Whats your most hated 8th ed rule?

Reading another thread mine has to be the ability to kill models that are out of LoS. Really drives me up the wall. Whats the point in BloS at all

Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

there seems to be a need for out of LoS shoting. But I do think that terrain in the game seems wierd. Often it doesn't matter how it looks or if it even is on the table. It either has to be huge LoS blocking stuff or it is just a bother playing or ends with something wierd like a wing of eldar flyers or impulsors hovering over a single building.

now I don't know how to fix that. But I think terrain should work different. Maybe it is unfixable though.

 Ratius wrote:
Whats your most hated 8th ed rule?

Reading another thread mine has to be the ability to kill models that are out of LoS. Really drives me up the wall. Whats the point in BloS at all

Artillery has always been able to rain death outside of line of sight.
Worst 8th rule? Having to use the 8th ed rule book.

IGOUGO

The Archon's Shadowfield.

It's basically the same as it was in 3rd (a 2++ that stops working the first time it fails). Here's the thing - the game has moved on since then.

Back in 3rd, Invulnerable saves were few and far between (a 4++ would usually be a one-per-army relic). Most were 5++ at best and ones better than 4++ were all but nonexistant. The Shadowfield then was a much better save but one with an element of risk.

However, as the game progressed, invulnerable saves became both more and more common and also increasingly better. As it stands, there are whole swathes of units that have 4++ saves by default, and many more with access to 3++ saves. Not to mention that many units can now stack defences. In editions long past, a 4-wound Hive Tyrant might have had a 5++ in lieu of an armour save. Now, we have 24-wound Knights with 2+/4++ saves. We have high-toughness units that can stack 4++ saves with 5+++ FNP.

But amidst all that, the T3 Archon is still using the same defence from 3rd edition. There is still no consideration given to the escalation of saves for other models. The Shadowfield doesn't re-activate after a turn, nor even does it get reduced to a 5++. it just goes completely.

Not only that, but in the edition of rerolls, the Shadowfield stands alone as the only save that can never be rerolled for any reason. 3++ Storm Shields can be rerolled. 4++ saves on Knights can be rerolled. But not Shadowfields.

The Shadowfield reads like a relic of older editions that's been shoehorned wholesale into 8th. Because that's exactly what it is.

Moreover, 8th has so many better ways to represent Shadowfields. Why not have them be similar to the defences of Mandrakes and Venoms, and have them be a 5++ that also confers a -1 to hit? (Or maybe even a 4++ with -1 to hit, given how they're normally costed relative to standard saves.) Now it would both better fit the mechanics of this edition, and also be thematically similar to Mandrakes and Venoms, which both rely on similar means for protection.


I know this might sound like a minor complaint but bear in mind that Archons are the only HQ available to Kabals and the Shadowfield is the only defensive equipment available to them. There's no longer any option to take a Clone Field instead, nor (outside of a single Relic) any option to supplement the Shadowfield with something like Ghostplate Armour.

But more than anything I think it illustrates the complete lack of interest anyone on the design team has for DE. Just copy and paste the Shadowfield rules. Do they fit the mechanics of 8th? Who cares.? Is there a better way to represent them? Who cares? The rules are tiresome, tedious and force every Archon to play Russian Roulette. Who cares?

/rant

Terain. If you can see any of it you can see all of it? Thats stupid. And a -1 to hit would be better than +1 armor. It simplifies the game to the point where most of the battle is fought off the table in the list building phase.


Also IGOUGO is terrible.

Moving a heavy weapon gives -1 to hit. It's so stupid that that applies to vehicles. There is literally no faction where that rule makes sense.

Headlss wrote:
Terain. If you can see any of it you can see all of it? Thats stupid. And a -1 to hit would be better than +1 armor. It simplifies the game to the point where most of the battle is fought off the table in the list building phase.

and it kills so many terrains from being useful. too many doors/windows, is a forest. flat hill that doesn't reach the roof of the store? automaticly bad terrain. you practicaly have to build separate terrain just for w40k.

I would love to see something like some sort of fog of war, rule. your in terrain you get bonus cover, your behind it, your not seen unless your body is higher then the terrain. The stuff could get extre rules. Trenchs could be+2 to save, but you get nothing for standing behind them, or if you stick out of them. No +2 save castellans hidding in what would be a 25 cm ditch.

LOS to any part of the model (like a tiny piece of a spear tip for example). Makes terrain almost worthless unless very large.

Otherwise, I had a hard time thinking what I really don't like. I enjoy the game, so.....

Definitely IGOUGO.

Everything else is fine, even the fact that claiming a LoS block is ultra hard, but IGOUGO does not work in this kind of game.

Both Kill Team and Apoc show us how much better the game is with alternating activations. If it works well for the smallest end of the scale and for the largest end at the same time, i can make a guess that it would work well also for the middle of the scale.

If we're excluding IGOUGO (which is terrible), the answer for me is simple: re-rolls.

The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

We have Auxiliary Detachments as options, but I've never seen them used.
Why?
Because they actually penalize you for taking them, like it should be, and when mixing other factions in...and there's no real reason to do otherwise.

There never should have been a case where someone could say "i'M rUnNiNg bLoOd AnGeLs!1!!" and then have more Guard than Blood Angels in their army, even accounting for points.
It would have been passably acceptable if Platoons were still a thing and you got a minimum of 25 Guardsmen for a single Troops slot. But you don't get that anymore and it's not acceptable.

3+++++++++++++++++++

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

We have Auxiliary Detachments as options, but I've never seen them used.
Why?
Because they actually penalize you for taking them, like it should be, and when mixing other factions in...and there's no real reason to do otherwise.

There never should have been a case where someone could say "i'M rUnNiNg bLoOd AnGeLs!1!!" and then have more Guard than Blood Angels in their army, even accounting for points.
It would have been passably acceptable if Platoons were still a thing and you got a minimum of 25 Guardsmen for a single Troops slot. But you don't get that anymore and it's not acceptable.

In this case, the 6th edition Allies Matrix actually made some good sense and did work in a lot of instances. There were some bad interactions, granted (Taudar), but those little things don't really happen now in terms of allies. It's mostly just become a crutch because of poor internal balance.

Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

I can't stand that a vehicle has a 360 degree arc of fire with every single weapon it mounts.

Inconsistent application of whether rerolls/trigger-on-roll effects reference the roll before modifiers or after modifiers. Why can my Space Marines only reroll rolls of 1 or 2 in the Shooting phase (independent of what they actually hit on) but reroll 1s through 5s in Overwatch?

Morale phase. Between scenario rules, the autopass stratagem, faction rules and simply taking min squads it hardly ever plays a role or only in situations of heavy Malus-stacking (Nightlords, Eldar, Nurgle). In the end morale is one of the few things that seems as pointless as last Edition.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

It's the same thing with Marines, Combat Doctrines, Chapter Tactics and super doctrine all help pigeonhole armies into a single concept or thing when the fluff is so much broader than that. It's not that I wasn't spamming units before my codex came out because of balance inequities and because having a cohesive army that has a playstyle makes things work better, I just don't feel like I have the option of doing anything differently now. Orks you almost always see multiple klans, which in this one case is fluffy, but Deathskulls i pretty much the only generalist klan, with the other ones being bad for at least some units. I'm okay with Bad Moons Lootas being the only ones with shoot twice, but between shoot twice Strat, re-rolls 1s to hit for free, it is better by a huge marging compared to +1 M and +1 charge range. That's why I sub-factions should at least be generalist like Deathskulls. Catachans actually benefit quite a variety of units as well because it provides different buffs to different kinds of units, I'd love to see something like that for Novokh (melee Dynasty) to give some kind of buff to ranged units or Nephrekh (an Advance Dynasty) provide some kind of buff to Flyers that are never ever going to Advance. There are some of the mishaps as well with Craftworlds that are engineered to support a playstyle that doesn't fit with what the Craftworld's way of war is.

NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:3+++++++++++++++++++

This, which is usually followed by this:

Elbows wrote:re-rolls.

 Brother Castor wrote:

NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:3+++++++++++++++++++

This, which is usually followed by this:

Elbows wrote:re-rolls.

This. So much this.

 Elbows wrote:
If we're excluding IGOUGO (which is terrible), the answer for me is simple: re-rolls.

I am going to argue this point, for a long while, HQs for certain armies were not much more than a tax you paid to fill FOC. Now, there is an absolutely GOOD reason to take some support characters (Not all of them are beatsticks or psykers). I know it takes some RNG away, but it honestly FEELS good to reroll more than just twin-linked weapons.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Chapter Tactics, I don't like the fact that Novokh Lychguard are more effective in every instance than Mephrit Lychguard. It's by a large enough margin that I'd never run Mephrit Lychguard. If I really want Lychguard in my Mephrit list I'll take a Novokh Outrider Detachment with 3x3 Scarab Swarms, 10 Lychguard and a Novokh Destroyer Lord.

Stratagems already give Novokh Lychguard a tool that Mephrit Lychguard lack, I'm fine with that, if that was all I could take the Mephrit Lychguard and at least save the CP of not using the Stratagem, but I'm forced into taking a Chapter Tactic and there is no benefit to not optimizing it and taking the right one for every unit. This leads to highlander or rainbow lists with a little bit of everything being extremely hard to make without sacrificing a tonne of power. Every list becomes a highly optimized machine with no room for experimentation or fooling around.

What you list is more the problem with the Necron rules basically only ever benefitting shooting armies.

It's the same thing with Marines, Combat Doctrines, Chapter Tactics and super doctrine all help pigeonhole armies into a single concept or thing when the fluff is so much broader than that. It's not that I wasn't spamming units before my codex came out because of balance inequities and because having a cohesive army that has a playstyle makes things work better, I just don't feel like I have the option of doing anything differently now. Orks you almost always see multiple klans, which in this one case is fluffy, but Deathskulls i pretty much the only generalist klan, with the other ones being bad for at least some units. I'm okay with Bad Moons Lootas being the only ones with shoot twice, but between shoot twice Strat, re-rolls 1s to hit for free, it is better by a huge marging compared to +1 M and +1 charge range. That's why I sub-factions should at least be generalist like Deathskulls. Catachans actually benefit quite a variety of units as well because it provides different buffs to different kinds of units, I'd love to see something like that for Novokh (melee Dynasty) to give some kind of buff to ranged units or Nephrekh (an Advance Dynasty) provide some kind of buff to Flyers that are never ever going to Advance. There are some of the mishaps as well with Craftworlds that are engineered to support a playstyle that doesn't fit with what the Craftworld's way of war is.

Well the Super Doctrines shouldn't exist in the first place, and GW could easily rectify the Doctrine issue by saying "yeah sure you can start in whatever Doctrine you want". They won't do that though because.

Some faction rules are just too bad.
E.g. FW indexes and grey knights.

Traits are also terrible implemented, as are stratagems .

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.

But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

And then we have yet more rules to allow armies unable to meet those requirements (e.g. Corsairs) to actually exist in some form.

The more logical solution would have been to simply revise the detachment system. But instead they just dumped more and more rules on top of it. First to "fix" the rules and then to fix the fixes.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.

But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

And then we have yet more rules to allow armies unable to meet those requirements (e.g. Corsairs) to actually exist in some form.

The more logical solution would have been to simply revise the detachment system. But instead they just dumped more and more rules on top of it. First to "fix" the rules and then to fix the fixes.

yeah this is doublky so as GW designed these rules to allow us to effectively take any army that was legal in 7th edition 40k. problem is.. some of those armies where broken and lead to stupid 8th edition ones. I mean... they need to just get rid of the supreme command detachment.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.
But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

Ignoring the turn structure, I feel that invulnerable saves don't fit the current AP system and are detrimental to balance.
Previously, AP would outright ignore armor, so a termie would have no save vs plasma; this was mitigated by invulns which created a step down where you go from a 2+ to a 5+ to prevent termies being too fragile to such weapons. In 8th, the plasma brings a termie to a 5+ save without the invuln. So the step down currently is already built into the system.

