loved the PP 50% rule. If the model could be recognized for what it was and used at least 50% PP parts they would allow it. It was simple, good for players, and just worked. <quote from above, I tried I failed :(
When I look at 40k now, I often think it looks like a hoshposh of rule ideas found in war machine and hordes. Taken to an extreme and misunderstood a little. If you squint a little.
The command system kinda looks like how warcasters and warlocks sort of function and there army’s around them. Some other little things has made me wonder in recent years.
But it’s never really taken the ideas that would probably work very well for the game, a command system on a warlord. With a resource would probably play very well, and have served as a way to tone down but still make characters effect and interesting on the battlefield. >
Mostly agree; I keep seeing all the reasons I left WMH for 40k make the jump to 40k - and, often, becoming worse.
Ishagu wrote: USRs are a bad idea as any adjustments affect multiple units across multiple books.
The more unique and bespoke stuff the better, even if it's very similar.
On the other hand, you get stuff like KMB and Imperial Plasma getting hot in different ways, even though they should mechanically work the same.
There's no reason why KMB overheats on natural 1s and Imperial Plasma doesn't.
Pointed Stick wrote: Putting aside the structure of the rules, the basic problem with 8th edition's gameplay is that compared to prior editions, it plays less like a tabletop wargame and more like Magic: The Gathering, due to:
- A focus on combos, buffs, and power-ups (auras, strategems, etc) that boost units to insane levels of capability.
- Bad terrain rules means everything can see and shoot everything else and nobody is slowed down by anything; scenery is basically just decorative and plays little real role in the average game.
- Existence of Imperial Knights makes everyone load up on anti-tank guns so that vehicles smaller than Knights generally stand no chance, ruining realistic take-all-comers combined-arms armies and encouraging rock-paper-scissors armies that chase the metagame.
- Excessive access to speed-boosting abilities (Advance, 2D6" charge ranges, charge-after-advancing rules, "move twice" strats) means that everything is fast so you can't really outmaneuver anything anymore, and there's no point in taking transport vehicles.
Unless they fix these problems at the root causes, nothing will really change.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
To add something very important overlooked, there is almost no penalties for anything anymore, were moving extra fast meant you couldn't shoot, or at least 50% less powerful when shooting, there used to be tactical options b.c of penalties, not i can move + advance + shoot + charge + fallback all in the same turn sometimes given special rules + stratagems.
Ishagu wrote: USRs are a bad idea as any adjustments affect multiple units across multiple books.
No, that's a good thing. It means fixing a problem once, not fiddling about fixing the same problems several dozen times.
The more unique and bespoke stuff the better, even if it's very similar.
Which... defeats the purpose. If its similar, it isn't even bespoke (how many different ways do you need to reroll 1s?) and definitely not unique. You're trading out any dubious advantage of having bespoke rules in first place to create additional problems for no reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: 5) PP-style conversion rules. I loved the PP 50% rule. If the model could be recognized for what it was and used at least 50% PP parts they would allow it. It was simple, good for players, and just worked. <quote from above, I tried I failed :(
When I look at 40k now, I often think it looks like a hoshposh of rule ideas found in war machine and hordes. Taken to an extreme and misunderstood a little. If you squint a little.
The command system kinda looks like how warcasters and warlocks sort of function and there army’s around them. Some other little things has made me wonder in recent years.
But it’s never really taken the ideas that would probably work very well for the game, a command system on a warlord. With a resource would probably play very well, and have served as a way to tone down but still make characters effect and interesting on the battlefield. >
Really? I had the opposite view. PP took GW's problems on, and made them worse, and discarded a lot of their distinctiveness in their own edition race.
Ishagu wrote: No it doesn't. A rule could be powerful in combination with one unit, whilst being perfectly fine with another.
That's why adjusting the rule could be punishing to units not intended, or create broken combos in others.
USRs did not make a good game out of 7th.
USRs don't make a good game at all. They're a reference tool, used to great effect in 5th and 6th.
The issues with 7th had nothing to do with USRs (or the main rules, which were 6th ed with a few pages of errata), and everything to do with the added 'bespoke' junk in individual books: formations, free stuff and special rules.
Well, and a little to do with importing the most broken version of the magic system in from Fantasy for no reason.
Ishagu wrote: No it doesn't. A rule could be powerful in combination with one unit, whilst being perfectly fine with another.
That's why adjusting the rule could be punishing to units not intended, or create broken combos in others.
USRs did not make a good game out of 7th.
7th sucked because there were like 50 USRs and a bunch of them just referenced each other. It was typical GW being unable to stop themselves from turning a good thing into a mess.
Prior editions had a smaller number of unique USRs and it was just fine.
But they do it anyway. Deep strike is a problem with BA and tyranids, they fix deep strike not the BA or tyranids.
And later one they bring back turn one deep strike, turn one charges and 9" away deployment. At the same time factions that happened to be writen with turn one deep strike in mind, get the shaft.
We have all the downsides of USRs already:
-You have to look at multiple books, and multiple parts of those books, to know what your rules are
-More importantly, changes to rules shared across books (Deep Strike, for instance) are often changed for all books at the same time.
But we also have all the downsides of USRs already:
-Bloat and duplication on many datasheets
-More importantly, changes to rules shared across books (Gets Hot, for instance) are often changed for some books some of the time, or at different times.
8th may be the best edition, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. One area it can improve upon is intentional use of USRs. The unintentional use leads to all the negatives of having them, without most of the benefits.
Allies between all factions legal, but there are penalties for unusual combinations like Custodes with Tyranids. Aeldari and Imperium should be trusted allies.
Your army must have a Primary Detachment from which the Warlord is chosen. Only Strategems for the Codex/Index of the Primary Detachment can be used. Having 32 Guardsmen in a Knight list no longer allows you to use Astra Militarum Strategems.
I'm okay with this as long as there is a minimum points requirement for the primary faction; say require the Warlord and at least 50% of the armies points must be from the primary codex.
I've played too many games where the Loyal 32 included the army Warlord with the CP Relic and CP regen Warlord Trait and the other ~1800 points were spent on IK, Custodes, etc
Ishagu wrote: And yet this is the best edition and it has none.
There's an untestable, unprovable and altogether random claim. You may like it more, that doesn't make it 'the best edition.' From a mechanics perspective its a mess of rerolls and nonsense.
Also wrong, as it does have USRs, it just doesn't call them that. Fly for one obvious example in the main rules. Deepstrike and all the 'reroll 1s' abilities- they all function like USRs despite having none of the utility of actually being USRs. All of the downside with none of the upside.
Ishagu wrote: And yet this is the best edition and it has none.
Subjective. I find 8th to be dreadfully boring to play and thus makes it to me a bad game. Core rules are very bare bones and mechanically shallow which results in a boring game to play.
Also the Fly rule is basically a USR as its a special rule that is used across most codexes, found in the BRB, and has a mechanic or modifier assocaited to it.
