Now, this may seem like a weird thing to say - a game depicting the most violent future ever, preoccupied with killing? Never!
My point is that, when I was playing in older editions, tabling the opponent was a lot less common. You had units which your guns couldn't hurt, and that was your fault for not bringing anti-tank, and you had units which were too big to hurt, and that was your fault for not bringing enough template weapons. But more importantly, the game was fought over objectives, and it was rare for an army to be lowered below 25% of their starting models by turn 6/7, at least in my meta. Reading through old white dwarf batreps has reinforced this for me.
I think that GW lost their way as soon as they started trying to make units capable of deleting units. When people found that you couldn't kill hordes fast enough to table the opponent, higher RoF weapons started to appear. When players found that they couldn't kill a pure-tank list, most of which were toting these new high-RoF weapons, they brought in hull points to make tanks vanish when the paint got chipped.
Now we have repulsors who can reliably delete near enough any non-superheavy in a turn, every turn. We have leman russes shooting their 20-shot guns twice a turn. We have ex-blast weapons which are brilliant at killing tanks and overkill for infantry.
It used to be that if you found yourself facing a horde, you had to think tactically on how to pull a win out of a game where it was unfeasable to kill them all. Now, everything is tuned to the max for killing and the tactics are simply what to kill first. A whole army of terminators was hard to kill, but easy to outmanoeuvre. Now, with everyone tuned up for maximum damage output, bringing terminators is a joke. It used to be terminators would shrug off anything except anti-tank weapons. Units throwing out bucketloads of dice was the exception, like a full ork horde making it into combat intact. Now, 3 aggressors put out enough firepower to suck the fun out of playing against them.
They made the game too fast. First you could run instead of shoot, then you got a 2D6" charge, then they brought in rules to let you move, advance and charge. You used to get 1-2 turns grace before combat, then they made turn 1 or 2 charges almost a given, then they ramped up the firepower to compensate, and now here we are, almost everything dies almost every game. I think that they could tone it down significantly if they just slowed everything down - drop charges back to 6", advancing to D3". Then they wouldn't need a gun that puts out 20 shots at a time, twice per turn, or units which fire 12+2D6 shots per model in units up to 6, rerolling yadda yadda yadda. everyone could just breathe we could return to needing 2 turns to kill things if you don't focus on them, and you'll have a chance to react to your opponent instead of numbly watching your army get destroyed in a single turn.
I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.
Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.
Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.
So maouvres as it is now, should not matter in a wargame?
While some of your points are accurate others are definitely biased based on your local meta, even going back to 5th edition in our local meta it was very common to see someone tabled before turn 5.
We do definitely see earlier charges now than were common before. Tanks going to wounds I think was a good change the old system was to rng a tank could die from 1 shot or be 100% unkillable.
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
I agree, but like to point out that the extra firepower was there before assaults got faster to compensate for that. I remember turn 3 being the turn I'd usually call the Waaagh! in 5th because that was the turn when all the assaults were happening. Many codices and editions later, by turn 3 I have lost four times the number of boyz I used to field ten years ago.
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
I think you're misidentifying your issue. You are concerned that too many armies have too many tools available to kill hordes even if the army is not tooled out to deal with hordes, and that armies tooled out to deal with hordes are hilariously capable of dealing with Hordes.
I say this because the game is definitely not just about killing things. Killing things is the primary method of restricting your opponent's ability to achieve the game's objectives, but in both regular 40k games, ETC, and ITC, the objectives can often be something other than killing things (ITC has "kill more" as an objective, but otherwise it's entirely possible to win an ITC game with one killing 1 enemy unit a turn). On top of that, there are many units that can withstand a huge amount of punishment that you need special tools to deal with (T8 enemies like Knights and Tank Commanders, units with multiple layers of defenses like Plaguebearers, or units with massive penalties to hit like Alaitoc Flyers).
Right now the only Horde armies that really stands much of a chance in the competitive scene are Plaguebearer Spam and Orks that toss boyz out as a means of a speed-bump while their big gunz go to work. Other horde builds just can't push it through. Even then, though, that's talking Competitive Only, which is crazy strong builds, and even at that level there are 2 builds for going a horde army! If you do a horde army at your local level, I'm sure you can find success. If your local meta is strongly anti-horde to the point that only a competitive horde list will win, well then you either need to adjust what your game plan is with your current army, or you need to start looking at a different army with a different game plan. See if any friends will lend you some models to try something new out.