Of course, GW decided to hold on to invulns which creates a bit of a problem: high AP weapons are seriously affected while low AP weapons don't care. If I shoot a Knight with a melta, the 4++ completely neuters meltas primary advantage. But an autocannon is completely unaffected.

So, I'd delete invulns and replace them with increased sv, T, W and the occasional -1 to hit: Knight too fragile? Give it more wounds. Stormshield? Gives +1sv etc...

I’ve got to chime in with terrain complaints, and specify that the loss of “area” terrain has been madness. For numerous editions, we’ve been stuck with “True line of sight,” and this has been a major step backward from ideas we understood well for decades.

One cannot represent a forest, because the real thing would be too dense and wild to move miniatures through comfortably. So, you define a perimeter, and say “everything in here is in a forest.”

You toss model trees in to your heart’s content, and move them when you need to for the game, but you don’t move the perimeter of the forest, that’s defined and static.

Now, you define what a forest means, like “models can fire into and out of but not through a forest. Models inside the forest are -1 to hit.

And, that’s it. Now you don’t need a laser pointer to see if every gun in your knight has line of sight to a unit by swiveling it through every random tree branch and stump. It’s fast, it’s evocative, and it makes trees and ruins actually something that matters!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.
But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

The timeline doesn't really work here though.
Rule of 3, for example, was present in the rulebook--it's just specifically called out as what it is: an optional rule for tournament play.

Introduced later via faq, not in the original rules. I got my group to use rule of 2 before they suggested rule of 3. I hope you don't have to face 6+ DPs and maybe that you never had to.

Terrain/Cover.

The implementation right now makes it worthless to all units who don't have good armor saves, large units and units that need to move in order to get range on things/in charge range. When playing orks, cover might as well not exist.

For what I care TLOS should die, I'm so sick of these "can I see this?" arguments.

Not sure which is the worst, as there are so many to choose from.

The inclusion of supersonic jets/aircraft really bothers me. They shouldn't be in the game. Remember how they worked in Epic 40,000... that is how they should work in 40k. They came on from a board edge, move straight forward, anti-aircraft weapons got a chance to shoot, then the flyer bombs/shoots a target it flies over, then flies off the battlefield if it survives. Then it come back on in another turn.

Now we have super sonic jets doing 90 degree turns in a battlefield no bigger than a shopping centre carpark, while being automatically hit by a flame thrower... I think not!

Fw indexes.

Terrain is probably gamemechanic wise the worst.

Stackable -1 are probably the worst interaction of rules.

 stonehorse wrote:
Not sure which is the worst, as there are so many to choose from.

The inclusion of supersonic jets/aircraft really bothers me. They shouldn't be in the game. Remember how they worked in Epic 40,000... that is how they should work in 40k. They came on from a board edge, move straight forward, anti-aircraft weapons got a chance to shoot, then the flyer bombs/shoots a target it flies over, then flies off the battlefield if it survives. Then it come back on in another turn.

Now we have super sonic jets doing 90 degree turns in a battlefield no bigger than a shopping centre carpark, while being automatically hit by a flame thrower... I think not!

I feel this was not reallyt he fault so much of the rules, but that the models where not planned out well for what it seems the Model design seem to have been doing. Some races only have fighters, others have dropcraft of some kind. and then there are hybrids.
Its the sorta thing that comes out of a cool idea, with little direction. Which is kinda sad, since i think Cool Drop craft where a great place for 40k to go. But with races that flat out miss out on it, without good reasons why or with little thought out way to deal with them. It was always sorta going to end up dispointing :( This and terrain my be what i feeling are the worst at moment.
But i think this kinda shifts around a bit as i think more about things in the game.

Maybe the leave no model behind, but also Rule of Cool design that the people designing the models seem to go by is the worst. Some army's just not cool enough to get models up to the game they are playing it seems.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The detachment and army construction system, with a smattering of allies.

I think the detachment system is also an example of why GW's rules end up being so bloated - they end up making a pile of bad rules to try and balance out another pile of bad rules.

Initially, we've got a few pages of rules outlining the 10 or so different detachments, with the intention seemingly being to give players as much freedom as possible when it comes to building their army.
But then they decided that players had too much freedom and were (to the surprise of no one except the GW design team) just including as many of the strongest units as possible.

So then we got additional rules - such as restrictions on taking allies in the same detachment, penalties if allies and/or different subfactions are taken in the same detachment, and a hard limit on the number of non-troop units that can be taken in an army as a whole.

The timeline doesn't really work here though.
Rule of 3, for example, was present in the rulebook--it's just specifically called out as what it is: an optional rule for tournament play.

The more logical solution is to remove the ability for armies to take non-specialist detachments as an "allied" contingent.

Fixing it would be as simple as:

Your army cannot contain a Battalion, Brigade, Supreme Command, or Flyer Wing detachment that is not what you have declared as your 'primary' detachment. Allied Detachments can include:
Auxiliary Support Detachments[Yes, the -1 CP options]
Vanguard Detachments
Spearhead Detachments
Outrider Detachments
Patrol Detachments

I think aircraft rules should essentially be ditched, to the point where they are just regular flying vehicles and act accordingly. A bit like say helicopters would be (which are a more realistic choice for what the unit "does"). Make them all hover - even if they are clearly supersonic jets that should be covering the battlefield in seconds.

Realistically yes, the model should come in, fly over, throw some dakka, maybe get shot and fly off the board. Then attack again in two turns time. But you essentially wouldn't need a model - and thats not going to work in a mini game.

So yes, aircraft doing doughnuts above a parking lot is stupid. But then 40k generally collapses if you get too literal about what is happening on the table.

Tyel wrote:
I think aircraft rules should essentially be ditched, to the point where they are just regular flying vehicles and act accordingly. A bit like say helicopters would be (which are a more realistic choice for what the unit "does"). Make them all hover - even if they are clearly supersonic jets that should be covering the battlefield in seconds.

Realistically yes, the model should come in, fly over, throw some dakka, maybe get shot and fly off the board. Then attack again in two turns time. But you essentially wouldn't need a model - and thats not going to work in a mini game.

So yes, aircraft doing doughnuts above a parking lot is stupid. But then 40k generally collapses if you get too literal about what is happening on the table.

I would like to see both, even if a mini is only on for short moments at time. If its making a impact on the game that is fine. Realistically its similar to drop pods, the rules for such could be a creator or a template. But having them add onto the battlefield is a desirable outcome.
And i think if they had rules for the the supersonic fighters, and how they engage. It could be really cool and ad lots to the way the game plays, Even if they are all reserved to a higher points bracket. Cannot get a fighter untill you have 1500 points in a faction on the table.
Then you could have the other types, distinct in the rules they utilize. Could see dropships and other air vehicles having things like deep strike Would be awesome and worth the rules investment i feel.

With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

morgoth wrote:
With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

Why is the rule of 3 bad?

 kastelen wrote:

morgoth wrote:
With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

Why is the rule of 3 bad?

Because it's a blanket ban that exists to restrict two things that were actually problematic (Flyrant-spam, Tau Commander-spam), was so ineffectual at restricting them that Tau Commanders required an extra restriction (there are about eight Tau Commander datasheets, counting Forge World), and because it applies wildly unevenly across armies (why can a Guard army take nine Leman Russes, but a Space Marine army can only take three Predators?).

 kastelen wrote:

morgoth wrote:
With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

Why is the rule of 3 bad?

Its not, B.c then you get crap lists like 14 DE Ravagers, or 9 Flyrants, anyone else that says otherwise doesn't understand.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fw indexes.

Terrain is probably gamemechanic wise the worst.

Stackable -1 are probably the worst interaction of rules.

The stacking of -1 to hit is only an issue because of the refusal to be on from D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

morgoth wrote:
With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

Why is the rule of 3 bad?

Its not, B.c then you get crap lists like 14 DE Ravagers, or 9 Flyrants, anyone else that says otherwise doesn't understand.

You mean the units that just need to be directly nerfed? Big think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Fw indexes.

Terrain is probably gamemechanic wise the worst.

Stackable -1 are probably the worst interaction of rules.

The stacking of -1 to hit is only an issue because of the refusal to be on from D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 kastelen wrote:

morgoth wrote:
With the inherent unfairness of the associated CP bonuses, I think the battle-forged detachment based army is one of the worst offenders.

Everything should be Unbound and everyone gets as many CP whether they have access to cheap units or not.

Goodbye loyal32, goodbye battalions, let's see what crazy ideas people really want to play instead of auto-take conclusions from a biased rule system.

(And of course the rule of 3 is one of the worst ideas ever. It just tastes so salty even salt has less salt in it.)

As for extreme competitive lists, they've always been FOTM crazy stuff anyway so it won't make a difference.

Why is the rule of 3 bad?

Its not, B.c then you get crap lists like 14 DE Ravagers, or 9 Flyrants, anyone else that says otherwise doesn't understand.

You mean the units that just need to be directly nerfed? Big think.

They dont tho, as someone that plays both, there are times all 3 ravagers dies turn 1, and Flyrants are not as good as you think they are. I stopped taking flyrants.

Worst Rules:

-IGOUGO: We need alternating activations or alternating sub-phases

-Psychic system (oversimplified, basically a special rule that has a 50/50 shot of going off. No interactive dice management system, bluffing etc. Also, mortal wounds only? common)

-Morale System: Why does this even exist? The morale system was fine before, the problem is that every army had a special rule that ignored it so nobody ever used it.

-Character targetting rules: Yep, this is stupid. Why did we lose the independant character rules? They were completely fine, much better than "sorry you can't shoot my Lord because this one infantry dude is closer"

-Character Auras: You know whats better than making Death Stars? Death Armies! Yep, now basically your whole army can re-roll to hit/to wound. It's perfect, shouldn't cause balance issues or slow down the game at all...Characters should only be able to affect 1 unit per turn.

-Re-roll/modifier interactions: I called this on the first day. Did these guys not even put any thought into how these rules with interact? What complete garbage.

-Terrain: Good...Lord...1 page of rules in the rulebook ain't going to cover this guys. Sorry to break it to you, you can't write a game like 40K with only 12 pages, it just ain't happening.

-No USR's: Nobody in their right mind would organize a game without USR's

-Command Point generation linked to detachments: You should start off with a base amount of command points and gain them for destroying enemy units, or taking objectives etc.

-Strategems should be one use only. You should have to make a hard in game decision about when to use strategems, not just spam them as much as you can. They should be important game changing moves that you can only use once.

-Stacking modifiers/special rules: Units should only be able to benefit from aura's/modifiers twice in one phase.

-Remove Re-rolls: At this point, there's so many re-rolls for everything it's just turned the game in to a slog. Just get rid of it.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
Worst Rules:

-IGOUGO: We need alternating activations or alternating sub-phases

-Psychic system (oversimplified, basically a special rule that has a 50/50 shot of going off. No interactive dice management system, bluffing etc. Also, mortal wounds only? common)

-Morale System: Why does this even exist? The morale system was fine before, the problem is that every army had a special rule that ignored it so nobody ever used it.

-Character targetting rules: Yep, this is stupid. Why did we lose the independant character rules? They were completely fine, much better than "sorry you can't shoot my Lord because this one infantry dude is closer"

-Character Auras: You know whats better than making Death Stars? Death Armies! Yep, now basically your whole army can re-roll to hit/to wound. It's perfect, shouldn't cause balance issues or slow down the game at all...Characters should only be able to affect 1 unit per turn.