Ishagu wrote: No it doesn't. A rule could be powerful in combination with one unit, whilst being perfectly fine with another.
That's why adjusting the rule could be punishing to units not intended, or create broken combos in others.
Chapter Approved can balance units with different stats and combos, rules should be the last solution for balancing a unit, if the rules are fluffy they should not be changed. If Drop Pods had Deep Strike in the first codex it would have been more clear that it was changed with a whole new rule name, but instead, they still have the same name. That's the problem of bespoke names for USRs instead of giving the unit the USR until you actually want to give it a bespoke rule, replacing a USR rule with a bespoke rule is something you could do and it'd be noticeable from one codex to the next.
I think transports should have fire points again. I don't know why they did away with them, but it greatly reduces the usefulness of non-open-topped transports.
Oh, and the unit should disembark after the transport has moved.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
Here's a specificexample: In a recent game my opponent was looking worried about the huge blob of Orks across the table. "Don't worry, "Orks are slow." I reassured him. After all, they only have a 5" move, right?
LOL
- 5" move + 1" for being Evil sunz
- D6" advance +1" for being Evil Sunz
- Re-rollable 2D6" charge, +1" for being Evil Sunz, and I can charge after advancing from being near a Warboss who grants this aura buff
Wow, my Orks on foot are now regularly making 20-24" charges. Not so slow, huh?
It used to be that I needed a Trukk to pull this kind of long-range surprise attack. I would try to hide the Trukk behind LOS-blocking area terrain, and my opponent would try to maneuver his troops to shoot it or set up interlocking lines of fire so that it would be vulnerable once it moved out in the open. It was fun, and tactical. I felt good when I pulled it off, because it was tricky and effective.
Now I can't use a Trukk this way because the passengers can't charge after disembarking if it moves, and the Trukk is always visible now so it gets blasted off the table almost instantly. And even if these problem were fixed, there still wouldn't be any point since the Orks are already fast enough on foot now with Advance moves and charge-after-advancing and the 2D6 charge range and the Orks' re-roll charge buff and the ridiculous Evil Sunz movement buff. Nonsensically, they're faster on foot than in a transport vehicle! Also, a large footprint on the tabletop has no disadvantages because terrain no longer slows down infantry. So why not spread out and have more board control?
Just one example of how the game's core rules push people to do the same set of like 3 or 4 good tactics, making games static, boring, and predictable.
And if walking isnt fast enough you can use Da Jump or a stratagem to deploy them from behind even.
Movement in this edition is so fethed up. I could build a whole list able to be in the opponents deployment zone turn 1 if they dont have any scout/infiltrate units to push me back. And even with that I could still have a bit more than half the army charging in to their deployment zone. On long side deployment that is game over if I get to start first. Not even a game.
Instead of lowering the damage from shooting and letting terrain both slow down models and give them more protection while slowed down they went the other direction. If you cant survive a turn of 8th edition shooting they instead gave the option of charging before getting killed and made the who goes first roll even more important in certain matchups.
Half the damage and half the speed of everything would improve the game so much. I think its insane that I can do a 24" +3d6 move as BA with DC if I go first or even 24"+4d6+1" as RG if going first. Or a Librarian/Monster (libby dread and mephiston) go 18-19" and have a +3 on the charge with reroll. My normal units are faster than what my fast vehicles were a few editions ago. Said vehicles are currently crap for doing their job of getting my marines in to combat protected. Both faster, cheaper and safer to go without Rhinos and Land Raiders smh
Ishagu wrote: And yet this is the best edition and it has none.
"Best Edition"
Citation needed.
If it were the best edition, character targeting rules wouldn't be crap, there wouldn't be imbalance across codices, formerly blast weapons would actually be better than their earlier incarnations, there wouldn't be pages upon pages of stratagems that slow the game down as you have to spend time activating some snowflake ability and deduct CP and then roll to see if you generate more CP, relics wouldn't be free, units unlocked by stratagems wouldn't be a thing (so what if they cost CP? CP means nothing if you build your army right), soup wouldn't be a thing and xeno models would no longer be stuck in finecast.
8th started off as better than 7th, not as the best, which is a different thing altogether, but then GW started mucking with it, ensuring that its well on its way to be like 7th ed.
For me its USRs and less lethality, either by letting IGOUGO burn in a fire, or doing a range reduction on everything. 36+" should be a rare occurence. Reward positioning on the board, don't just make the game a gloryfied dice roll-off.
Oh, and make indirect fire worse than regular guns. The thunderfire cannon has no place in this game IMO, its just too strong for the pts its costs and is a 0 thought unit (amongst others).
VladimirHerzog wrote: For me its USRs and less lethality, either by letting IGOUGO burn in a fire, or doing a range reduction on everything. 36+" should be a rare occurence. Reward positioning on the board, don't just make the game a gloryfied dice roll-off.
Oh, and make indirect fire worse than regular guns. The thunderfire cannon has no place in this game IMO, its just too strong for the pts its costs and is a 0 thought unit (amongst others).
units unlocked by stratagems wouldn't be a thing (so what if they cost CP?
im blanking out right now, what units are unlocked via CP?
Skarboyz, Chapter Masters, 'ard boyz to name a few. There's also the specialist detachment rules where you get extra abilities for CP. I guess a more accurate term would be "upgrade", but you are still getting improved stats and units for practically nothing.
The game would be a lot better a run a lot smoother if 90% of the stratagems were changed to unit upgrades that cost points and codex entries, imo.
I'm curious why so many people think USRs need to come back, or that they're not present in the game right now (which they are).
When was the last time you referred to your Feel No Pain roll as anything other than Feel No Pain? Or you referred to Deep Strike as..whatever the name is in your unit entry? The USR still exists. If someone asks "Hey, can that unit Deep Strike?" and you say "No, but it has the Orbital Platform Teleport special rule...", you're going to be laughed out of the store. USRs didn't go anywhere. The naming practice just shifted so they can change individual units rules later on - something they've actually done.
It boggles my mind that people are struggling with the rules because they're not all named the same thing...?
Its not struggling with the rules, its that by getting rid of the USRs we lost the cool and narrative army lists in exchange for the self contained datasheets.
Elbows wrote: I'm curious why so many people think USRs need to come back, or that they're not present in the game right now (which they are).
When was the last time you referred to your Feel No Pain roll as anything other than Feel No Pain? Or you referred to Deep Strike as..whatever the name is in your unit entry? The USR still exists. If someone asks "Hey, can that unit Deep Strike?" and you say "No, but it has the Orbital Platform Teleport special rule...", you're going to be laughed out of the store. USRs didn't go anywhere. The naming practice just shifted so they can change individual units rules later on - something they've actually done.
It boggles my mind that people are struggling with the rules because they're not all named the same thing...?
Its not about all of them having the same name, the problem is that currently, not all similar rules are the same. The plasma overheating on modified vs unmodified 1's is a good example of this.