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
The Newman wrote: Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
I'm sure it was easier to pack in your car though!
Jidmah wrote: I agree, but like to point out that the extra firepower was there before assaults got faster to compensate for that.
I remember turn 3 being the turn I'd usually call the Waaagh! in 5th because that was the turn when all the assaults were happening. Many codices and editions later, by turn 3 I have lost four times the number of boyz I used to field ten years ago.
That's because it was such a massive slog to get across the table with terrain rules back then tripping over every rock while the enemy back pedals
.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.
Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.
So maouvres as it is now, should not matter in a wargame?
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: While some of your points are accurate others are definitely biased based on your local meta, even going back to 5th edition in our local meta it was very common to see someone tabled before turn 5.
We do definitely see earlier charges now than were common before. Tanks going to wounds I think was a good change the old system was to rng a tank could die from 1 shot or be 100% unkillable.
Nearly no one misses the old tank rules were I play, they were immersive but just horrible to play with
The Newman wrote: Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
I'm sure it was easier to pack in your car though!
That 13-model army weighed more than the 60-model army I take to the club now, and also took up almost as much space because of how much padding it required to move safely.
First and foremost, I blame the AP system. It has gotten out of control. -AP is doled out like candy on Halloween and has ultimately rendered armor saves useless.
I also blame the ITC and Nova formats because their meddling with rules foster this style of game play.
oni wrote: I also blame the ITC and Nova formats because their meddling with rules foster this style of game play.
Why do people always say ITC meddles with rules? They have their own missions, which whatever, there's a million and one missions and they just have something consistent. The only rule they change is the 1st floor of ruins blocking line of sight. And if you say "if it sits it fits" well that was an event's choice (the So Cal Open) and isn't a rule they say that you must use at an ITC event or anything. What other rule am I missing that they've changed? And if you say it's because of their past actions in 7th edition, that's over 2 years ago now, and 7th edition was a broken farce (as in literally the rules made games actively bad). Get over it.
I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
It has been a long time since armies that small were 2K. In 5th : Captain - 100, Chaplain - 100, 3x10 Tacs - 510, Assault - 190, dreadnought - 105, Predator - 60. With wargear you're looking at close to 1500.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: While some of your points are accurate others are definitely biased based on your local meta, even going back to 5th edition in our local meta it was very common to see someone tabled before turn 5.
We do definitely see earlier charges now than were common before. Tanks going to wounds I think was a good change the old system was to rng a tank could die from 1 shot or be 100% unkillable.
Nearly no one misses the old tank rules were I play, they were immersive but just horrible to play with
Same where I play, they were not immersive and generally slowed the game down a lot with all the armor facing arguments and firing arc arguments, but as a different thread is showing there are people who want it back.
Jidmah wrote: If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!
It's in large parts the game overcompensating for unkillable death stars in 7th.
7th kinda went off the deep end with things you couldn't reasonably hurt, thus in reverse 8th went off the deep end on the other side with everything dying, usually long before the game is even half done.
I was annoyed by this lately too. Some ideas I had included:
A drip-feed of units onto the board - like each player can only have one unit per Battlefield Role per Detachment, and once that unit is removed they can bring another one on at reinforcements.
Allowing units to be recycled back onto the board.
Give units actions they can do besides move and shoot to address each other (hide, dig-in, fortify, raise a family). Physical position and the 1" rule means that some units can block others, while shooting and combat address stuff directly. Switching Overwatch back to something a unit is on rather than an automatic thing they do when charged.
Part of this was borrowing Plot Points from Pulp Alley, so that when a unit encounters a Plot Point/Objective they have to do something. Doesn't really gel with the Warhammer turn structure though.
Darsath wrote: I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.
Would be nice if they had some sort of save that was given due to environmental factors like terrain, units being the way of a shot, etc that wasn't reduced by AP..... Not sure such a crazy concept has ever been done before but maybe it would help keep the game from being a total blood bath.
Snarkyness aside the game has really gone overboard with firepower and their recent addiction to MtG style wombo combos has made the game into an excercise in inflicting rapid mass casualties.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's in large parts the game overcompensating for unkillable death stars in 7th.