-Re-roll/modifier interactions: I called this on the first day. Did these guys not even put any thought into how these rules with interact? What complete garbage.

-Terrain: Good...Lord...1 page of rules in the rulebook ain't going to cover this guys. Sorry to break it to you, you can't write a game like 40K with only 12 pages, it just ain't happening.

-No USR's: Nobody in their right mind would organize a game without USR's

-Command Point generation linked to detachments: You should start off with a base amount of command points and gain them for destroying enemy units, or taking objectives etc.

-Strategems should be one use only. You should have to make a hard in game decision about when to use strategems, not just spam them as much as you can. They should be important game changing moves that you can only use once.

-Stacking modifiers/special rules: Units should only be able to benefit from aura's/modifiers twice in one phase.

-Remove Re-rolls: At this point, there's so many re-rolls for everything it's just turned the game in to a slog. Just get rid of it.

Simplifying the core rules was a huge mistake in hindsight. They realized they had to introduce complexity from somewhere to keep the game from becoming a goo goo gaga themepark. So it became about all these synergies and modifiers.

There's also not enough impediments to shooting/charging across the table so transports are no longer mandatory. With that and the constant point cuts, there's more models than ever on the table (I'm sure they love the sales though)

Wounding vehicles. If we're going to give a land raider wounds and a toughness value now, the wounding table needs adjusting so you can't wound it with a zogging boltgun!

Overwatch

Being able to leave combat with no negatives (particularly flyers)

In many cases these make assault a largely worthless endeavor.

Terrain, IMHO, is the major factor ruining 40K.

We need solid, well-defined terrain rules, along with a system to define how the table should be set up in a more consistent way.

I'd happily pay for a whole book to do this. Make bunkers, fortifications etc. actually good for once. Have faction specific terrain (I'm looking at you tyranids!).

This greatly reduces the IGOUGO, gunline and op shooting issues the game currently has.

Almost everyone has mentioned terrain, but I have a specific beef with close combat inside and around terrain.

The CC rules are written as if the game was intended to be played by flat circular and oval tokens with no height on a flat horizontal plane with no elevation and no obstacles.

Anything more complex than that and it becomes a slog with many broken and hilarious scenarios. Hilarious for the defender, of course.

 Brotherjulian wrote:
Wounding vehicles. If we're going to give a land raider wounds and a toughness value now, the wounding table needs adjusting so you can't wound it with a zogging boltgun!

A boltgun has a 1.8% chance to wound a land raider, you need 87 marines in rapid fire range for five turns to kill a landraider. Please let this urban myth die.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
Wounding vehicles. If we're going to give a land raider wounds and a toughness value now, the wounding table needs adjusting so you can't wound it with a zogging boltgun!

A boltgun has a 1.8% chance to wound a land raider, you need 87 marines in rapid fire range for five turns to kill a landraider. Please let this urban myth die.

How is it a myth if it's true...

Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

Worst single rule?

Rerolls before modifiers

That said, in general the single biggest issue is the lack of a defined scale, trying to make the difference between an infantryman's mace and an axe matter in a game where a tank battalion is facing off against a lance of Battlemechs. This stretched scale, trying to encompasse everything, is how most of the rules oddities arise. Define the scale better and a lot of the need to smear stuff behind abstraction goes away.

Dandelion wrote:
Ignoring the turn structure, I feel that invulnerable saves don't fit the current AP system and are detrimental to balance.
Previously, AP would outright ignore armor, so a termie would have no save vs plasma; this was mitigated by invulns which created a step down where you go from a 2+ to a 5+ to prevent termies being too fragile to such weapons. In 8th, the plasma brings a termie to a 5+ save without the invuln. So the step down currently is already built into the system.

Of course, GW decided to hold on to invulns which creates a bit of a problem: high AP weapons are seriously affected while low AP weapons don't care. If I shoot a Knight with a melta, the 4++ completely neuters meltas primary advantage. But an autocannon is completely unaffected.

So, I'd delete invulns and replace them with increased sv, T, W and the occasional -1 to hit: Knight too fragile? Give it more wounds. Stormshield? Gives +1sv etc...

This is a real winner idea IMO. Invo saves are the worst thing from a balancing prospective. It makes it impossible to balance 2+ saves and 3+ saves and weapons with very good AP.

In general I think Some things should have an invo save but it should be maxed at 5++ and it should be very rare (elite hero type models). Being hard to kill should be a factor of toughness and wounds and save.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Why is it a problem outside "you can do it now"?

If you launch that many mini propelled rockets into a vehicle you would likely cause a bit of damage in the real world.

Chapter Tactics.

Tau Commander limit.

Markerlights.
Elite shooting? Yeah right.

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

Make to Tau rank progression do something that T'au players would actually care about. Rather than buff attacks like every other army in the game, try this:
Shas'la have BS5
Shas'ui have BS4
Shas'vre have BS3
Shas'el have BS2
Shas'o have BS1

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

I mean i think most off us can appreciate a wave defense or tower defense game, but i feel like we are playing a wargame, or what is supposed to be one

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

I mean i think most off us can appreciate a wave defense or tower defense game, but i feel like we are playing a wargame, or what is supposed to be one

I don't think anyone would hate the Strat if Grey Knights weren't so goddamn bad.

The way penalties and re-rolls interact. If you get -1 to hit against a target, the -1 should be applied before any re-rolls are made, not after. That is to say, you should be able to re-roll a die that failed by 1 due to the penalty.

Also, plasma weapons should only overheat on a natural roll of 1. There is no reason why a plasma cannon should be more likely to blow up when firing at a hard-to-hit target.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
3+++++++++++++++++++

Yyyep. I'm not against 3++ per se, but it should be exceedingly rare, even among characters.

Moreover, no vehicle or monster with 10 or more wounds should have an invulnerable save better than 5++, unless it is an activated ability that requires a hefty sacrifice.


.

-Guardsman- wrote:
The way penalties and re-rolls interact. If you get -1 to hit against a target, the -1 should be applied before any re-rolls are made, not after. That is to say, you should be able to re-roll a die that failed by 1 due to the penalty.

Also, plasma weapons should only overheat on a natural roll of 1. There is no reason why a plasma cannon should be more likely to blow up when firing at a hard-to-hit target.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
3+++++++++++++++++++

Yyyep. I'm not against 3++ per se, but it should be exceedingly rare, even among characters.

Moreover, no vehicle or monster with 10 or more wounds should have an invulnerable save better than 5++, unless it is an activated ability that requires a hefty sacrifice.


.

With you on both account. Both very dumb.

GW at least seems aware that a lot of rules based on specific results shouldn't be affected by modifers. Newer releases tend to include the wording, but it would be nice for a large scale fix.

 carldooley wrote:

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

alright, let me just bring my triple brigade astra militarum list and get tables but still win on points.....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Why is it a problem outside "you can do it now"?

If you launch that many mini propelled rockets into a vehicle you would likely cause a bit of damage in the real world.

Considering how tough landraiders are meant to be I don't think they would. Even without that it's one of the many small things they changed that made the game less fluffy IMO.

 carldooley wrote:
Tau Commander limit.

Markerlights.
Elite shooting? Yeah right.

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

Make to Tau rank progression do something that T'au players would actually care about. Rather than buff attacks like every other army in the game, try this:
Shas'la have BS5
Shas'ui have BS4
Shas'vre have BS3
Shas'el have BS2
Shas'o have BS1

Realistically marker lights should just be automatic hits and be costed appropriately. Perhaps go back to the way they used to be buffing units BS by 1 per marker and 2 for ignore cover. Perhaps with the number of markers required for +1 to hit scaling based off power level. Like for example to give a storm surge +1 to hit probably should require 4 markers where a fire warrior squad should only be 1.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Why is it a problem outside "you can do it now"?

If you launch that many mini propelled rockets into a vehicle you would likely cause a bit of damage in the real world.

Considering how tough landraiders are meant to be I don't think they would. Even without that it's one of the many small things they changed that made the game less fluffy IMO.

Well seeing as this is the toughest they've been I'd say it's fine. The problems of the Land Raider come from elsewhere, NOT their durability.

Being a high cost vehicles, that can't delete other vehicles, but there are vehicles of same cost or cheaper that can delete you and which are often more resilient, is a problem of point cost.

There is no way a LR is worth the points it costs, in a world of flyers, or doctrine buffed repulsors. Even the castellan or other knights make the land raiders look very non enticiting option to take. An army has to practicaly have no other options for heavy support to take them. And even then paying so much for 4 lascannons and a hvy bolters is a lot of points.

The landraider's job has never been shooting stuff, it's driving a bunch of terminators or veterans safely up the field and then have them charge out of the assault ramp into your enemy's face to cause mayhem there.

It's not hard to guess why that doesn't work anymore. Battlewagons are dead for the same reason.

 Jidmah wrote:
The landraider's job has never been shooting stuff, it's driving a bunch of terminators or veterans safely up the field and then have them charge out of the assault ramp into your enemy's face to cause mayhem there.

It's not hard to guess why that doesn't work anymore. Battlewagons are dead for the same reason.

Not to mention the NEW vehicle getting Assault Vehicles rules, except it does help assault!

Vehicles should never be able to be tied down in combat by infantry.

It's a fair trade-off for no longer being able to throw grenades into hatches.

I played 8th twice so far and am reluctant to do so again. There are a lot of issues with this edition but one of the major ones are poor terrain & LOS rules. As long as a tiny speck of a model is visible it is fair game to be shot. Pathetic.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

That's not a problem in real life though (unless you had your heart set on a game with BCB)

True line of sight needs to die. As has been said already it invalidates most terrain...horrible rule.

Also falling back from melee is way too easy.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

That's not a problem in real life though (unless you had your heart set on a game with BCB)

It shows a lack of care or ability when left unfixed, as well as leaves open the rules and makes it harder to put rules on top that affect it.

one of the points of simplifying the rules is so its easier to fix things like this.

Worst rule invulnerable saves. Totally defeats the purpose of the new ap system.

Then feel no pain, just give them more wounds or better saves.

Then rerolls. Why even roll if the dice does not count?

Then terrain rules aka "house rules every game"

Then tactical objective cards. What is even the goal of the armies in the games? Feels too random.

Worst rules:

Character auras - Bye-bye death blobs, oh, wait...
Character targeting rules - Don't like death blobs? Too bad, now you can't rid of them, because there is a dude hidden somewhere in front of the fully exposed commander.
Invulnerable saves - They are everywhere...
IGOUGO - Killteam is so much more fun...

The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

Terminators can easily get 3++ saves with their stormshields and they already have 2+ armor but nobody has seriously considered them remotely close to Op in I don't know how long. Careful planning of who should and shouldn't have access to these types of saves is important. Unfortunately GW doesn't do their homework or have any coherent design doctrine to follow so they end up making pants on head choices with unit profiles.

Also what's wrong with having both armor and invuln? Armor is your maximum protection while the invuln is the minimum protection regardless of how much penetration the enemy attack has. It generally means that you shouldnt waste your AP-4 stuff on something with a 3+ invuln save. The problem might be when everything has invulns that those strong AP weapons lose their merit but that is an entirely different issue.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

 Vankraken wrote:

Also what's wrong with having both armor and invuln? Armor is your maximum protection while the invuln is the minimum protection regardless of how much penetration the enemy attack has. It generally means that you shouldnt waste your AP-4 stuff on something with a 3+ invuln save.

But this is the whole issue - so many units with good armour also have good invulnerable saves. So the extra AP on Meltas and similar weapons is worthless 99% of the time.

Units with good armour *should* be vulnerable to these weapons. That's the whole point of those weapons existing in the first place.

I'm not sure if it's a rule, per se, but having separate shooting and close combat phases is irksome.