If they brought back USRs, they could easily fix all instances of these rules by changing the base rule, instead of goind in every codex and updating the rules (and inevitably missing some).
USRs make the game a lot cleaner and simpelr when properly used.
Elbows wrote: I'm curious why so many people think USRs need to come back, or that they're not present in the game right now (which they are).
When was the last time you referred to your Feel No Pain roll as anything other than Feel No Pain? Or you referred to Deep Strike as..whatever the name is in your unit entry? The USR still exists. If someone asks "Hey, can that unit Deep Strike?" and you say "No, but it has the Orbital Platform Teleport special rule...", you're going to be laughed out of the store. USRs didn't go anywhere. The naming practice just shifted so they can change individual units rules later on - something they've actually done.
It boggles my mind that people are struggling with the rules because they're not all named the same thing...?
Isn't that because a lot of the players who played older editions are still around, and as such still use the old USR terms?
Newer players aren't going to know what those are, they are just going to refer to whatever is listed in their codex.
Elbows wrote: I'm curious why so many people think USRs need to come back, or that they're not present in the game right now (which they are).
When was the last time you referred to your Feel No Pain roll as anything other than Feel No Pain? Or you referred to Deep Strike as..whatever the name is in your unit entry? The USR still exists. If someone asks "Hey, can that unit Deep Strike?" and you say "No, but it has the Orbital Platform Teleport special rule...", you're going to be laughed out of the store. USRs didn't go anywhere. The naming practice just shifted so they can change individual units rules later on - something they've actually done.
It boggles my mind that people are struggling with the rules because they're not all named the same thing...?
Its not about all of them having the same name, the problem is that currently, not all similar rules are the same. The plasma overheating on modified vs unmodified 1's is a good example of this.
If they brought back USRs, they could easily fix all instances of these rules by changing the base rule, instead of goind in every codex and updating the rules (and inevitably missing some).
USRs make the game a lot cleaner and simpelr when properly used.
the fact that we refer to it as feel no pain and deepstrike instead of "digustingly resilient" and "appear unbidden" is a good example of the "desire path" concept. When the target audience uses something else than what you did, its a sign that what you provide should be re-tought.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
Here's a specificexample: In a recent game my opponent was looking worried about the huge blob of Orks across the table. "Don't worry, "Orks are slow." I reassured him. After all, they only have a 5" move, right?
LOL
- 5" move + 1" for being Evil sunz
- D6" advance +1" for being Evil Sunz
- Re-rollable 2D6" charge, +1" for being Evil Sunz, and I can charge after advancing from being near a Warboss who grants this aura buff
Wow, my Orks on foot are now regularly making 20-24" charges. Not so slow, huh?
It used to be that I needed a Trukk to pull this kind of long-range surprise attack. I would try to hide the Trukk behind LOS-blocking area terrain, and my opponent would try to maneuver his troops to shoot it or set up interlocking lines of fire so that it would be vulnerable once it moved out in the open. It was fun, and tactical. I felt good when I pulled it off, because it was tricky and effective.
Now I can't use a Trukk this way because the passengers can't charge after disembarking if it moves, and the Trukk is always visible now so it gets blasted off the table almost instantly. And even if these problem were fixed, there still wouldn't be any point since the Orks are already fast enough on foot now with Advance moves and charge-after-advancing and the 2D6 charge range and the Orks' re-roll charge buff and the ridiculous Evil Sunz movement buff. Nonsensically, they're faster on foot than in a transport vehicle! Also, a large footprint on the tabletop has no disadvantages because terrain no longer slows down infantry. So why not spread out and have more board control?
Just one example of how the game's core rules push people to do the same set of like 3 or 4 good tactics, making games static, boring, and predictable.
To add to this, every codex has experienced points cuts across the board, so the typical game is just clogged with models compared to the earlier editions.
The 6x4 table has never felt this small with blobs of 7ppm Boyz who can Da Jump
It boggles my mind that people are struggling with the rules because they're not all named the same thing...?
It isn't because of this. If the game designers limit the USRs to say 15, and use only those to help make units different from units that have a similar stat line and wargear it creates a tighter design. As it is now we see a multitude of special rules that could have been summed up by either a single or a few USRs, and no restraint in adding new special rules that continue to break the game.
Kings of War has a selection of USRs, and this makes it a very elegant system.
Ishagu wrote: And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.
Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess
What, you mean go play a game that's well designed, has persisted for centuries, and is associated with brilliance and intelligence?
Also,
>Elegant > Consisting of hundreds of different abilities, rules and exceptions, some of which either conflict or do the same thing, just under a different name
Choose one.
8th ed as it is now is the wargame version of spaghetti code.
Ishagu wrote: And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.
Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess
10-15 usrs are boring. But 6 marine supplements arent.
10-15 usr s are boring. Yet 50 times the same but slightly diffrently worded rule is not.
Lol go play something else if you find it all so boring.
Or we could get GW to change the rules so they aren't crap. You know, get the product we paid for. Also, 4th and 5th ed weren't boring or convoluted, and they did USR just fine. Oh sure, they had problems, but bloat and nestled USRs wasn't one of them. Just because 6th and 7th gak the bed, doesn't mean the other editions did too.
Except they aren't crap. The game is pretty balanced, all things considering. It's popular, people are having a great time and travelling vast distances to engage. Sales continue to break records.
Some individuals on this forum might not like it, but that's their subjective opinion. Play open or narrative missions and include your own rules.
I'm not trolling. I just don't believe in ranting online about something I don't enjoy. If I wasn't having a good time I would take a break or move on to something else.
How do you move to something else, when you have money stuck in an army? You can't move on without selling the army and buying something else, and some armies seem to be unsellable.
Also what does pretty balanced all things considered mean?
How is a game with something like eldar flier lists or new IH playing vs GK or necron, anything balanced. The game is fun and balanced if the rules for your army happen to be good, but if the game was unbalanced having a good army would be fun to play too, balanced against other good armies too.
and the advice to play open or narrative is either a troll, or I don't know what. Matched play is what people play.
Don't worry about tournament net lists. If you don't like them you don't have to play them, unless your only play time occurs at highly competitive events?
This boogie-man list fear shouldn't be a real concern.
Ishagu wrote: Except they aren't crap. The game is pretty balanced, all things considering.
Explain why GK and necrons are so weak, then, why overheating works differently for orks and marines, why stompas are terrible, why impaler cannons are a thing, and why character targeting rules don't make sense. Even in casual lists necrons are lacking, as they just get outgunned nowadays. Everything seems to have such high RoF and such long range, that if destroyers go down then there's nothing one can do. It doesn't help that there's only a handful of options that are actually good.
Ishagu wrote: I'm not trolling. I just don't believe in ranting online about something I don't enjoy.