7th kinda went off the deep end with things you couldn't reasonably hurt, thus in reverse 8th went off the deep end on the other side with everything dying, usually long before the game is even half done.
Worst part is that it wouldn't of been that hard to fix. Nerf invisibility, cap FNPs to maybe 4+, and cap or outright remove rerollable saves. That and reduce the range that Lookout Sir had.
I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.
It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.
Darsath wrote: I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.
Would be nice if they had some sort of save that was given due to environmental factors like terrain, units being the way of a shot, etc that wasn't reduced by AP..... Not sure such a crazy concept has ever been done before but maybe it would help keep the game from being a total blood bath.
Snarkyness aside the game has really gone overboard with firepower and their recent addiction to MtG style wombo combos has made the game into an excercise in inflicting rapid mass casualties.
New mechanic for 9th. Wombo Combo BREAKER!!!
Spend 3 cp to break any wombo combo.
“Get got? Got them back for 3cp! The game you asked for!”
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
catbarf wrote: I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.
It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.
In 8th a lot of the problem is that you need meaningful terrain which is large, clunky, or immersion breaking where as in past editions the smaller stuff like wrecks, barracades, rocks, craters, etc where practical because it didn't need to cover a whole unit to have a gameplay effect.
That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.
Darsath wrote: I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.
Would be nice if they had some sort of save that was given due to environmental factors like terrain, units being the way of a shot, etc that wasn't reduced by AP..... Not sure such a crazy concept has ever been done before but maybe it would help keep the game from being a total blood bath.
Snarkyness aside the game has really gone overboard with firepower and their recent addiction to MtG style wombo combos has made the game into an excercise in inflicting rapid mass casualties.
New mechanic for 9th. Wombo Combo BREAKER!!!
Spend 3 cp to break any wombo combo.
“Get got? Got them back for 3cp! The game you asked for!”
catbarf wrote: I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.
It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.
In 8th a lot of the problem is that you need meaningful terrain which is large, clunky, or immersion breaking where as in past editions the smaller stuff like wrecks, barracades, rocks, craters, etc where practical because it didn't need to cover a whole unit to have a gameplay effect.
That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.
Nah. Ever more ridiculous terrain, huge L-shaped LoS-blockers, house-rules for LoS-blocking ruins at the 1st floor, terrain-shaming Tournament Organisers who don't fill their tables with buckets of stuff, etc.. are just the response to the growing lethality, just like in 7th Ed. independent FAQs were the response to the rules growing ambiguity and confusing complexity. They help keep the game playable for a bit longer (but also disguise the structure problems for a while). Ultimately, these counter-measures are not sustainable however, if the underlying problematic trend isn't addressed.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models
One manticore, two medusa, and two hydras, at 2500 points.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
+1 your +1.
So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?
Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?
It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!
well if you replace the units with their primaris replacment it ain't that bad. 4 buffbots, 6 units of intercessors, 2 units of aggressors, 2 dreads and two executors is a valid army in my area.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
+1 your +1.
So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?
Probably the glue kicking in
Imo at this point it is pretty clear, that due to the lethality and the range escalation the terrain rules needed to be improved.
And GW has expanded their range of games quite a bit, and not all suffer the issues 40katm does.
F.E: someone brought up KT rules, which make A manouverability ALOT more significant and B Does curb some of the issues with shooting over long range at peak efficency and C has an inbuilt functioning cover system and simplification for Los rules which make it just a more stable system imo.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
+1 your +1.
So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?
Probably the glue kicking in
Imo at this point it is pretty clear, that due to the lethality and the range escalation the terrain rules needed to be improved.
And GW has expanded their range of games quite a bit, and not all suffer the issues 40katm does.
F.E: someone brought up KT rules, which make A manouverability ALOT more significant and B Does curb some of the issues with shooting over long range at peak efficency and C has an inbuilt functioning cover system and simplification for Los rules which make it just a more stable system imo.
And (D) nobody can call me a dirty Eldar player because CWE isn't bonkers OP.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.
Sunny Side Up wrote: To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.
More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).
Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.
Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.
Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.
+1!
Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.
Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.