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Basically this. Assault lets you advance and fire, true, but the Advance rules says something like the unit cannot be selected to shoot. Assault says something like when you select a unit to shoot, etc. etc.. So RAW if you could select the unit, it could shoot, but Advance prevents you from selecting the unit in the first place.

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

 stonehorse wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

Well again, while it's written horribly I like the fact that it shows who is an ass and who isn't. Anyone who would try to argue RAW on that rule is showing their true colors. Sure it's GW's fault for such awful writing, but the intent of this rule, more than any other rule, is so obvious that it doesn't even take a second of thought to universally see the intention since without it working that way the Assault rule is useless. So for someone to try and seriously argue the RAW for this rule, in particular, proves they are a terrible person and you don't need to play them.

Wayniac wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.

Oh that is brilliant! By brilliant I mean a dumpster that is on fire.

Well again, while it's written horribly I like the fact that it shows who is an ass and who isn't. Anyone who would try to argue RAW on that rule is showing their true colors. Sure it's GW's fault for such awful writing, but the intent of this rule, more than any other rule, is so obvious that it doesn't even take a second of thought to universally see the intention since without it working that way the Assault rule is useless. So for someone to try and seriously argue the RAW for this rule, in particular, proves they are a terrible person and you don't need to play them.

It's like the 'Monsterous Smash' rule from I think 6E. Technically, RAW, you could argue that it has neither Monsterous nor Smash - having 'Monsterous Smash' instead. So no AP2 on those Demon Princes and such. But I never saw anyone make that claim. And it was so obvious that I don't think they ever FAQed it.

Some "RAW" readings are so clearly wrong that it doesn't even warrant correction.

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

In my opinion, it should be like this:
Heavy vehicles, monsters and buildings should have high wounds, high toughness, high armor and are single models
Light vehicles, planes and light walkers should have medium wounds, medium toughness and medium armor and are single models or small units
Heavy infantry and bikes have medium wounds, low toughness and high armor and invulnerable saves come in small units
Regular Infantry and swarms have low wounds, low toughness and low and come in greater number

So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger? A Keeper of Secrets should be countered by armour piercing ammunition? The models that currently have invulns have them because they are not supposed to be countered by armour piercing ammunition, your sensibilities on this matter don't make sense.

People are already complaining about not getting to do anything in the opponents turn, so if you think rather than just giving the KoS a better Sv characteristic you just remove the invuln and give it 50% more wounds, do you think that would make Daemon players feel more in charge or less in charge? Not to mention that anti-invuln abilities and psychic powers would cease to be effective against GDs.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice. If anything Terminators should be buffed to have a 4+ invulnerable save to make the invuln worth something against what was previously AP2 and is now -3 and to increase the effectivness against what is now AP-4 since they're only going from 6+ to 5+.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

So your opinion is that knights should counter every weapon in existence and tell me that this is good design? Oh boy.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

A Knight should be downright terrified of a Volcano Lance - or similar Knight Killer weapons. It's what they're designed for. Taking down giant nigh-impenetrable armor on super-tough targets. If Knights aren't afraid of those weapons, who should be? What's the point of the weapon?

A Keeper of Secrets should be countered by armour piercing ammunition? The models that currently have invulns have them because they are not supposed to be countered by armour piercing ammunition, your sensibilities on this matter don't make sense.

People are already complaining about not getting to do anything in the opponents turn, so if you think rather than just giving the KoS a better Sv characteristic you just remove the invuln and give it 50% more wounds, do you think that would make Daemon players feel more in charge or less in charge? Not to mention that anti-invuln abilities and psychic powers would cease to be effective against GDs.

I'm going to disagree here, in that the KoS could have some form of Invuln. It's not even remotely heavily armored, and is only moderately tough. It's a semi-real demon - so that's part of it's defense. It's much more vulnerable to small and medium arms than a Knight or Land Raider, though, as a tradeoff.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice.

Which is why it makes sense to give it to targets that should be good against anti-tank weapons. Tanks shouldn't be good against anti-tank weapons, though. If a tank isn't durable enough, you don't make it better against anti-tank; you make it better overall. So more W. Possbly T or Sv improvements if needed. This way you don't gut AT weapons.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

When the invuln specifically counters the counters to a unit, it's bad. So it's not Invulns specifically, it's where they're applied. I don't like how common they are amongst infantry, but the most egregious example is clearly Knights. Consider the Plasma Gun. S7 with good AP. Loses out to a pair of Lasguns when shooting at a 3++ Knight.

I dont think anyone wants a knight to be oneshotted. If you remove ++ save and increase toughness, wounds and normal save it wont be much weaker to anti tank weapons than they are now. They will on the other hand be much stronger against everything else.

Sounds like a nice trade off to me. Would make smash captains and autocannons/plasma and everything weaker than those not so good against knights unlike now when they are the best weapons against knights. Not like people will spam lascannons and other anti tank weapons with those changes since they are narrow in their usage compared to higher rof weapons

IGOUGO
Terrain rules - I dislike TLOS
Too many rerolls - SOME rerolls is fine, but it seems like half of the rules that come out are abilities to allow rerolls
Mass invulnerable saves.

Klickor wrote:
I dont think anyone wants a knight to be oneshotted. If you remove ++ save and increase toughness, wounds and normal save it wont be much weaker to anti tank weapons than they are now. They will on the other hand be much stronger against everything else.

Sounds like a nice trade off to me. Would make smash captains and autocannons/plasma and everything weaker than those not so good against knights unlike now when they are the best weapons against knights. Not like people will spam lascannons and other anti tank weapons with those changes since they are narrow in their usage compared to higher rof weapons

With all the talk on invulnerable saves the past page or so, I'd say basically this.

Increase the Toughness of most vehicles / monstrous creatures, add more Wounds to them, and then alter up anti-tank weaponry to match. If vehicles are T 8-10 (or more!) instead of T 6-8, bump melta and las (and their equivalents in other factions) to S10 and make damage more reliable. Just as a random number for example- say a Leman Russ has 20 wounds, a 2+ save, and T10, a Lascannon can then be S11, AP -3, 6+1d6 Damage. The tank is now far less likely to be downed by Plasma and Autocannons - though they can still chip it away in a pinch, while the weapons specifically out to get them can deal significant damage.

The key is to give anti-tank weaponry the boost to match the boosted profile of the vehicles/monsters for all factions.

#1
I will also agree that IGOUGO holds back 40k a great deal in my mind.

#2
The "facing" has largely been removed from models it almost makes most forms of movement pointless.
Making vehicles able to shoot from anywhere on it and any direction kinda breaks a cinematic feel to games.
Unless the weapon is on a turret or is actually facing that direction it should not be able to fire elsewhere.
Some of these hard to kill units complained about may work better if they have weaker armor in the rear facing... give deep strike even more of a purpose.

I feel like I should request the opposite topic for this what rule would you absolutely keep (want to see in all editions)?

I like the carrot of getting command points by investing in formations that can afford you the tactical flexibility.
A "bonus" to get more flexible mixes of armies.

 Talizvar wrote:
#1
I will also agree that IGOUGO holds back 40k a great deal in my mind.

#2
The "facing" has largely been removed from models it almost makes most forms of movement pointless.
Making vehicles able to shoot from anywhere on it and any direction kinda breaks a cinematic feel to games.
Unless the weapon is on a turret or is actually facing that direction it should not be able to fire elsewhere.
Some of these hard to kill units complained about may work better if they have weaker armor in the rear facing... give deep strike even more of a purpose.

I feel like I should request the opposite topic for this what rule would you absolutely keep (want to see in all editions)?

I like the carrot of getting command points by investing in formations that can afford you the tactical flexibility.
A "bonus" to get more flexible mixes of armies.

Reliable DS is the best change 8th has made, the changes to melee and introduction of CP makes the game feel more interesting and tactical for me, but nothing quite ruined a game like an important unit ending up in the wrong place or dying completely. Failing a charge and being left for the wolves wasn't just a possibility, it was a best case scenario in earlier editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

A Knight should be downright terrified of a Volcano Lance - or similar Knight Killer weapons. It's what they're designed for. Taking down giant nigh-impenetrable armor on super-tough targets. If Knights aren't afraid of those weapons, who should be? What's the point of the weapon?

It's not the armour of a Knight that's nigh-impenetrable, it's the ion shield. If the Knight does not have its ion shield then it gets countered by Titans, if it gets countered by Titans it's bad in 3k+ games, then it has to be good in 2k or smaller games. Is the game fun when Knights are good in 2k or smaller games? In my experience it wasn't, my competitive army is still built to take on Knights, I can't put S4 weapons into a competitive list without thinking that it'll be useless against a trio of Knights barrelling down the table.

When you want to limit how good anti-tank should be against a unit, giving it an invuln is a natural choice.

Which is why it makes sense to give it to targets that should be good against anti-tank weapons. Tanks shouldn't be good against anti-tank weapons, though. If a tank isn't durable enough, you don't make it better against anti-tank; you make it better overall. So more W. Possbly T or Sv improvements if needed. This way you don't gut AT weapons.

No because then Knights are unstoppable in smaller games, which they shouldn't be.

The hatred of invulnerable saves is completely silly, an invulnerable save often defines a units' role on the battlefield, its counters and what it counters. It can be a problem when it becomes cheap or easy to get it down to 3++ and a giant potential problem when it becomes a 2++, but a 4++ is not a big deal, nor are the 5++ auras available to most factions or Dark Angels' 4++ Infantry/Bike aura. I don't think Wyches should have it, but Custodes vehicles and Drukhari vehicles having such mastery over technology to occassionally neutralise even the heaviest weapon is a feature, not a bug.

When the invuln specifically counters the counters to a unit, it's bad. So it's not Invulns specifically, it's where they're applied. I don't like how common they are amongst infantry, but the most egregious example is clearly Knights. Consider the Plasma Gun. S7 with good AP. Loses out to a pair of Lasguns when shooting at a 3++ Knight.

Terrain rules. I’m fine with true LOS. However, being able to shoot at something because you can see a miniscule amount of the target that is behind, but not in cover, and for the target to get no bonus survivability is silly. As is being able only the target in between the gaps between the heads (or feet) of the units in front <insert other ridiculous shots here> and for this to have no affect at all on the effectiveness of the shooting.

I dislike the initiative system for melee, to make melee work you often need the damage to come from a smaller numberof high impact units (ideally 1). With the ability to interrupt charging units by delivering the same impact across a number of units allows the charge targets to interrupt and take out some of the those units before they can act. Thus multiple smaller impact units often have difficulty ganging up against an individually more dangerous unit, as opposed to shooting where multiple units can easily combine forces to taking out a target.

Overall this makes shooting comparatively stronger.

I dislike stacking negatives to hit. They make the game not very fun and -2 or even -3 to hit is getting rather punitive and disproportionately affects several armies.

Lord of Wars: Keep them for ‘big games’. Knight (and similar things) and even the specialist flyers seem both out of place and disruptive to normal (as in 1.5k-2k games). To be honest jet type things could stay just get rid of the specialist flier trappings (flyer unit type, supersonic etc…).

Regarding Knights having an Invul being broken or not, this is where a D8-D12 system would be handy. Theoretically we would be able to give them a killer armor save, and then the more heavy duty anti-tank weapons would have a higher AP. The Knight doesn't falter to everything fired at it, but the Lascannons can pretend to be a little better at their jobs.

Otherwise a Knight is wounded on a 3+ and has the same save as a Rhino being targeted.

Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

 vict0988 wrote:
If the Knight does not have its ion shield then it gets countered by Titans, if it gets countered by Titans it's bad in 3k+ games

Titan. 3k+ games. That's what Apocalypse rules are for. If you want to play titans, use the correct ruleset for titans. If you really, really want to play 40k rules and use titans, fine, good for you, take the Warhammer 40k rules, written and balanced for games around 1500/2000 points, and add some rules for titans designed to fit with those rules. But don't write the rules of 40k around titans!
The question about knight having invulnerable save isn't, at all, about how they fare against titans. It's about how they fare against anti-personnel/light anti-tank, and how they fare against designated, strong anti-tank weapons. Right now they are more scared of the first than of the second, and it's stupid. They should be very afraid of AP-4 melta, and not very afraid of AP-1, AP-2 weapons. It's the opposite now. Bad.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

If they had experimented, they would have messed it up though, since they obviously had no idea what's good or bad in their new 8th edition when creating the indexes.

Not played for a while, but did they ever fix the rule about measuring distances from the base of based models? So a dude stood on a 1.2" barrel was too high up for a knight to hit him? Also models that overhang their bases enough can be impossible to melee.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

This was bugging me, so I did the math on this. On average, neither the volcano lance nor the much more powerful volcano cannon would one-shot a knight even if it had no invulnerable save at all. It's all hyperbole, complaining about balance in a game format maybe ten people on the this planet play.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

If they had experimented, they would have messed it up though, since they obviously had no idea what's good or bad in their new 8th edition when creating the indexes.

While true, it wouldn't have killed them to at least attempt since they stuck themselves in a D6 system.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So basically, invulnerable saves should only be given to units that should be resilient against anti-tank weaponry. Terminators with storm shields ticks that box for me, a knight doesn't.
High wound models should not have invulnerable saves, if they need to be more resilient, they should be getting more wounds or armor instead.
A degrading armor stat on vehicles would be cool, too, instead of reducing nonsense stats like attacks. Something as durable as a knight could start out at 1+ armor and then degrade to 3+ and 5+ as armor plates are getting blown off.

So a Knight should be one-shot by a volcano lance? It shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a titan weapon? Knights are supposed to run away screaming when they see a Warhound or god forbid anything larger?

This was bugging me, so I did the math on this. On average, neither the volcano lance nor the much more powerful volcano cannon would one-shot a knight even if it had no invulnerable save at all. It's all hyperbole, complaining about balance in a game format maybe ten people on the this planet play.

There are a lot of people that want to ban Knights in 40k, I'd much rather give them rules that incentivise people to use them against bigger threats rather than stomping on smaller threats. Or in this case argue against you giving them rules that only makes them good for smaller games. Do you think games, where you cannot hurt your opponent in a meaningful way, are fun? Do you realise that changing the rules for Knights would tilt them harder towards being either unstoppable or shot silly quite quickly?

Volcano lance two-shots a Knight, that's problematic IMO, because what do you do when a volcano lance two-shots you? You just swarm the board with bodies, so knowing that these big anti-Titan weapons will show up you leave all the medium-sized Knights at home and just take Titans and/or cheap bodies, after all, the Titans and Titan hunters will kill the Knights relatively easily. Shadowswords one-shots a Knight without an invul for 1CP if it's Cadian or Vostroyan. Yes, one-shot was hyperbole for the volcano lance, but Knights should not be weak to AP-5 guns since that's exactly what their shields are supposed to protect them against. Why would you build shields to protect a Knight against heavy bolters? Do they just weigh less than armour plates?

A lot of people say that "Knights tilt the meta in terms of making anti-tank more popular" that's more or less true, but not to the degree it would be true if the pool of weapons that were good at killing Knights were reduced to -3, -4 and -5 weapons, that would truly tilt the meta and make a bunch of vehicles worse because Knights are countered as much or harder by -0 and -1 guns which are generally at least slightly worse at killing tanks than most -3, -4 and -5 weapons are.

Shadowswords are super narrow in its usage and costs more than most knights. I dont really see it as a problem when a unit that is the direct counter to a knight can kill it for equal points. There are many cheaper and better options to kill knights already.

Couldnt the shields on a knight be better represented with more wounds and toughness so they can tank those lascannons quite well while still seeing them slowly whittle down? And in the process be much sturdier against melee and weak shooting. Those shields should be even better against smaller arms fire after all than a lascannon thatbis built for penetration. Its not like its only knights that are built to withstand heavy fire and survive it but you are the only one I have seen that think they should take less damage from anti tank weapons than anti infantry weapons.

Making anti tank weapons viable more doesnt have to spell doom for vehicles more than how it is since they are more expensive and not as versatile as the guns we see now. So yoy probably wont see an explosion of lascannon devastators or the equivalent. You could probably increase the toughness and at the same time reduce the attack slightly to make vehicles last longer but also not make them op if you spam them. Then you dont have to kill most tanks/knights turn 1 but you still want to kill them at some point. Would also help making the degradation more useful with less ways to go around it so just bracketing it actually is very useful. Then you dont need as much anti tank in your list. Some will be needed still and it will feel more useful in the right matchup.

Just a single change isnt gonna fix vehicles but a few can.

We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

Dandelion wrote:
We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

I really like the Baneblade variants over the knights. They have much more defined strengths and weaknesses than the knights. They dont have ++ saves or as many relics/traits/stratagems to ignore their few weaknesses. They arent nearly as strong in melee even though you can use a stratagem to make one of them almost as good in melee. They have a much larger footprint to make movement more difficult and at the same time they are also much lower in height so they cant just see over everything. They are very much affected by terrain.

I kinda like seeing 1-2 Baneblade variants on the table. So much more interesting to play against than knights since they dont ignore most of the terrain in the shooting phase and is one of the most affected units in the movement phase by terrain. Needs to be a ton of terrain to really block a knights movement while I sometimes see baneblades having to choose deploying where it can get good los and never move or ability to move freely but not having anything to shoot at turn 1.Never really seen that happen with a knight.

You pay 4-500 points for a big ass tank with large guns and that is what you get. Not some mech for 300+ pts that can do almost everything.

You pay 4-500 points for a big ass tank with large guns and that is what you get. Not some mech for 300+ pts that can do almost everything.

And survives baseline allready more damage, and is generally more mobile and has better baseline stratagems.

I too find myself enjoying the IG superheavies a lot more than Knights. They can have a lot of firepower, but don't have the character gimmicks, stratagems, mobility, or board control capability that Knights do. When you hit a Baneblade, wounds bleed off quickly and you don't have to deal with a third or half your AT guns being negated.

Oddly, with respect to the Invuls, GW has really blinkered the distinction between Knights and IG Superheavies. Knights initially had invuls, but only 2/3rds the number of wounds of a Baneblade equivalent, and that invul only covered certain angles. Now the invul applies everywhere and the Knights have a functionally identical number of wounds. Mostly GW seems to have compensated for this by dramatically increasing the anti-vehicle capabilities of Baneblade chassis main guns, but that doesn't quite balance things in the same way.

I think the IG superheavies could do with a few more wounds, perhaps rounding to 30 overall from the current 26, particularly as they also used to have triple the wounds (or equivalent) relative to something like a Russ tank and now only have double that. However, I think generally they're much better balanced than a lot of the Knight stuff is.

Edit: I kinda want to write rules for IG superheavy companies in the style of Knights now XD

Only if malcador is the quasi troop slot and cheap enough for it

Dandelion wrote:
We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

Baneblades are petty bad, I'd quit the game if we got into a Baneblade meta, to make Baneblades on-par with Knights the need to be 75-150 pts cheaper, it's not a problem because of the pts. If you replaced the invuln on Knights and RIS with a Stratagem of similar power with an equal value of pts reduction, Sv, T or wounds then you'd make a less fun meta. Knights were hard to counter and really OP for a while, but because they are relatively hard to kill with lascannons they did not skew the game away from vehicles like the popularity of the Castellan did. You'll be creating a new Castllan meta if you make Baneblade tanks OP. We'll see how strong IH and IF are and how the meta shapes up.

I fail to see how deleting invulns makes baneblades OP. Besides, Knights are the main reason why non-invuln vehicles suck in the first place, since everything is geared to kill 4++ knights.

Anyway, all your objections are based on a theoretical imbalance that could be resolved with playtesting. A 4++, though, is bad not because it affects your precious meta but because it invalidates dedicated anit-tank weapons. With a 4++, my laser dunecrawlers struggle against knights even though that's their prime target.

Dandelion wrote:
I fail to see how deleting invulns makes baneblades OP. Besides, Knights are the main reason why non-invuln vehicles suck in the first place, since everything is geared to kill 4++ knights.

Anyway, all your objections are based on a theoretical imbalance that could be resolved with playtesting. A 4++, though, is bad not because it affects your precious meta but because it invalidates dedicated anit-tank weapons. With a 4++, my laser dunecrawlers struggle against knights even though that's their prime target.

Fully agree with thought; if something has the firepower to (relatively) efficiently take out a T8 4++ knight, most regular vehicles don't stand much of a chance.

Hence why I said I don't like 'em either.

Gw wants knights as the dominant low in the meta. Why else would they give the relic and hellforged low such a severe nerfing last ca? The babeblade's cost vs a knight's is also lopsided.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, in retrospective, giving all vehicles the same save is a missed chance to create wider bandwidth of armor/toughness/wounds profiles.

GW created an entirely new wounding system and didn't experiment AT ALL. This is their fault to begin with.

If they had experimented, they would have messed it up though, since they obviously had no idea what's good or bad in their new 8th edition when creating the indexes.

While true, it wouldn't have killed them to at least attelmpt since they stuck themselves in a D6 system.

The d6 isn't the issue as the bell curve is introduced by the layering of checks - the-hit-wound-damage-save-save combination meal as it were. If there are issues with the mechanic (and yes, there are) it can't be solved by switching up the dice type without a critical examination of the underlying engine.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
We already have knight equivalent units without invulns: Baneblades. They are already pretty decent all things considered, it's just that knights with their invulns are better than them. Removing the invulns would even the playing field for other similar units.

Also, the way I see it, a Knight's ion shield could just be what gives them T8 and 3+ sv because they aren't nearly as armored as regular tanks. (or the baneblade for that matter)

Baneblades are petty bad, I'd quit the game if we got into a Baneblade meta, to make Baneblades on-par with Knights the need to be 75-150 pts cheaper, it's not a problem because of the pts. If you replaced the invuln on Knights and RIS with a Stratagem of similar power with an equal value of pts reduction, Sv, T or wounds then you'd make a less fun meta. Knights were hard to counter and really OP for a while, but because they are relatively hard to kill with lascannons they did not skew the game away from vehicles like the popularity of the Castellan did. You'll be creating a new Castllan meta if you make Baneblade tanks OP. We'll see how strong IH and IF are and how the meta shapes up.

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

Edit: I was wrong.

niv-mizzet wrote:Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

Ooh, good one. There should be a way for characters to join charges.

vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

The naut attacks 6 times, hits on 3s and does d6 damage
The galant attacks 5 times, hits on 2s and does 8 damage

The chance of a galant one-shotting a stompa is very real - even if the stompa survives, it will lose so many attacks and WS due to degrading one more time than every other model in the game, that the knight will easily survive and kill it next turn.

 Jidmah wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:Fighty-Melee support characters having to charge separately from any unit they’re leading/being escorted by.

Ooh, good one. There should be a way for characters to join charges.

vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Meanwhile, a stompa is a thousand points, has no invulnerable save and gets beaten to pulp by a single knight galant

He gets beaten by a single Gorkanaut, it's not external balance that's a problem here.

The naut attacks 6 times, hits on 3s and does d6 damage
The galant attacks 5 times, hits on 2s and does 8 damage

The chance of a galant one-shotting a stompa is very real - even if the stompa survives, it will lose so many attacks and WS due to degrading one more time than every other model in the game, that the knight will easily survive and kill it next turn.

Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Stompa is a GW plastic kit that's in the codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Repeating myself: gw nerfed fw super heavys to sell more plastic knights. Can't sell as many knights if there are other things running around that can go toe to toe with them. So raise the points through the roof and don't update rules. It took how long for hellforged low to get relentless?

Stompa is a GW plastic kit that's in the codex.

Oops fethed up. Not really up to date on orks. Still it seems arbitrarily overcosted compared to knights. Why not use hh rules and only allow low in games of 2000 points and up? Then adjust the costs and rules for some of the non knight low? Stompa definitely degrades too quickly. And I obviously don't play orks so I'm not saying that to help myself.

Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

You can blame the competitive players for that one. And a lot of the other rules that don't really make sense but were done for balance. 100% done because they were getting abused in highly competitive lists at cutthroat tournaments.

Character targeting. there's a character, in an open field, with no-one around, but you can't shoot him because of some scouts that you can't see in a building behind you, because they are closer.

characters within 3" of a non-character unit of the same type cannot be targeted. simple. easy to implement. makes sense!

Couple of people have already hit on the main issues, mainly that individual rules are not as much of a problem as the general design of the game. Like the issue of scale, whereby you have stats for different types of axes in the same battle as giant walking war machines which causes all kinds of issues trying to represent and balance all these elements. The simple lack of facings, both for units and vehicles, causes all manner of knock on issues. IGOUGO comes up a lot, which is more of a problem with how the game works now, with minimal cover and huge alpha strikes putting such a premium on going first. This is one of the primary issues I have with modern 40k, is how bad the terrain rules are. It strips away so much of the "wargame" element of the game. That and the general lack of to hit mods for certain things like shooting at long ranges which nullify a lot of the movement strategy.

The worst rules aren't what's in the game, it's more what's missing from the game.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

Yeah, but when you are off by a factor of three or 650+ points, something is usually amiss. Gorkanauts as knight-equivalents are actually pretty decent for their points.

I'd also argue that the infantry support kind of balances out against being able to use no relevant stratagems and usually coming without a kulture.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Points are more than just comparing Big Thing to Big Thing.

Knights as a non-soup force don't have infantry support - a Stompa does.

Not saying the Stompa is therefore fairly pointed as a result, just saying direct comparisson across similar role fulfillers is only part of the story.

Yeah, but when you are off by a factor of three or 650+ points, something is usually amiss. Gorkanauts as knight-equivalents are actually pretty decent for their points.

I'd also argue that the infantry support kind of balances out against being able to use no relevant stratagems and usually coming without a kulture.

Yeah is a fellblade really 347 points better than a 4 lascannon/twin heavy bolter sponson baneblade?

On topic: the ability for a unit to walk out of combat with no penalties allowing its buddies to gun down whatever it was in combat with.

 vict0988 wrote:
Volcano lance two-shots a Knight, that's problematic IMO, because what do you do when a volcano lance two-shots you? You just swarm the board with bodies

Knights. This is Knights that you call "bodies" here. You are planning to swarm with Knights. This should be enough for you to understand that you are playing the wrong game. The game you are looking for is either Apocalypse, or Adeptus Titanicus!!!
Everything you said is irrelevant because of this.

Soup. It warps competitive balance, has little to no drawback for those with access to it, is outright denied to other factions, and is extremely fluffy. Forces working together for assorted reasons can be one of the cooler aspects to represent on the tabletop so it shouldn't be eliminated, but soup has been a meta defining force regardless of ingredients. It's time to reign it in or share it with the rest of the class.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Volcano lance two-shots a Knight, that's problematic IMO, because what do you do when a volcano lance two-shots you? You just swarm the board with bodies

Knights. This is Knights that you call "bodies" here. You are planning to swarm with Knights. This should be enough for you to understand that you are playing the wrong game. The game you are looking for is either Apocalypse, or Adeptus Titanicus!!!
Everything you said is irrelevant because of this.

With Astra Militarum There are no Knight players, only soup players with two or more factions in their soup, Astra Militarum are almost always one of them. Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

 some bloke wrote:
Character targeting. there's a character, in an open field, with no-one around, but you can't shoot him because of some scouts that you can't see in a building behind you, because they are closer.

characters within 3" of a non-character unit of the same type cannot be targeted. simple. easy to implement. makes sense!

The character targeting rules are a great example of lazy patchwork rules that make up 8th edition.

Look at how the raven guard are now exploiting this lazy rule! SUCH STRATEGIC!

The honeymoon is over. LONG LIVE THE LAZY BLOAT GOD!

We could just go back to putting characters in units and when the unit dies if they are close to another unit they join that unit like in older editions. I mean, Deathstars are so fun to play with, dOn'T yOu tHiNk?

I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

Nah we need a separate size stat. Keep in mind Necron Scarabs are the same stats as Infantry basically

I’ve proposed a size stat before. Can’t link it now (on the phone) but it’s there if you look.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I think character-targeting rules could do with being tightened up, though mainly for characters who are significantly larger than the units they are currently able to hide behind.

However, I think this would be far less of an issue if Auras were replaced.

A simple size chart would make sense to implement. The Characters can't be blocked by anything that's lower than 1 size below them.

So just for example's sake, let's say Guardsmen are 1, Marines are 2, Custodes are 3, and Roboute is 4. Infantry squads can't block LoS for Custodes Characters and Roboute can only be blocked by Custodes and larger. Something like that would make sense.

Yeah, something like that would be fine.

I was wondering if there was a stat that the size could be based on. Wounds seems like a terrible choice because it frequently bears absolutely no resemblance to a model's size. Maybe strength or toughness?

Nah we need a separate size stat. Keep in mind Necron Scarabs are the same stats as Infantry basically

Maybe a rework of the old bulky, very bulky etc. rules?

Here it is! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777343.page#10492641

 vict0988 wrote:
Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

No, it makes them good against melta-equiped units and bad against heavy bolter units. Which, again, is BAD.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Here it is! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/777343.page#10492641

Like it. Would work great with the "a talent for murder " rule from 30k if gw would give it to night lords in 40k.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

No, it makes them good against melta-equiped units and bad against heavy bolter units. Which, again, is BAD.

Not an argument.

Maybe not the worst but igougo. In battle i want to see some interventions or unexpected actions and moves.

It would work better if heavy armour was set to a 0+ save, for example, still failing on a natural 1, but didn't get an invulnerable.
Keeping invulnerable saves for lighter vehicles like raiders and away from heavy armour would allow meltas and las cannons to function as intended, for punching through heavy armour.

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Corennus wrote:
Worst rule in 40k?

Can't deep strike in turn one.

Makes a total mockery of the whole point of deep striking!

Oh boo hoo. DS from turn 2 onwards worked perfectly fine in every edition prior and only 8th changed that. It is not a problem, it is simply going back to how it should be.

What makes a mockery is the fact there is literally no risk in doing it. DS used to be about major risk vs reward for certain units, but now there is no reason not to do it.

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

Termicide squads, Obliterators, Tzeentch Flamers. Three there straight off of the top of my head that were mainstay DS units in many an army.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Missing out on shooting T1 is a huge loss unless your table prevents shooting T1. Deep Strike was hardly used in my experience with earlier editions, Veil of Darkness could be used T1 so it was good, Deathmarks got a bonus for DS and were RF so they kind of had to, Drop Pods could safely DS, but Terminators and Jump units? Never DS in my experience.

Termicide squads, Obliterators, Tzeentch Flamers. Three there straight off of the top of my head that were mainstay DS units in many an army.

What edition are we talking about? CSM Termies were bad in 5th-7th AFAIK. Obliterators could be deployed and shoot lascannons all game or could switch back and forth between that and another weapon in any case. All Daemons had to DS way back when, in 6th/7th I think Daemons mostly devolved into GDs, Stingrays and Tzeentch units summoning other units.

Did you personally use these tactics? Did you feel they were rewarding to play overall? I only used DS when I absolutely had to and then in meme armies with half a dozen veils of darkness in 5th/6th.

Three CSM terminators with multi-meltas were a staple units for most chaos armies. Drop in, blow up whatever you feel like, die. Obliterators were used pretty similary.

Stuff dropping from deep strike and blowing up vehicles rear armor was very common all through 5th and 6th. The only reason I had gretchin during those editions was to block deep strikers access to the rear armor of my battlewagons.

Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

I hate the commander rule because it was such a bandaid rule. It did absolutely nothing to address the real problem. Crisis suits are bad and commanders are just objectively better crisis suits. They could have easily fixed the issue in the year between index and codex release by buffing crisis suits and making commanders different from crisis suits through the addition of either built-in aura abilities or by making their wargear options aura abilities rather than identical to the crisis suit ones.

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

Why do you want to spam more than 3 Commanders except because they are underpriced? You can fall back and shoot and advance and shoot, that's the replacement for JSJ. I think giving the JSJ Stratagem to a single sub-faction was a mistake, but Tau are quite strong and unless you play competitively you can fit a unit or two of Crisis into your list and still have a good chance of winning.

I'm still buttmad that I can't use Infiltrators and Eliminators in Deathwatch.

You know, that organization that... actually would probably use Infiltrators and Eliminators religiously, considering their mission?

Just saying.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

No, it makes them good against melta-equiped units and bad against heavy bolter units. Which, again, is BAD.

Not an argument.

What isn't an argument?
Knights should be more vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons like melta than to heavy bolters. Because else the melta just don't have a target. That's what invulnerable on vehicle do, they make melta not have a target. This is bad.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Knights should counter big things, whether that's Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Leman Russes, they should not counter Infantry Squads and Heavy Weapons Teams with HBs. Invuls make them good in the big leagues where they belong.

No, it makes them good against melta-equiped units and bad against heavy bolter units. Which, again, is BAD.

Not an argument.

What isn't an argument?
Knights should be more vulnerable to dedicated anti-tank weapons like melta than to heavy bolters. Because else the melta just don't have a target. That's what invulnerable on vehicle do, they make melta not have a target. This is bad.

Saying that something is bad is not an argument, thanks for clarifying.

Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save? That's like saying that no units should have high Toughness and a good Sv because it invalidates weapons with the poison ability which are supposed to be good against high T units, but it's bad against units with a good Sv.

Do you not see the issue where one player hasn't brough enough anti-vehicle to take out 3 Knights and is forced to use non-AV weapons to take them out being extremely fun if not only do Knights have a large wound pool meaning even if you do damage you might not kill one, but you also do terrible damage so you might never kill one? Let's say half your Tactical Squads are armed with heavy bolters, half are armed with meltaguns, your opponent's Knights have a 2+/7++ instead of 3+/5++. As soon as they take out your meltagun squads you're toast, but with the 3+/5++ both weapons do middling damage and you're not just relying on a narrow set of weapons to do the job. The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

T8 already invalidates a huge portion of weapons, S4 is mostly useless and S3 is very also very weak. Give all Knights a 2+ and AP-0 and AP-1 weapons are vastly inferior and now the Knights can have a field-day after they crush the parts of your army that have a chance of dealing with Knights and if they can't because you've spammed lascannons or maybe they're melee Knights against a castle with an effective meat shield and you can swiftly cut them down because you've brought the right counter. A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights. It devolves the game into being decided to a huge degree by match-making or list-tailoring.

If you would make knights a bit slower and less deadly then it wouldnt be much of a problem if they were tankier. I think it would make for more interesting games if the knight player had to try to target the melta squad and the opposing player tried to use it to the best of its abilities. Would be very important in that matchup and create tension. Right now we dont even have that melta squad but rather 2 heavy bolter squads and that makes it more boring.

You could also limit the amount of knights as well. There are many other options on how to solve it but to make everyone skip meltas and use rof weapons always doesnt make for engaging game play.

Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

Shhhhh don’t spoil it.