And then nothing gets fixed and the game continues to be miserable for those who've spent years playing it and enjoyed it back when their armies weren't dull and lacking of options compared to certain other armies that seem to get a new thing every month. Complacency is not a virtue.
Karol wrote: How do you move to something else, when you have money stuck in an army? You can't move on without selling the army and buying something else, and some armies seem to be unsellable.
Also what does pretty balanced all things considered mean?
How is a game with something like eldar flier lists or new IH playing vs GK or necron, anything balanced. The game is fun and balanced if the rules for your army happen to be good, but if the game was unbalanced having a good army would be fun to play too, balanced against other good armies too.
and the advice to play open or narrative is either a troll, or I don't know what. Matched play is what people play.
If you have a collection of models that you have dedicated time and effort to build and paint it can be very hard to part with them, one solution is to find an alternative game system that your collection can be used in.
For me that was One Page Rules Grim Future. A free online rule system that offers more tactical depth than the current edition of 40k, and has an elegant game design.
Ishagu wrote: And yet this is the best edition and it has none.
Ignoring the citation requirement needed for "best edition", there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Ishagu wrote: And yet this is the best edition and it has none.
Ignoring the citation requirement needed for "best edition", there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
The Statline is in effect a type of USR as well, Games like this. By requirement will have to have some. This is why i am so curious. Humans are smart creatures, and often when a company spends so much trying to simplify they often make something more complicated than it is needed.
Ishagu wrote: And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.
Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess
I don't think I can take you seriously, these responses sound like they came from a cartoon character. You speak about the game as if its a fine wine, crafted by the finest hands and left to age perfectly. I've never once looked at a game of 8th edition as elegant. Not when whole armies deep struck on turn one, nor when one side is nearly tabled in one good round of shooting on first turn or when I see an imperial soup list. Elegant is actually pretty far from what I'd describe our current bloaty mess as. Unless you find a great unclean one elegant.
It's a fat, bloated, confusing mess of a game where hundreds of rules do the exact same things with maybe the smallest nuance here or there but often none at all. Where they spread army rules around in codex drops, campaign supplements and even White dwarf issues. FAQS and Chapter approved, rules from individual box sets all thrown together to Frankenstein a mess of a game where even space marines have not one, but 7 books for the core chapters. Making not one book to rule them all but tons in addition to the other chapters such as BA, SW, DA.
USRs are only a good thing, and I'd say more elegant versions of the game all had them at this point. I don't see how having a zillion specially written but similar rules is somehow, elegant. More confusing maybe, bloated, yes a mess maybe but not elegant. I'll remember your wording of elegance though, I'll ask around and see if anyone thinks its so.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.
And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.
And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.
I forgot to say I want measurements to be from any part of the model in 8,5 edition, including from the base. So still no moving over a base, but get rid of vehicles that cannot be charged and monsters being 0,1" from your face but unable to hit you because their base is 2,1" away.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.
And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.
It is one of the really odd things about 8th edition. For shooting we use True line of sight, but for melee models are not used to determine whether a melee happens or not , but rather it is all down to bases being within 2" of each other. That massive Tyranid bio-titan suddenly turns from a 3D model into a 2d model as far as the rules are concerned.
Keep it mostly the same in the core rules, fix some things like LOS, or ambiguous rules that slow the game down. Maybe balance the weapons (or better, keep weapons and stats OUT of the core rules).
Then delete all the current rules from the codices and redo them, because basically the vast majority of problems are from them and not the core set.
Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.
there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.
Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.
No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.
Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.
That is true for vehicles, bikes and cavalry too.
Also, that is not a general rule, but only the specific rule of a terrain element (ruins). They are free to climb on any other terrain element.
I could say that infantry is an USR at this point, since there are terrain elements where infantry cannot climb but monsters can.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.
Most of the real issues come from the codices.
I'm always going to say 8th is too limited on mechanics (I like overly complex rules, others do not so to each their own) but I think we can all agree that the core rules for terrain is far too sparse. Makes the game with anything other than giant area terrain and huge LoS blockers feel like playing on the perverbial "Planet Bowlingball". Even then the giant area terrain has minor to negligable impact on the game while also having some very restrictive rules which can prevent the terrain from having an effect unless the entire unit is parked inside the terrain piece. Same with needing to have the entire unit behind the LoS blockers.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.
Most of the real issues come from the codices.
Lack of firing arcs on vehicles.
No real psychology rules.
Still no alternative activations.
Command points linked to FoC and not HQ models.
Rapid fire weapons not being less effective when moved and fired by infantry. 3re edition had it right, move and the weapon is limited to 1 shot at 12". It called upon the play to make a tactical choice. Now they can move and advance and fire at long range.
Heavy weapons being able to move and fire by infantry.
True line of sight.
Terrain being mostly pointless, unless fighting against non flying monsters, then ruins/buildings becomes a hard counter.
Random number of shots/hits/wounds.
Random charge distances.
No asymmetrical missions other than in narrative play.
Etc.
However I do agree that the biggest problems with the game come from the Codexes. Namely strategems, allowing units to fire twice or fight twice is pants on head silly. The strategems should have been capped at those that are in core rules.
Whilst I do miss firing arcs on vehicles, they wouldn't really impact the game that much. Their absence does result in some silliness, and does remove some tactical aspects, but its not that bad.
Morale isn't great, true. Flat out killing models is a bad way of doing it, and punishes large squads of expensive models.
Fair point on Command Points, it should be based on HQ units.
The Rapid Fire changes aren't new though, are they? Wasn't that introduced in 5th ed?
Heavy weapons being moved by infantry isn't too bad. It doesn't really result in any nonsense. What is nonsensical is that vehicles and monsters can't move and shoot without penalty. That's counter intuitive.
True line of sight isn't new, and it isn't that bad. It just needs clarification on what's considered a valid target.
Terrain is mostly for blocking TLOS now...but yeah, it could use some more rules. 4th ed had nice terrain rules.
Random number of shots is a codex problem, not a core problem
Yeah, random charge distances are a little too swingy. It should probably just be movement + D6, or maybe just double movement, like how WHFB used to do it.
Aye, a few of the changes that I personally think are bad happened in the change from 3rd to 4th. However 8th edition still has them so it is still a valid critique of the edition.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, flying and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.
Most of the real issues come from the codices.
Actually the core rules are the issue with the codexs as well, the core rules are that bare bones and bland they have had to use supplements and the codexs to add to the core rules to fix them.
As for the USR stuff they were a bigger loss than I expected as it seems the rules have become limited to +x/-x, re-roll x, exploding 6’s and that has limited them quite a lot.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I have no wishlist as it'll be more of the same. GW hasn't changed what it's always been it just put on a better pant suit and practices to smile more. If there is ever a 9th it'll just be more of the same. Promises of change with soon to be all over us bloat and madness after maybe initial stages of hope. 8th was my believe them moment and they are squandering it with how it's falling into predictable patterns once more.