I found, back in 6th, that games are a lot more fun if I stick to a "demi-company" style list. Defensive basic troop, offensive basic troop (basically 2 Tac squads), fast skirmisher (Assault Marine squad), a heavy support backfielder (Dev Marines), lead by a beatstick (Captain/CM), assisted by a support character (Libby/Chap/etc). Add some support or depth (Rhinos, Preds, etc). Call it a list. I do this a lot with Marines and CWE, but most factions (all, I think?) can do it.
Doesn't work so well when going up against tourny-quality lists anymore. And it just keeps getting worse. And worse yet, harder to do.
To add insult to injury, even bulking it up some, that list that used to be the core of a decent sized list? It's now just a small fraction of the points you need to fill out. So even when you start with that as a core, by time you've filled out 2k points, your list looks nothing like that.
And finally, much of what it does doesn't matter. There's no difference between Marines holding position or pushing forward anymore. There's no deadspace on the table to make the skirmishers matter. And there's no "winning combat", and less locking stuff up, so those skirmishers can't do more than how much they can kill. The strengths (such as limited vulnerability) and limitations (volume, penalties for moving, etc) that existed on the heavy support firepower have all but evaporated. Beatsticks that fought with some of your men got replaced by blenders who ate armies, and/or buffbubbles who you need to blob around for moar dakka.
Instead of combined arms, there's no real point in not just taking tons of nasty firepower. Because all you're doing is trading numbers.
Darsath wrote: Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.
Haha, want to see the lists? I'll post up a Battle Report and link to it.
Jidmah wrote: If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!
If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?
Jidmah wrote: If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!
If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?
Assuming everybody would get updated around the same time. In actuality, Games Workshop would probably just half the points costs of everything they couldn't be bothered to update.
Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.
Yeah but the obvious problem here is that you just remove a huge part of the game and flatten a lot of the faction diversity that comes from the stratagems and synergies.
The core rules are so basic that any of the diversity or tactics (such as they are) has to come from things like stratagems and auras.
Bharring 782835 10642624 wrote:
And (D) nobody can call me a dirty Eldar player because CWE isn't bonkers OP.
You maybe suprised. I have been called a WAACGK player for wanting a 4th or 5th ed codex back, when I didn't play back then. Dirty stuff stays dirty, unless it makes up the majority. that is why only marines always will be pure.
Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.
Yeah but the obvious problem here is that you just remove a huge part of the game and flatten a lot of the faction diversity that comes from the stratagems and synergies.
The core rules are so basic that any of the diversity or tactics (such as they are) has to come from things like stratagems and auras.
Those are aspects that I criticised when 8th got launched. Faction as it stands is actually rather poor, around the same as the Daemon-star meta (probably the worst meta).
Jidmah wrote: If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!
If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?
Assuming everybody would get updated around the same time. In actuality, Games Workshop would probably just half the points costs of everything they couldn't be bothered to update.
Jidmah wrote: If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner
That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.
Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!
If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?
Assuming everybody would get updated around the same time. In actuality, Games Workshop would probably just half the points costs of everything they couldn't be bothered to update.
Isn't that what they're doing NOW?
You are correct. There is an issue with the core of 8th edition that prevents just changing points from solving the problem. Issues like Rule of 3, Deployment space, Aura ranges etc prevent this alone from being an effective solution. It's why we're seeing elite units coming to 20-30 points now.
My dad showed me a battle between two armies in an old white dwarf that had ultramarines and IG, fighting vs tyranids on some ice planet. heavy stuff could sink in to the ice depths. I don't think that both armies had a 100 models on the table.
I don't know when, but at some time the point drop of everything must have been huge. Like 50% on everything or more. Oddly enough in an old GK codex, they still cost 20 plus points.
Karol wrote: My dad showed me a battle between two armies in an old white dwarf that had ultramarines and IG, fighting vs tyranids on some ice planet. heavy stuff could sink in to the ice depths. I don't think that both armies had a 100 models on the table.
I don't know when, but at some time the point drop of everything must have been huge. Like 50% on everything or more. Oddly enough in an old GK codex, they still cost 20 plus points.
8th looks like a massive acceleration in this regard. Points have been going down, and army size up, since I got into the hobby. But it's speed looks to have accelerated.
I used to have a fairly set 1500 point list. Bunch of Aspects lead by Asurmen and a Serpent - as I didn't have the points to use a Falcon instead.