As for worst rule Other than all of the terrain rules being crap or pay walled in yet another book, I think it’s mortal wounds there boring and lazy and were mostly a fix to rampant ++ and +++ saves which were fixes to the crazy amount of higher ap quality weapons which were a fix to all the high armour saves which were a fix for the volume of fire issues which were a fix for..... you know what really to a complete over haul of the armour system and the weapons systems so there not crap band aided together and over simplified.

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights.

I'm gonna need some evidence for that. Based on my trial games, fewer invulns has been better for TAC lists. With invulns you're basically telling a TAC list that the few anti-tank guns they brought are useless. Knights with their invulns force me to bring skew lists. Knights without invluns are only as tough as two russes (for the cost of two russes) and TAC lists can handle those just fine.

Also the suggestion for more wounds/sv only applies if playtesting reveals new knights to be too fragile. If they're fine then they're fine and can stay at 3+ 24 W, just without the invuln.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Shouldn’t a TAC list have anti-tank too?

Yes, a skew list might have more though. Let's say you have 40% anti-GEQ, 30% anti-TEQ, 30% anti-tank in your TAC list. Let's say anti-GEQ has a damage effect of 30 against Knights, anti-TEQ has a damage effect of 30 against Knights and anti-tank has a damage effect of 40 against Knights. Now if the Knight player destroys the 30% of your list that has the anti-tank, you'll be down to 60/100 damage effect. If you build an anti-tank skew list with 20% anti-GEQ, 20% anti-TEQ and 60% anti-tank and you lose 30% of your list (all anti-tank), you'll have a damage effect of (15+20+40)/100=75/100.

If we skew the Knights further so 40% anti-GEQ has a damage effect of 20, 30% anti-TEQ has a damage effect of 30 and 30% anti-tank has a damage effect of 50, now if you lose those same 30% of your list you'll be down to 50/100 damage effect. If you build a skew list in this world then you'll be at (10+20+50)/100=80/100. By skewing Knights' level of weakness to any one type of gun you are making them relatively harder to beat with TAC list and relatively easier to beat with an anti-tank skew list.

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights.

I'm gonna need some evidence for that. Based on my trial games, fewer invulns has been better for TAC lists. With invulns you're basically telling a TAC list that the few anti-tank guns they brought are useless. Knights with their invulns force me to bring skew lists. Knights without invluns are only as tough as two russes (for the cost of two russes) and TAC lists can handle those just fine.

Also the suggestion for more wounds/sv only applies if playtesting reveals new knights to be too fragile. If they're fine then they're fine and can stay at 3+ 24 W, just without the invuln.

Anti-tank guns are not useless against Knights with an invul, at the very least you'll be eating their CP by making them use the Rotate Ion Shields Stratagem, assuming they don't use that then lascannons are pretty effective. I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

If you think Knights are OP then nerf them at their pts cost, not their rules, otherwise you might end up ruining balancing levers and incentivise skew lists just like giving SM Combat Doctrines makes them skew their lists more heavily toward the low-AP shooting that benefits a relatively higher amount from -1 AP than high AP shooting does. It's obvious and nobody needs to tell anybody that Knights won't become a menace if you remove their invulnerable save, the question is, if their pts effectiveness is to remain the same, is it better for the game that they have an invul or more wounds/better Sv characteristic. You can tag a Leman Russ in melee to make it stop Shooting, if all you bring is Leman Russes an Ork player can charge one and then tag four or five other Leman Russes with Pile In moves, the mechanics of the game prevents Leman Russ spam from being popular, which is why I said a Baneblade meta would make the game less fun than a Knight meta, there would be relatively fewer units that could do anything to Baneblades and assuming they were cheap enough they'd be able to quickly wipe out your anti-tank and you wouldn't be able to do anything to them. Knights, on the other hand, have part of their pts efficiency baked into their resilience against anti-tank weaponry, making them relatively less durable against anti-GEQ than a Baneblade if you assume the two units have the same pts efficiency.

Baneblades are not pts efficient, so they are not a problem, Knights are pts efficient and don't have any weaknesses, but that just means they are a popular item on the meta and has a relatively low effect on the meta. Baneblades being pts efficient would mean you either build a Baneblade army or you don't take units that are weak to anti-tank weapons and in any case you load up on anti-tank. It would make armies samey and boring, which is worse for the meta than a Knight meta would be, Knights would just have a good win-rate and a lot of top placements, the major impact on the game from Knights would come in terms of their weapons, not their weaknesses because they have no real weaknesses (in terms of ranged weapons anyways). The reason why heavy bolters and other such weapons are used against Knights is because of other parts of the meta, like Orks and GSC, if you had a Knights/Repulsor meta you'd see a bunch of lascannons becoming more popular way of dealing with both Knights and Repulsors.

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

Why do you want to spam more than 3 Commanders except because they are underpriced? You can fall back and shoot and advance and shoot, that's the replacement for JSJ. I think giving the JSJ Stratagem to a single sub-faction was a mistake, but Tau are quite strong and unless you play competitively you can fit a unit or two of Crisis into your list and still have a good chance of winning.

It isn't that they are underpriced. People are going to cram as many as they can in no matter the price because next to riptides they are the best unit tau has. The only way to disincentivize taking commanders is to make crisis suits and commanders different and unique so that every list doesn't become "I need a special weapons unit, crisis suits carry all my special weapons, commanders are objectively better crisis suits. time to throw in a commander."

Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

No. You are explicitly telling TAC lists that their high ap weapons that they payed for should not matter. (plus a lascannon is still twice as good as a HB even trhough a 4++)
Removing invulns isn't a balance fix, it's a gameplay fix. I don't like invulns for how they play, and this doesn't just apply to knights: Tau battlesuits for example can get 4++, and I want that changed too.

Dandelion wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

I'm also telling TAC lists that 100% of their list matters, not just 30%.

No. You are explicitly telling TAC lists that their high ap weapons that they payed for should not matter. (plus a lascannon is still twice as good as a HB even trhough a 4++)
Removing invulns isn't a balance fix, it's a gameplay fix. I don't like invulns for how they play, and this doesn't just apply to knights: Tau battlesuits for example can get 4++, and I want that changed too.

What exactly do you mean by "should not matter" if you mean "your chances of winning against Knights should not be primarilly decided by whether you've brought enough anti-tank" then yes that is what I am saying, but the weapons still have an impact in the game and as you mentioned (and which I already know which should be clear from my previous comment) anti-tank guns are already pretty decent against Knights. I don't understand why you want the rules for 40k to follow the logic of our world, isn't it possible that shields exist in the fantastical setting that is 40k, that increase protection little to no amount against low-AP weapons but proves powerful against high-AP weapons. I'm pretty sure that's the case with some types of armour going back to the middle ages. Different types of armours provided different levels of benefits against different weapons, or maybe that's just Warcraft 3.

Games against knights are already decided by the amount of anti-tank guns you brought. Invulns just arbitrarily make them worse. So instead of having some guns be good against knights, you have no guns that are good against knights.
I also said nothing about realism. I don't expect 40k to follow our logic OR lore-logic because it's a game, everything is an abstraction. I just find invulns to be anti-fun. If I pay for AP -4, I expect to get AP -4 dammit.

Also, AP (armor penetrating) has been the most effective means of dealing with armor since the middle ages because it's literally the definition of AP. Your perception of medieval armor has been skewed by games, I think. With body armor you either use a spike to punch through or just use a hammer to transfer concussive force through the plates. Modern AP rounds are just spikes you shoot really fast.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

Broken units are broken, no matter how many you're allowed to bring. That's just straight fact.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Tau really should be able to field three commanders, with the named ones excluded from count, just like tank commanders or daemon princes.

That would require GW to actually balance their points though! Plus we all know how amazing of a fix Rule of Three is for the same situation of undercosted units!

You haven been ignoring that units can be fine in low numbers and broken in large numbers for dozens of threads, so just go back to read one of those if feel like you need that discussion in your life once more.

Rule of 3 is good for the game, commanders should have a proper rule of 3 implemented just like everyone else. The one-per-detachment limit just forces weird HQ choices on them, and is only in place because it was implemented before the rule of 3 existed.

Broken units are broken, no matter how many you're allowed to bring. That's just straight fact.

Some units aren't too bad on their own, but when taken in bulk are a problem.

Let's take a T8 unit-it renders S4 and less basically useless. If you can only take three T8 units, and they're about 250 points each, you field a maximum of 750 (or 3/8ths of a 2k list) T8 points, meaning S4 can do good work against 1,250 points.

If you can take nothing BUT T8 units, then anything S4 or worse is basically pointless.

Edit: Which is not to say the Rule of Three was handled WELL, but in theory it's good.

The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

That I agree with. It'd be much better to address the actually problematic units and give them their own restrictions (like Commanders, but better applied) than to have a blanket "NO MORE THAN THREE UNITS EVER IN A 2K GAME!"

I mean, you want to bring 8 Plagueburst Crawlers? That can be an issue.
6 Veteran Squads with a mix of Flamers and Meltas? Not an issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

That I agree with. It'd be much better to address the actually problematic units and give them their own restrictions (like Commanders, but better applied) than to have a blanket "NO MORE THAN THREE UNITS EVER IN A 2K GAME!"

I mean, you want to bring 8 Plagueburst Crawlers? That can be an issue.
6 Veteran Squads with a mix of Flamers and Meltas? Not an issue.

Yep, i mean nobody would care if someone brought 4 squads of terminators, or possesed, or or or.
But bringing an army of invul +t8 is fine by GW 's metric.
It is basically an answer to size creep and overly efficient models and also there to fix the bad codex internal balance due to traits varrying from useless to Auto pick.
But alas...

 vict0988 wrote:
Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save?

But there tend to be invulnerable save on too many vehicles.

 vict0988 wrote:
The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

The problem with knights as an army is that it automatically becomes an extremely skewed list. It doesn't and cannot have horde, it doesn't and cannot have heavy infantry, it always is just basically the same chassis over and over again.
You could make the same argument about a fully mechanized IG or marine force: once the anti-tank is dealt with, it's hard to do any damage.
You could make the same argument about an Ork or IG horde list: once only the anti-tank remains, it's very hard to do any damage.

 vict0988 wrote:
A TAC list should be fun to play against a Knight list and changing 3+/5++ 24W to 2+/7++ 24 W or 3+/7++ 30W makes TAC lists worse against Knights. It devolves the game into being decided to a huge degree by match-making or list-tailoring.

Well, I'd say that the TAC list did include some anti-tank, so the switch from 3+/5++ 24W to 3+/7++ 30W doesn't change much. The lack of invul will allow the anti-tank to deal ~6 extra wound (or more, really, because even a single melta shot not being stopped by an invul can easily be 5/6 extra wounds) before being toast, and then for the rest of the army it's going to be the same as before. (The 2+ armor save is different because even if there are less HP left, the armor save makes remove more HP harder…)
I mean, sure, it means that the AT is more important to try to protect and deploy correctly. But that's strategy and there should be strategy.

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

Tau Commanders nerf was a loophole with the faulty design of crisis suits. Simply put the math is that commanders are better at ALL weapon options except flamers.

The main reason for this is BS, an the fact that Tau guns cost way too much.

Well the CA2018 pts is good for BS2, not for the normal suits. Simply put they need to make these weapons cheaper for normal suits. Simular to how Imperial Guard Special weapons points change if they are on vets (BS3) vs redshirts (BS4).

However the whole mechanic is moot as even if they did this Tau have better options in other areas. So this is more of a MakeCrisisSuitsGreatAgain meme....

My personal view is Rule of 3 is a joke outside of some instances. It's a suggestion not a core rule. The joke as it is more of GW admitting yeah if some units are copy and pasted to large degrees the game Math can break down.