Very much this. I had high hopes for 8th when it cam out (after our group basically stopped playing in 6th/7th). Now the rules are such a bloated mess again we have lost all momentum.
FWIW though I can't help thinking what might fix it (even though it is never likely to be implemented).
All updates and revisions free and online (never going to happen, books are so much cheaper to make than models, especially releasing the same old codex with 5 new units in it for another £30...)
PUT THE MATCHED PLAY POINTS COSTS ON THE UNIT RULES IN THE MODEL BOXES!!! I can't stress enough how much annoyance this has caused me for models not yet in the relevant codex.
Alternating unit activation (not a fix for 8th specific problems, just something I like and would fix alpha strike better than current options)
Intrinsic multiplayer rules for multiple sides (this would not really take that much effort)
Some sort of way in which the effectiveness of a unit has a linear relationship with the resource cost for your army. A bit radical I know. I call this bold new project "Balance".
Fix some of the stupidities about movement/melee so you don't get units that cannot be charged because they are in a building with no room to move up, or the model stood on a 1.2" barrel immune to any melee except for units without a base (as based units are only 0.1" high...)
I think these things always run into "I think this is integral to 40k!" and "I think the game needs this like a hole in a head."
I can understand people disliking the FAQ induced bloat of 8th - and the growing number of books - but at the same time I do like the fact GW are adding and updating points and rules as problems develop, rather than going "that's the situation, take it or leave it for 2-4 years." Going digital would seem to be the solution but I can understand that being a reasonable barrier to entry for new players.
At the same time... I struggle with the idea USRs would represent an improvement. I remember 7th, and I can't say that was a better edition.
I guess from a certain logical standpoint its silly to have essentially the same rule on the tabletop have lots of differently named iterations - but it doesn't really bother me.
I'm not convinced having the rules written out on the datasheet is harder to look up compared with keeping 50 pages of rules in your head. Just what does Zealot, Crusader, Shrouded, Stealth, Monstrous Flying Creature etc etc "mean".
Wouldn't rules in the box confuse new players, specially if the bought units had been the target of an errata or FAQ. Not to mention how big the rules would have to be, if they came for something like new primaris, every marine chapter that cant ake them would have to get rules for them, maybe even DW should get the rules too.
Nah, a 30-50$ book every 2 months and then a big rules update seson pass style update every 6 months. That would be the perfect way of dealing with stuff.
Or put the rules online for a monthly abo. Normal one would get the rules for a faction. the De lux would give rules with better rules like re-rolls etc. Buying the rules in 6-12 month mega packs could give better doctrins etc. the add something like a administratum support box. For 1$ per day, 3 times a day , unless you are delux then you can get more of them with a discount on the support boxs, you could roll and get anything between an example of how to pain some unit, part of an art of an up coming model, or even a rule for a unit your faction doesn't have. And if you got the same rewards 5 times while scrolling over it the icon would glitter.
The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
I'd like to see close combat buffed against shooting. Everybody being in cover on turn 1 by default, more large LOS blocking terrain, and I like the idea someone posted of being able to chase after units falling back out of combat, movement score +D6. Perhaps the old sweeping advance rule where you wiped out an enemy you caught would be too much, but definitely keeping that unit locked in combat would be fair
Another good idea I read was command points being based on percentage of troops in your army. Now command points kind of encourage troops, but don't discourage a minimum amount of MSU troops just to tick the right boxes.
3CP for battleforged then 2CP for every 100 points of troops you field. Maybe some more for only using a single codex.
Serafimov86 wrote: The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
I don't really follow because you presumably have the codex open anyway to identify the stats, and the weapons etc of the unit. So now you can read its relevant special rules as well.
As opposed to having say "This Unit is a Flying Monstrous Creature (...) that starts deployed in gliding mode (....), it has the ADAMANTIUM WILL; CRUSADER; HATRED; and ZEALOT special rules" and having to search for the book for what each of those mean.
I guess you can say "well just take the big red book and learn its 50+ pages backwards and forwards" - and sure, you can do that, but I struggle to believe that is easier than just reading the relevant section of your unit.
The counter argument would be "yeah but when I get a new army I have to learn all their special rules from scratch, whereas I would totally know what a unit with INFILTRATE; STEALTH; SHROUDED and RELENTLESS would do".
Which I guess might be true - but tbh its really not that hard to read your codex, since you have to look up those stats and so on anyway.
I also think the number of USRs people seem to want back are pretty small. Sure, they could make "Deep Strike" something like the Fly Keyword. They could probably codify Feel No Pains. Beyond that though we start having to make "universal" rules, that are decidedly not universal and its just annoying.
The bad thing about bespoke rules is they have to be in the back of the book separate from what wargear the unit to take and the stats and rules of its wargear, except we're not bound by old bad UI of codexes.
- auto hit weapons like flamers roll to hit on BS with modifiers when used in overwatch (so they auto hit normally but roll overwatch, say for a marine hitting on a 3+ instead of auto hitting) purpose being to make units with flamers no longer borderline suicidal to charge and means 'stealth' type units get an advantage charging
- when a unit pulls back from combat the unit or units they were fighting have two choices
-- "Free hit", each model gets to make a single attack, which automatically hits, but rolls for damage etc as usual (so well armoured elite troops pulling back from trash do better than vice versa)
-- "chase them", unit falling back makes its normal move, unit trying to chase them down gets to move 1d6", if they end up within 1" they are still locked in combat and will fight later (neither side counting as having charged that turn) purpose of this is so you can pull back and potentially lead an enemy unit forwards
you could make it a Ld test to use 'free hit', otherwise be forced to try and chase, so low Ld troops are more likely to be pulled out of position?
- all aura get to impact one unit within the aura range, not all units within range, basically to tone them down a bit but still allow critical units effects - have a strat open to all to expand an aura to another unit for a CP or all within range for 2CP for a single phase
- use the cities of death terrain rules for all games, the AP boost from height and negative to hit from cover are very nice, keep the 'roll of a six always hits', and allow scatter terrain to actually do something and be worth putting on the table
- bring in the 'damage phase' from APOC at the end of the game turn to limit the alpha strike first turn effect, allows the turn to be considered to be a bit more fluid than IGOYGO without making it too complicated (needs markers to indicate wounds that will be taken at the turn end - you could go as far as to simply record hits and wounds then resolve later but its probably easier to just record the actual wounds to be taken to avoid having to track what caused what - allows for last stands by a unit you know is dead in its turn)
- provide a bonus for 'mono faction' armies, probably just extra CP and/or maybe a +1 on the various pre-game dice to reflect better coordination?
- where space in the codex permits, make sure all common weapon options are on the damned data cards - e.g ork warboss gaining back the power klaw line, use the space on the page where its there for information not a picture to show optional weapons etc.