Then, the new CWE book hit, and I had to add lots of points - another tank, additional squads - just to hit 1250.
Size inflation has been an issue since 3rd edition. In fact, according to the legend that's why 3rd edition was done the way it was; originally it was a cleaned-up 2nd edition but management wanted to increase the scale so people would buy more, so 3rd edition was hastily thrown together based on a homebrew WW2 game Rick Priestly had.
Ever since editions have increased the size of the game to the utter ridiculousness it is now where it's 28mm Epic. Superheavies, even flyers don't belong in normal games of 40k, and 2000 points is too large IMHO.
CapRichard wrote: I don't remember an edition where the focus wasn't on KILLING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT BECAUSE IT'S FUN!
Arguably, i saw more people play with terrain and the mission with 8ed than before... which is weir, honestly.
I mean considering baseline 40k terrain rules., regardless if more or less terain, that ain't changing much, unless ofcourse you houserule.
Which i reccomend.
And seemingly in this thread alot of people aswell.
Karol wrote: My dad showed me a battle between two armies in an old white dwarf that had ultramarines and IG, fighting vs tyranids on some ice planet. heavy stuff could sink in to the ice depths. I don't think that both armies had a 100 models on the table.
I don't know when, but at some time the point drop of everything must have been huge. Like 50% on everything or more. Oddly enough in an old GK codex, they still cost 20 plus points.
I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.
But even then the missions were secondary to the sheer fun of massacring your opponent's toy soldiers.
What HAS changed is the nature of terrain. There were very few games where you could trace line of sight across the table. Area Terrain blocked it. And did so up until 5th,I think. I remember in 4th that Tau jump-shoot-jump was nasty because of their ability to scoot behind a wood or a ruin.
While the game HAS gotten more aggressive, I can honestly say that the vast majority of games I have won were by playing the objectives in the mission. Granted, I dont play very aggressive armies, but playing the game mission is still very important.
That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.
To be fair, if the Unit doesn't have a BS 3+ they all are shooting like Orks in Kill Team with Long Range/Obscured. I play Orks (always Bad Moons too) alot in Kill Team. I think there is something very liberating in needing like 8-9 to hit (Long Range, Cover, Assault/Heavy, Flesh Wounds, Stealth Fields, etc.) but sixes still always hit with Orks. In many ways using Kill Team shooting modifiers in full 40k would aid the Orks quite a bit. Even the best shooters are likely hitting only 50% of the time (and I would give out cover like candy same as Kill Team does) or worse giving footsloggers or melee armies a little left when they get to assault range. I would make Ork big guns with low shots a harder sell though. I don't know if I would directly port Kill Team ranged attack modifiers without making so further adjustments as well. I do think it would work out fine and get 40k closer to a game of a couple of rounds of engagement fire before assaulting that feels like the text book way games should go to me.
I always lean on the idea that 40k really should bring back/improve a suppression/pinning mechanic of some sort. At the same time reducing the actual killing potential of everything a bit. I find weird to have a platoon (okay more like company) based game with automatic weapons that doesn't have any real fire and maneuver mechanics. On top of that, perhaps one of the biggest selling points of 40k is seeing the spectacle of two armies of the table which can be very short lived as big chunks of those armies are scooped off the table. I would much rather it be a bit more difficult to remove models but about as easy as it is now to pin units that might have for go a turn to rally or fight with reducing power. I am brainstorming something like using the current leadership tests not removing models but forcing that unit losing that many models in fighting strength until they spend a rally action or something. The attack still caused a loss in combat effectiveness (or so if the unit rallies) but that unit still might be able to do something provided no more pressure is applied to them. An ignored pinned unit might even get themselves back in action mid to late game as well. I still miss suppression mechanics of Bolt Action and to a lesser degree Dust Battlefield and Dust Warfare.
I definitely want to see tabling as something that is incredibly hard but not impossible to do within 6 turns. I think a good casualty range for the type of game 40k is more like about 50%-75% of the starting army is removed off the table at the end of 6 turns.
Whilst I don't think IGUGO is inherently an unworkable system, more killy the game is worse it becomes. Having units wiped out before they can act just is not fun nor does it result an interesting gameplay. Now assuming that they do not want to completely rewrite the system into some sort of alternate activation, there are some things they could do.