The most "offensive." instance of this is something like 2x mortar teams in a 2k list. What literally will kill anything the opponent has regardless what it is due to weight of dice and nos los / range.

Commander spam should never been nerfed it's not even that good any more anyway because the game meta has shifted to a very anti-character meta. With the whole various ways new sm rekt characters.

What's funny is genestealer cults is even worse than tau.

peoples views on the rule of 3 comes from the type of player you are.
Type a) does not care what is used, the player must adapt to the game.
Type b) wants the game to adapt to THEM.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.

Why not fix both? High BS/WS units paying more for weapons has been done quite a few times now.

It still think it should be three commanders total plus special characters, not three of each kind. Daemon princes work the same way.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

I think the rule of three is what protects us from things like a bloat-drone meta or SAG spam. Deciding to not enforce the rule of 3 has all but destroyed the tournament scene at one of the stores near me. They are lucky to have four people show up for their events, as people got sick of facing 7-8 drones or 9 SAGs every other game.

Rubbish LoS/terrain rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

X078 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

X078 wrote:
Tau Commander limit for matched play.
Not only do you need 3 detachments to even field 3 commanders since it's only 1 per detachment and maximum of 3 total. You also cannot take 3 crisis commanders plus any of the character commanders...

Would you prefer Crisis Commanders were actually fairly priced?

I would prefer to be able to field 3 commanders as per rule of three + any character commanders. Best would ofc be to only limit per Commander type so 3 xv85 commanders + 3x XV8 commanders + etc. And yeah i think they are priced quite ok. I we get back JSJ (which never should have gone away) then yeah maybe adding a few more points can be ok, but i digress.

The new meta. 9 commanders and drones. *shudders*

Commanders pay BS4 prices for their weapons while having BS2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is, the rule of three is a slapped on fix for a issue of GW's own making.
It also hits alot more units that would be no issue aswell and treats them equally as "well" as it does the big things.

That said it is better to have it then not.

I don't think its a situation that's easily fixed. Sometimes you need a unit to be cheaper than it's worth, because otherwise it won't get used in armies. Rule of 3 allows for that without having to stress about an over correction.

Incorrect. Regular Crisis Suits are super overpriced.

If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

Personal peeve is multi shot weapons replacing template ones.

I get why they did it, but they now are massively over efficient at low model count units. A simple fix would be to limit the number of hits relative to the number of models in the unit.

I mean I despise the entire edition in general but the entire of psychology (particularly how routing works) and vehicle damage in particular.

IGOUGO.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Can't meltas just be good against all the vehicles without an invul save?

But there tend to be invulnerable save on too many vehicles.

Others have said that one invuln is too many. I'm saying the current paradigm is fine, there are lots of vehicles without invulns and some appropriate vehicles with it. Like Daemons that don't obey the laws of reality or physics or units with special advanced shielding technology that reduces the penetrative effect of lascannons more than heavy bolters. If you also believe that one is too many it's disingenuous to say that there's too just too many when AFAIK all the vehicles that currently have it have a fluff justification for having it. In the specific case of Knights it also serves as a gameplay modifier that makes Knights better against anti-tank that would otherwise determine the outcome of every match including Knights.

The problem is that Knights as a solo army become more painful to play against the fewer counters they have, whether they have effective counters is less important than whether you have anything at all that can hurt them at least a little bit.

The problem with knights as an army is that it automatically becomes an extremely skewed list. It doesn't and cannot have horde, it doesn't and cannot have heavy infantry, it always is just basically the same chassis over and over again.
You could make the same argument about a fully mechanized IG or marine force: once the anti-tank is dealt with, it's hard to do any damage.
You could make the same argument about an Ork or IG horde list: once only the anti-tank remains, it's very hard to do any damage.

Am as far of an expert on tournament play as can be, but just because a crucial option for a codex gets nerfed, does not mean other options from the codex automaticly replace it. Sometimes the army just stops being played. If after a potential commander nerf, the tau codex won't have units in similar points range that can replace the lost fire power, tau will just not be played.

I care it doesn't even matter whether a spam list is the most OP thing to me, it's just one of the most boring things to see on the table. I played a game against CSM bike spam before they were buffed, my opponent spammed them because he just loved bikes, that didn't make the army super fun to play against or see on the table. Even if you limit yourself to just 3 big squads of bikes, that's still a bike list, you really don't need 4+ squads to get a theme going. I'd like to see a variety of GW's great sculpts on the table, especially when one of the bad sculpts happens to be powerful and so is spammed more than others (Dreadknight). I don't think I ever appreciate it when someone spams a unit, good or bad.

So you would have an issue with my 31. due to all being disciples? because the army was laid out in 7th where R&H veterans with grenadier upgrade were a troop slot and now aren't and consistent with my own picture of the army aswell as modelling?

That's bollocks man, i think most players would rather play against a bunch of bikers then a "varied" list of knights.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

I'm pretty sure they'd see more use, they've already topped 3 GTs this year, Commander trio have topped 40 GTs AFAIK assuming every top Tau list includes 3 Commanders.

Prague Open February 16, 2019 - 68 Players - Bernhard Lang #3

Mork's Maritime Open April 13, 2019 - 32 Players - Logan Marks #4

Stay in Your Lane GT June 22, 2019 - 43 Players - Brian Pullen #1

Of course, GW could decrease the price of Crisis so low that they become as good or better than Commanders, but given the frequency with which Tau top events I don't see how that would be a wise decision. A nerf to Commanders would make more sense. I'd also welcome a change that made unique and variant versions of a character all count toward the same rule of 3 counter, of course, there's nothing stopping a tournament organizer or a playgroup to change the rule of 3 to this since it is just a suggestion.

They would not. Crisis suits will never be used with their current cost and requirement to take 3 suits minimum. A unit of crisis suits costs more than the commander, is squishier thanks to character rules, is competing with Riptides for the slot and is only BS4 and so relies on markerlights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Am as far of an expert on tournament play as can be, but just because a crucial option for a codex gets nerfed, does not mean other options from the codex automaticly replace it. Sometimes the army just stops being played. If after a potential commander nerf, the tau codex won't have units in similar points range that can replace the lost fire power, tau will just not be played.

This. Currently tournament Tau lists are usually some combination of the following: Commanders, Ethereal, Riptides, Drones, Pathfinders and Fire Warriors. Maybe missile pod Broadsides.

The #1 list for the SoCal 2019 open was 2 XV85 commanders, 1 Coldstar Commander, 3 Riptides, 3 minimum sized Fire Warrior squads, 3 units of 11 drones, 1 minimum unit of pathfinders and an ethereal.

Here are the units not in that list: Crisis teams, Stealth teams, Kroot of any kind, Vespid, Piranha, Hammerhead, Skyray, Devilfish, Razorshark, Sunshark, Broadsides, Farsight, Shadowsun, Aun'Va, Aun'Shi, Darkstrider, Sniper Drones, Breachers. Maybe some more, don't have the codex in front of me.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I care it doesn't even matter whether a spam list is the most OP thing to me, it's just one of the most boring things to see on the table. I played a game against CSM bike spam before they were buffed, my opponent spammed them because he just loved bikes, that didn't make the army super fun to play against or see on the table. Even if you limit yourself to just 3 big squads of bikes, that's still a bike list, you really don't need 4+ squads to get a theme going. I'd like to see a variety of GW's great sculpts on the table, especially when one of the bad sculpts happens to be powerful and so is spammed more than others (Dreadknight). I don't think I ever appreciate it when someone spams a unit, good or bad.

So you would have an issue with my 31. due to all being disciples? because the army was laid out in 7th where R&H veterans with grenadier upgrade were a troop slot and now aren't and consistent with my own picture of the army aswell as modelling?

That's bollocks man, i think most players would rather play against a bunch of bikers then a "varied" list of knights.

I actually love playing 40k most of the time unlike a lot of people (not talking about Not Online!!!), I'd rather play a game than not against almost anything. Just like I played a number of games July-December 2018 against Knights with Necrons which was a very unfair matchup, I'd happily play your all Disciple list, but I'd prefer if you brought something more diverse. If I was the grand ruler of tournaments I'd count all Knights with a Wounds characteristic of 20+ as the same datasheet so you can bring any combination of up to 3 Knights but no more. I don't care whether all-Knights lists are worse than soupy Knights, they're not as nice to look at or as interesting to play against. If I was TO I would not allow your list.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you suddenly removed Commanders, Crisis Suits aren't going to suddenly get use.

I'm pretty sure they'd see more use, they've already topped 3 GTs this year, Commander trio have topped 40 GTs AFAIK assuming every top Tau list includes 3 Commanders.

Prague Open February 16, 2019 - 68 Players - Bernhard Lang #3

Mork's Maritime Open April 13, 2019 - 32 Players - Logan Marks #4

Stay in Your Lane GT June 22, 2019 - 43 Players - Brian Pullen #1

Of course, GW could decrease the price of Crisis so low that they become as good or better than Commanders, but given the frequency with which Tau top events I don't see how that would be a wise decision. A nerf to Commanders would make more sense. I'd also welcome a change that made unique and variant versions of a character all count toward the same rule of 3 counter, of course, there's nothing stopping a tournament organizer or a playgroup to change the rule of 3 to this since it is just a suggestion.

They would not. Crisis suits will never be used with their current cost and requirement to take 3 suits minimum. A unit of crisis suits costs more than the commander, is squishier thanks to character rules, is competing with Riptides for the slot and is only BS4 and so relies on markerlights.

Did you read my post? They are already being used in tournaments. They have made top 4 three seperate times, I agree they are far from the best unit in the Tau Codex, I think they're a little bad actually, but Commanders are insanely good and I think that's colouring your view of how good Crisis need to be.

Currently tournament Tau lists are usually some combination of the following: Commanders, Ethereal, Riptides, Drones, Pathfinders and Fire Warriors. Maybe missile pod Broadsides.

The #1 list for the SoCal 2019 open was 2 XV85 commanders, 1 Coldstar Commander, 3 Riptides, 3 minimum sized Fire Warrior squads, 3 units of 11 drones, 1 minimum unit of pathfinders and an ethereal.

Here are the units not in that list: Crisis teams, Stealth teams, Kroot of any kind, Vespid, Piranha, Hammerhead, Skyray, Devilfish, Razorshark, Sunshark, Broadsides, Farsight, Shadowsun, Aun'Va, Aun'Shi, Darkstrider, Sniper Drones, Breachers. Maybe some more, don't have the codex in front of me.

I'm going to say another bad rule is detachments. Not because they are a bad idea, but because of how they let you spam/cheese stuff in 40k and get bonuses for it. They really should have done a system like the Rites of War in 30k:

You have the "normal" Force Org from before, and you can pick certain Rites of War (even themed per army) which have benefits and drawbacks. For example, you may be able to take Terminators as Troops, but everything has to be in a transport. Legit drawbacks rather than letting you take all elite choices and get a (smaller, granted) benefit for doing it. Does anyone remember when in the leadup to 8th edition GW said that detachments would be there to encourage people to bring armies that fit the background of the faction? Yet it turned out to do the opposite.

I also think they should have brought the Compulsory Troop rule from 30k, and things like Drones, Cultists, etc. your automaton/irregular units should not count as Compulsory, meaning they don't fill the required slot. This would help put a stop to the silly spam lists that ignore taking most of the staple of the army for whatever is cheapest to have more bodies. Also a 25% Lord of War limit would be nice, but not sure how to handle all Knights then (which should never have been a full faction anyway, only a supporting choice)

I think the only reason for detachments was forcing people to bring more troops and HQ to the tables and thus making the game more infantry-heavy, while leaving options open so people could still field whatever they wanted at the cost of having a less optimal army.