- use the fact that all vehicles now have a data card to give them clearly noted fire arcs overlaid on a birds eye outline of the vehicle, also use a second to provide differing toughness and save values - note each vehicle can get these individually to taste, makes it a lot easier say to have strike aircraft have forward facing weapons with a limited fire arc, or some vehicles to have reduced armour to the rear - without arguments over where the "front" is as you have arcs linked to some part of the model showing you how to determine it, make positioning actually matter a bit more than it does now, can do the same for larger monsters, dreadnaught and similar, heck could do it for any model where its appropriate
- expand the 'keyword' system to weapons and items of equipment, so its suddenly very simple to apply an effect to all <LASER> weapons for example
think some of the above would be pretty easy to add without seriously shaking things up but add a bit more flavour, some would be more involved, idea being evolution not revolution. e.g. any vehicle without fire arcs on its card has all 360 weapons and the same armour & toughness all round - you add them by exception where useful.
only really the damage phase changes how the game works mechanically, I quite like the idea that a unit gets to do something before it dies, and a unit wiped in combat at least gets to fight back.
the 'free hit' idea has been in warhammer (fantasy) before, idea is to provide some penalty for falling back from combat, a few grots running from say daemons should find turning their backs is a risk, but it allows a more elite unit to shrug off chaff more easily and could allow for say a Ld test to be able to fire at or charge as normal (with units having such abilities now being able to do it automatically) to offset the potential risks
Or put the rules online for a monthly abo. Normal one would get the rules for a faction. the De lux would give rules with better rules like re-rolls etc. Buying the rules in 6-12 month mega packs could give better doctrins etc. the add something like a administratum support box. For 1$ per day, 3 times a day , unless you are delux then you can get more of them with a discount on the support boxs, you could roll and get anything between an example of how to pain some unit, part of an art of an up coming model, or even a rule for a unit your faction doesn't have. And if you got the same rewards 5 times while scrolling over it the icon would glitter.
- bring in the 'damage phase' from APOC at the end of the game turn to limit the alpha strike first turn effect, allows the turn to be considered to be a bit more fluid than IGOYGO without making it too complicated (needs markers to indicate wounds that will be taken at the turn end - you could go as far as to simply record hits and wounds then resolve later but its probably easier to just record the actual wounds to be taken to avoid having to track what caused what - allows for last stands by a unit you know is dead in its turn)
I've been thinking about this a lot. It's actually really difficult to do unless you resolve the entirety of the damage exactly as you do now and simply postpone removing models until the end of the round. But that's silly, because knowing whether or not a unit is going to die will completely change how you use it and, perhaps even more so, how much damage you're going to pour into it if it's an enemy unit. The whole thing works really nicely in Apoc because most of the time you don't know for sure what the outcome of an attack actually is until after all units have acted.
the 'free hit' idea has been in warhammer (fantasy) before, idea is to provide some penalty for falling back from combat, a few grots running from say daemons should find turning their backs is a risk, but it allows a more elite unit to shrug off chaff more easily and could allow for say a Ld test to be able to fire at or charge as normal (with units having such abilities now being able to do it automatically) to offset the potential risks
The 'free hit' was part of breaking off from combat in 40k 2nd, and also added that the unit breaking off automatically failed morale. Even so, loyalist Space Marines could more or less wander out of combat at will unless their opponent was really killy. But I do agree that falling back isn't punished nearly enough at the moment.
Serafimov86 wrote: The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
For sure a 'damage phase' needs some method of working it out, was trying to keep it simple, and yes this does mean you 'know' unit "A" is dead, so it no longer matters what they do - but then half the stuff I put on the table I 'know' is dead regardless.
I like the APOC idea, trouble is with 40k unless you resolve all the way through its a drastic change, my thinking is to try and not invalidate all the books published.
needs something though even if this isn't it, not sure alternating activations work.
perhaps keep stuff like FnP and similar to the end phase, just record wounds taken - even if in excess of the number the model has?
Serafimov86 wrote: The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
But USR are “bad” mmkay?
apply <keywords> to unit special rules?
so you have whatever version of deep strike you have, with whatever flavour is added, but its noted as a <DEEP STRIKE> rule, so things can interact with it without having to mention each and every version?
Slayer222 wrote: I'd Love a melee guardsman unit(Not Ogryn)
Or a jump pack Guardsman unit.
But I'm probably going to lose my rough riders...
The mists of time conceal that IG did used to have an 'assault squad' of jump pack guardsmen, IIRC with chainswords and laser pistols, plus two special weapon slots.
Had a squad of them, in metal, wish I still had them even though they would be utterly useless these days
would fit a nice role though, rapid moving guardsmen who can grab (very) lightly defended objectives and generally be an irritation. Not sure IG need a heavy hitting assault infantry unit, but something mobile that can fight, a bit, would be useful
ditto giving them an actual drop ship - something a bit like a larger drop pod that can carry a decent sized platoon of infantry or maybe two/three vehicles (e.g. three chimera and passengers or two leman russ, but probably not the artillery chassis types)
We have that - Kroot and other auxileries. They're not T'au, so they're melee. Not melee as in "Good at melee", but melee as in "send them into CC. If they die, that saves our eugenics project some resources".
Or a jump pack Guardsman unit.
We call them Vespids. And if they happen to survive, no biggie, we have a handle on their population.
But I'm probably going to lose my rough riders...
Riding a Gnarloc is so much more rough-riding than those human pansies on those horse-things.
So come over to the Greater Good. We'll even promise you cookies.
I can't exalt this hard enough. It really is the hammer hitting the nail on the head.
40k has morphed into something that is unrecognisable as a wargame.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
Here's a specificexample: In a recent game my opponent was looking worried about the huge blob of Orks across the table. "Don't worry, "Orks are slow." I reassured him. After all, they only have a 5" move, right?
LOL
- 5" move + 1" for being Evil sunz
- D6" advance +1" for being Evil Sunz
- Re-rollable 2D6" charge, +1" for being Evil Sunz, and I can charge after advancing from being near a Warboss who grants this aura buff
Wow, my Orks on foot are now regularly making 20-24" charges. Not so slow, huh?
It used to be that I needed a Trukk to pull this kind of long-range surprise attack. I would try to hide the Trukk behind LOS-blocking area terrain, and my opponent would try to maneuver his troops to shoot it or set up interlocking lines of fire so that it would be vulnerable once it moved out in the open. It was fun, and tactical. I felt good when I pulled it off, because it was tricky and effective.
Now I can't use a Trukk this way because the passengers can't charge after disembarking if it moves, and the Trukk is always visible now so it gets blasted off the table almost instantly. And even if these problem were fixed, there still wouldn't be any point since the Orks are already fast enough on foot now with Advance moves and charge-after-advancing and the 2D6 charge range and the Orks' re-roll charge buff and the ridiculous Evil Sunz movement buff. Nonsensically, they're faster on foot than in a transport vehicle! Also, a large footprint on the tabletop has no disadvantages because terrain no longer slows down infantry. So why not spread out and have more board control?