First is simple. Decrease the killyness of units. Show some restraint in giving offensive buffs and in writing stats of weapons. Weapons that are both multishot and multidamage need to be rarer in particular. AP should really be held in check too. AP better than -3 really doesn't need to exist and even that should be rare.
Better terrain. Now, everyone seems to agree on this one. Getting unobstructed shots is way too easy; intervening terrain doing absolutely nothing unless it is completely LOS blocking is a particularly big failure. Also the cover should do more. AP is handed out like candy, so one more point of armour is not so handy. Cover should probably grant hit penalties (armywide traits should not.) This would also make intuitively more sense as cover would not benefit already well armoured warriors more than lightly armoured ones like it now does.
More status effects. This one is most complex, but potentially most interesting. There should be more stuff that does things other than kill. Morale is the biggest and most obvious avenue for this. It is really boring that now morale just might result some extra kills if you kill a lot of models. Seems redundant. Instead morale should work more like in the older editions, and force status effects that would make units unable to hold objectives, fight worse or perhaps even force movement. More weapons an psychic powers should inflict status effects as well. For example grav weapons seem to lack a role currently, but I could easily see them slowing the units they hit. And of course this would give GW a change to sell packs of status effect markers!
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
You're being incredibly disingenuous with that comment. Leafblower was one list. One list that I never. EVER saw IRL. It was a theoretical list and nothing more. A normal list around that time would not table something, even your Vulkan He'Stan triple Redeemer list would struggle to wipe out a whole army.
In my entire time of playing 3rd through 5th I can only recall a single time I tabled someone in the mission (4th ed?) where you got VPs for killing your opponent's models as per usual but also got VPs for your own units alive at the end of the game. I tabled him and won the game 3000vps to zero as all my units were above half strength or vehicles were not immobile by the end of the game. That was a very lucky turn of events to get that though.
Jidmah wrote: I'm still wondering why I can't fit my 5th edition ork army into 2000 points though...
I wanna say it's probably the cost of vehicles/bikes?
Bikes are cheaper now. In 5th they were 25ppm, plus the nob upgrade and the bosspole were another 15 points that are spared now. Pks were also 25 points and now 13, probably 9 soon.
A tipycal battlewagon had a rolla and 1-2 big shootas, so 115-120 points, now it's 139, not a huge difference.
Trukks are a bit more expensive now, 64 compared to 40 (including the mandatory ram), but some of the most common characters were more expensive back then.
I honestly have no idea why a 5th edition ork army (when the standard format was 1500 points, but I can ask the same question even if it was 1750) can't fit into 2000 points of an 8th edition game.
some bloke wrote: Now, this may seem like a weird thing to say - a game depicting the most violent future ever, preoccupied with killing? Never!
My point is that, when I was playing in older editions, tabling the opponent was a lot less common. You had units which your guns couldn't hurt, and that was your fault for not bringing anti-tank, and you had units which were too big to hurt, and that was your fault for not bringing enough template weapons. But more importantly, the game was fought over objectives, and it was rare for an army to be lowered below 25% of their starting models by turn 6/7, at least in my meta. Reading through old white dwarf batreps has reinforced this for me.
I think that GW lost their way as soon as they started trying to make units capable of deleting units. When people found that you couldn't kill hordes fast enough to table the opponent, higher RoF weapons started to appear. When players found that they couldn't kill a pure-tank list, most of which were toting these new high-RoF weapons, they brought in hull points to make tanks vanish when the paint got chipped.
Now we have repulsors who can reliably delete near enough any non-superheavy in a turn, every turn. We have leman russes shooting their 20-shot guns twice a turn. We have ex-blast weapons which are brilliant at killing tanks and overkill for infantry.
It used to be that if you found yourself facing a horde, you had to think tactically on how to pull a win out of a game where it was unfeasable to kill them all. Now, everything is tuned to the max for killing and the tactics are simply what to kill first. A whole army of terminators was hard to kill, but easy to outmanoeuvre. Now, with everyone tuned up for maximum damage output, bringing terminators is a joke. It used to be terminators would shrug off anything except anti-tank weapons. Units throwing out bucketloads of dice was the exception, like a full ork horde making it into combat intact. Now, 3 aggressors put out enough firepower to suck the fun out of playing against them.