Just one example of how the game's core rules push people to do the same set of like 3 or 4 good tactics, making games static, boring, and predictable.
I mean....in 7th edition orkz could move 6' so the only real benefit her is the +1 for charge and advance, so by that measure, your orkz are now able to move 2' further on average using 1 specific kulture. Also, in prior editions, orkz could disembark, move, advance and charge from a trukk which gave them more range. Not to mention, in prior editions Trukk Boyz actually were a threat. Now if you fully equipped 11 boyz and a nob with the best gear possible they would still suck and be laughed at, probably dying in the overwatch phase.
I mean....in 7th edition orkz could move 6' so the only real benefit her is the +1 for charge and advance, so by that measure, your orkz are now able to move 2' further on average using 1 specific kulture.
I think it's a major problem that every model can advance, that some can charge after advancing, that models' charge distance is a wildly variable distance that has no relationship to their base speed, and that certain models and armies (like Orks) have buffs to improve their average charge distances. The combination of these factors makes infantry super fast, and eliminates one of the major reasons to take a transport vehicle--that it gets you where you want to go faster than you can go on foot. The transport can still provide protection and add firepower, but speaking about Orks here, the Trukk does neither, while the Battlewagon is much too expensive for this.
Now if you fully equipped 11 boyz and a nob with the best gear possible they would still suck and be laughed at, probably dying in the overwatch phase.
I stopped playing during 6th edition, but up through 5th, I regularly smashed people with this attitude who weren't expecting Trukk Boyz ambushes to work. It wasn't easy of course, and you needed to pick your target right, position the trukk properly, and maybe hit a particularly tough target with two trukks' worth of boyz simultaneously. But I felt like such a tactical genius every time I pulled it off.
In 8th edition, this maneuver is impossible--and even if it wasn't, the embarked boyz would be at an even greater disadvantage compared to prior editions, because they now have fewer attacks and their Nob's powerklaw is less effective than it used to be.
Serafimov86 wrote: The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
I don't really follow because you presumably have the codex open anyway to identify the stats, and the weapons etc of the unit. So now you can read its relevant special rules as well........................................................
Presumably, players actually learn most of the rules for their army, and can play without reading each one every game.
However, as I said pages ago, stat cards for each unit would be a good move.
Serafimov86 wrote: The 'you had to constantly reference the pages in the rulebook!' argument holds no water with the new-SRs on each individual datasheet, where now you spend MORE time going through the codexes looking for the new-SRs as opposed to flipping to the USR section in the old rulebooks.
I don't really follow because you presumably have the codex open anyway to identify the stats, and the weapons etc of the unit. So now you can read its relevant special rules as well........................................................
Presumably, players actually learn most of the rules for their army, and can play without reading each one every game.
However, as I said pages ago, stat cards for each unit would be a good move.
I'm surprised that they haven't followed suit with AOS where with each faction release they do a limited run of a few months for that faction's data cards, markers and counters etc.
I think they avoid stat cards because they don't work particularly well with varied weapon loadouts. AoS even wavers between listing all the possible weapons from a kit in one sheet or declaring each one its own unit.
I really like how 8th consolidated the factions into soup, but I get it also went a little far. I'd like 9th to find a middle ground. For example, take Chaos Marines and Daemons and make 4 factions from them. Xenos has some obvious divides. On the Imperium side, I think Marines can be there own thing, but I'd LOVE to see the Inquisition built from Sisters/DW/Grey Knights and I think Custodes and Knights would go best with Guard as a sort of Shield of the Imperium theme.
As for the factions themselves, I'd love to see chapter tactics decoupled from the chapters themselves. Let any chapter take any tactic, but emphasize them as "preferred tactic of" to keep the fluff for those who like it. You can even go so far as to make the character heroes come with a mandatory tactic. Just stop making people feel like they have to have their stuff a certain color to get the rules they want. This is true of other factions as well. Orks shouldn't need to be blue or yellow or whatever.
Now if you fully equipped 11 boyz and a nob with the best gear possible they would still suck and be laughed at, probably dying in the overwatch phase.
I stopped playing during 6th edition, but up through 5th, I regularly smashed people with this attitude who weren't expecting Trukk Boyz ambushes to work. It wasn't easy of course, and you needed to pick your target right, position the trukk properly, and maybe hit a particularly tough target with two trukks' worth of boyz simultaneously. But I felt like such a tactical genius every time I pulled it off.
In 8th edition, this maneuver is impossible--and even if it wasn't, the embarked boyz would be at an even greater disadvantage compared to prior editions, because they now have fewer attacks and their Nob's powerklaw is less effective than it used to be.
Yes because in 4th-7th Power Klaw Nobz were scary. In 8th a Powerklaw nob in a Trukk unit gets 3 attacks hitting on 4s so 1.5 hits, He is S10 so he wounds all vehicles on a 3 which means on average 1 wound. Against a 3+ save they still get a 6+ save which further reduces your Wounds to .83 wounds, which does D3 damage which averages to a grand total of......1.66 a turn.
in prior editions, a PK nob could 1 shot most vehicles in the game, now.....if they can inflict 3 damage on a vehicle a turn its way above average.
The actual trukk boyz themselves aren't as scary as a blob for 1 main reason, lack of damage potential. In an edition where being able to kill a Super Heavy on turn 1 is almost required for tournament play, a bunch of S4 attacks without AP just isn't scary.
LunarSol wrote: I think they avoid stat cards because they don't work particularly well with varied weapon loadouts. AoS even wavers between listing all the possible weapons from a kit in one sheet or declaring each one its own unit.
Not everything needs to be on the card. Weapon stats and special rules text on a one-page reference sheet work just fine. Unit cards cards just need point costs, stat lines, and a list of special rules and wargear options. And to be included in the appropriate kit.
LunarSol wrote: I think they avoid stat cards because they don't work particularly well with varied weapon loadouts. AoS even wavers between listing all the possible weapons from a kit in one sheet or declaring each one its own unit.
Not everything needs to be on the card. Weapon stats and special rules text on a one-page reference sheet work just fine. Unit cards cards just need point costs, stat lines, and a list of special rules and wargear options. And to be included in the appropriate kit.