They made the game too fast. First you could run instead of shoot, then you got a 2D6" charge, then they brought in rules to let you move, advance and charge. You used to get 1-2 turns grace before combat, then they made turn 1 or 2 charges almost a given, then they ramped up the firepower to compensate, and now here we are, almost everything dies almost every game. I think that they could tone it down significantly if they just slowed everything down - drop charges back to 6", advancing to D3". Then they wouldn't need a gun that puts out 20 shots at a time, twice per turn, or units which fire 12+2D6 shots per model in units up to 6, rerolling yadda yadda yadda. everyone could just breathe we could return to needing 2 turns to kill things if you don't focus on them, and you'll have a chance to react to your opponent instead of numbly watching your army get destroyed in a single turn.
That's my thoughts, anyway.
My thoughts:
I have not been tabled this edition, at all. [I can't say the same for my opponents] All of the games I have lost I lost because I failed to occupy and hold enough objectives to win the game.
I can probably count the number of games where I won by tabling when I wouldn't also have won on objective on my hands, though I haven't kept count, and I know at least two of those were because I destroyed half the enemy army in two turns and the other half couldn't arrive so the scoring didn't progress long enough to look different, and in those cases the tabling definitely wasn't really a factor of my doing so much as them getting greedy on Deep Strike.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Unpopular Opinion: Super-Heavies shouldn't be in games of 1000 points or less.
Just my opinion.
I love playing my super heavys but I'm going to do you one better.
No super heavys below 2000 just like hh. I could maybe go for the no more than 25% of points rule too if gw would just fix the points on non ik/ck low.
I feel the slide to the current point was when flyers were introduced and became prevalent. This was around 6th edition from memory. Flyers prior to this point were more FW and rarely seen. My nightmare from 6th was the helldrake.
Smirrors wrote: I feel the slide to the current point was when flyers were introduced and became prevalent. This was around 6th edition from memory. Flyers prior to this point were more FW and rarely seen. My nightmare from 6th was the helldrake.
This is my memory too. 3rd-5th played very similarly as I recall, with each edition being a refinement of the previous one. Then came 6th edition and all hell broke loose: we got flyers and super-heavies and hull points and 2D6" charge ranges+overwatch fire and advance moves and rapid fire weapons with no movement penalties and fire-on-the-move heavy weapons and "Look out, Sir!" and challenges and a thousand pages of USRs. The game just totally broke. It feels like GW has been trying to clean up the mess since then. I miss my 5th edition. ...Except for the vehicle rules. They were awful.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
You're being incredibly disingenuous with that comment. Leafblower was one list. One list that I never. EVER saw IRL. It was a theoretical list and nothing more. A normal list around that time would not table something, even your Vulkan He'Stan triple Redeemer list would struggle to wipe out a whole army.
In my entire time of playing 3rd through 5th I can only recall a single time I tabled someone in the mission (4th ed?) where you got VPs for killing your opponent's models as per usual but also got VPs for your own units alive at the end of the game. I tabled him and won the game 3000vps to zero as all my units were above half strength or vehicles were not immobile by the end of the game. That was a very lucky turn of events to get that though.
The entirety of 7th was one giant punch fest with D-weapons. People weren't aiming for objectives then, either. The notion that previous editions were more enlightened is not true. You even mentioned kill points, which was one of the most popular "missions" for quite some time.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...The entirety of 7th was one giant punch fest with D-weapons. People weren't aiming for objectives then, either. The notion that previous editions were more enlightened is not true...
The notion that 7th was more enlightened is false, sure. I personally think 4th was quite a lot more enlightened.
Smirrors wrote: I feel the slide to the current point was when flyers were introduced and became prevalent. This was around 6th edition from memory. Flyers prior to this point were more FW and rarely seen. My nightmare from 6th was the helldrake.
There were a few models in 5th that became flyers in 6th, storm ravens and doom/night scythes come to mind, they were just fast skimmers in 5th.
Smirrors wrote: I feel the slide to the current point was when flyers were introduced and became prevalent. This was around 6th edition from memory. Flyers prior to this point were more FW and rarely seen. My nightmare from 6th was the helldrake.