Yeah this. I wouldn't want the card to be overcrowded with trying to fit half a codex on it. Just the necessary information at a glance
SemperMortis wrote: In an edition where being able to kill a Super Heavy on turn 1 is almost required for tournament play
There you go, the biggest thing that's wrong with 8th edition in a nutshell.
problem is less the ability to kill a SH in a turn, but more that there is very seldom any downside to having the firepower to do so, even when you are not facing one - typically its not one shot from one weapon doing the deed so the multiple weapons can do some serious harm elsewhere.
in effect there is little tactical choice required here, you bring the firepower because its useful anyway and only in some edge cases will it be less efficient (e.g. facing a largely foot IG list where its all serious overkill), but such situations are either rare or have other counters you are likely to be able to have as well.
if being able to kill the SH in a turn actually cost you something in terms of your own list being suddenly a lot weaker in other important areas it would be different.
the game needs something other than "Toughness" and saves to distinguish targets so a weapon that can hurt a SH is basically unable to hit anything smaller and more nimble - some sort of target size modifier coupled with a weapon to hit modifier perhaps - so a super cannon can't hit infantry and small arms seldom miss anything bit but equally seldom do anything of note to it. Currently there are too many 'duel mode' weapons there is no real downside to taking
Automatically Appended Next Post: Following on from the above, desired things to add
- Add a "Target Size" modifier to all units, standard infantry can be "0", small infantry maybe "-1" so harder to hit (grots, ratlings and similar), bigger stuff gets a +1 say for terminator sized models, +2 for small vehicles, dreadnaughts etc, you get the idea.
- Add a modifier for Target speed, keeping it simple, not moving is a +1, so sitting still makes you easier to hit, moving up to your normal move, or up to 8", whichever is lower is zero, 8" to 16" say is -1, 16 - 24" is -2 perhaps - drop the "supersonic" type to hit modifiers as they are no longer needed - moving faster makes you harder to hit - denoted with markers when units move - note the bands are provided so typical infantry unless advancing don't get a modifier unless they stand still (makes gun lines a bit easier to hit)
- Add an 'accuracy' modifier to weapons, small arms typically get "0", heavier weapons get -1, -2, -3 or more for seriously clumsy things (the move and fire a heavy weapon penalty remains, in addition) - this works with the above to mean that large anti tank guns struggle to hit small infantry but will find hitting larger vehicles very similar to now.
- Allow armour saves to go to 1+ or even negative, and remove the "roll of one always fails" condition - replace with if you roll a 1, re-roll it, if thats still a 1 then it fails, but in this case you do double damage as you have found a weak spot, in effect a 'critical hit' mechanic without a damage table for it
what you end up with is a system where a gun thats intended as a "tank killer" is no longer also very good at hitting elite infantry, though it will kill them if it does hit. But weapons intended to kill elite infantry are no longer also good for dealing with armour as -2/-3 AP is no longer enough to deal with a serious tank unless you get lucky.
now stuff like AP -5/-6 etc starts to matter, indeed higher AP becomes possible and useful when you have perhaps saves of "-2" etc.
in effect you go back to having different target classes but also different weapon classes, titan scale weapons are not going to hurt infantry (unless they are blast type weapons designed to kill infantry), but equally to kill a titan needs serious firepower
The simple solution is to take away some of the ridiculous amounts of dakka that some units can put out. I mean look at the Ork lists pre-nerf. The 25 Loota combo was the best we had because it didn't take much skill to use and average luck meant you were getting 100 S7 shots a turn with rerolling 1s and exploding 5s and 6s.
SemperMortis wrote: The simple solution is to take away some of the ridiculous amounts of dakka that some units can put out. I mean look at the Ork lists pre-nerf. The 25 Loota combo was the best we had because it didn't take much skill to use and average luck meant you were getting 100 S7 shots a turn with rerolling 1s and exploding 5s and 6s.
Much Strategy! This is the edition we asked for! Remember?
Yeah the number of shots that a lot of guns throw out there is pretty ridiculous these days. Years ago I remember grousing that Assault Cannons only fired three shots. Be careful what you wish for I guess, lol! When tanks with gatling cannons can fire like 30 shots a turn, it just becomes suicide to march up the board without some serious gimmicks, or boosters to durability and speed.
In theory this is exactly what transport vehicles should be for, but they're so hilariously overpriced and vulnerable to the plethora of anti-tank weapons typical in today's lists that they just don't make sense to bring.
It's a shame because in principle I really like the idea that footslogging soldiers can be mowed down like grass when they're out in the open unprotected, but there just aren't enough realistic and normal-ish means of mitigating this (e.g. getting in an APC, hiding in the forest) so we're reduced to gimmickery or Soviet-style human wave hordes.
It is not merely the number of attacks but the added stratagems and force multipliers. When this edition started, we had girlyman and a bunch of flying tanks because he gave them all rerolls to hit and wound. This basically doubled there damage output.
For orkz, our only shooting that is really competitive was the loota's and only if you sank in a stratagem to hit have exploding 5s and 6s and another strat to shoot twice. and another strat to shield them with grotz and another stratagem to lump them together to make a bigger squad.
For a number of factions, some units are literally unplayable unless you have stratagems. I understand those are the point of the game right now, but when you combine them with all the aura's that some factions get you end up with super dakka and as you pointed out, the inability to have anything not heavily armored survive for long out in the open.
SemperMortis wrote: It is not merely the number of attacks but the added stratagems and force multipliers. When this edition started, we had girlyman and a bunch of flying tanks because he gave them all rerolls to hit and wound. This basically doubled there damage output.
For orkz, our only shooting that is really competitive was the loota's and only if you sank in a stratagem to hit have exploding 5s and 6s and another strat to shoot twice. and another strat to shield them with grotz and another stratagem to lump them together to make a bigger squad.
For a number of factions, some units are literally unplayable unless you have stratagems. I understand those are the point of the game right now, but when you combine them with all the aura's that some factions get you end up with super dakka and as you pointed out, the inability to have anything not heavily armored survive for long out in the open.
This is important.
It shows also not the "real" strength of a unit. Considering internal balance alone it shows issues. See AL berserker rush, how many berserkers are you seeing now after the nerf?
Or in the case of mainline CSM, yeah they show up in toptier, as soup component in the following: Codex Alphaslaaneshobliterterminator with Purge seasoning occaisionally.
Atm it goes so: Chose legion, Legion is mark bound? --> Yes? --> Do you have access to slaanesh for Cacophony?-->6 traits say no? --> good , not viable. (exception to Purge because full reroll plas termites are bonkers)
Mark bound?--> No--> Traits --> mostly useless, except -1 to hit. --> chose -1 to hit because durability allready is an issue for CSM baseline.
Heck you don't even see the many times heralded RC Battery that is nearly as effective as IG. --> because no VotLW and based around csm a unit which equivalent costs 12 points instead in other factions and has AP for some reasons and better morale.
Most of the dex of CSM you don't see, when was the last time you saw raptors in a semi competitive environment? Not to mention warp talons?
The only unit "literally unplayable unless you have stratagems" I can think of is a Chaos homunculus. Everything else has rules and therefore is literally playable.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: The only unit "literally unplayable unless you have stratagems" I can think of is a Chaos homunculus. Everything else has rules and therefore is literally playable.
), and I'm willing to pay for that convenience.
It wasn't easy of course, and you needed to pick your target right, position the trukk properly, and maybe hit a particularly tough target with two trukks' worth of boyz simultaneously. But I felt like such a tactical genius every time I pulled it off.