There were a few models in 5th that became flyers in 6th, storm ravens and doom/night scythes come to mind, they were just fast skimmers in 5th.
I'd point at the introduction of jump-MCs (Riptide/Dreadknight/Wraithknight) and easy move-and-fire AP2 large blasts (Riptide again) in 5th. That feels like the point where new models stopped being an interesting side-grade that let you build lists differently, and more of the "OMG BUY THREE OF THE NEW THING AND WIN GAMES" overblown bigger-is-better design that came into its own with Escalation and Flyers in 6th.
Imo the 8th was kinda good in the beginning. The problem is that GW is totally inconsistent : codexes are very imbalanced, even in the most basic things (all armies do not have the same number of relic / stratagem ; there are some stratagems that are so good that they define an entire army, like the Vect, etc.). The imbalances created by those inconsistencies force GW into producing more and more rules up to a point where some armies just stomp others and can table in a few turn.
Riptides were 6th. DE had their planes first introduced as very fast skimmers in 5e and I think the Storm Raven which was a Blood Angel only unit I believe to go with their fast vehicle theme. Otherwise I don't think there were any other "flyers" released in 5e.
5ths problem had to do with a few core rulebook problems and a few books at the end of the edition. I think if that edition had been modified and refined like 8th is, it would have been a fantastic basis. The only thing I miss really is formations from future editions and not the ridiculous ones of 7th but the more subtle theme ones such as the void claw formation for Space Wolves that allowed the squad to act as Teleport beacon and come in early. Those were fun. The stupid deep striking ridiculous grav weapons locked behind a theoretical paywall that no one actually abided by was something that should burn.
Smirrors wrote: I feel the slide to the current point was when flyers were introduced and became prevalent. This was around 6th edition from memory. Flyers prior to this point were more FW and rarely seen. My nightmare from 6th was the helldrake.
There were a few models in 5th that became flyers in 6th, storm ravens and doom/night scythes come to mind, they were just fast skimmers in 5th.
I'd point at the introduction of jump-MCs (Riptide/Dreadknight/Wraithknight) and easy move-and-fire AP2 large blasts (Riptide again) in 5th. That feels like the point where new models stopped being an interesting side-grade that let you build lists differently, and more of the "OMG BUY THREE OF THE NEW THING AND WIN GAMES" overblown bigger-is-better design that came into its own with Escalation and Flyers in 6th.
Kind of yeah, though the riptide wasn’t out until 6th ed
Lethality in regular 40k is a serious problem with power creep, where attack strategems are priced significantly lower in cp to defensive ones. I don't think GW will ever fix this issue without quite a big retooling of the game (I hear 9th is not going to change a lot).
I would highly recommend anyone that is currently unhappy with 8th edition to give the new apoc a try. Every time I play, I have 50-75% of my army still alive after turn 6 and, due to the fact that the strats come as random cards, it is much harder to assemble a big wombo combo. If 99% of the players in my area weren't unwilling to play anything but base 8th edition, I would completely change to apoc. The games are even played on bigger tables and so fit the number of models that I would normally take to a 2k point game in 8th.
Even super heavies feel extremely well balanced...
Some stratagems are a straight bad idea. Like, you wouldn't need to test play or anything to tell someone that it's stupid. Mainly the "fire twice" stratagems, or extra shots stratagems. Anything that substantially increases your fire power, and can combo with other stratagems and auras, will be easily abused. I think it's this kind of comboing that results in the issues we see now.
I have a foot dar type list. I really don't like playing it anymore because I have to take off like 2-3 squads off the board T1. It feels like I might as well not bothered putting the models down or painting them.. I remember days of 4th ed. It was rare for entire unit to get deleted outright let alone 3. And that was with playing nids.
The no superheavies below 2k is a good plan but everything has tools to deals with superheavies at this point so you'd still be left with the firepower.
I remember seeing a rare Land raider(because they were expensive...) being like "ooooohhh dang that thing has like 4 guns and an all around top tier armour!" It just does not seem impressive anymore lol. Nothing does when you have Things like the castellan...
I don't know what the fix is. Previous edition rules were slow but the result was more immersion and more meaningful gameplay.
I think strategems in general feel very cheap... About 80% are just plain useless. 10% are used all the time and 10% just being game/list defining.
Yeah, strategems aren't a terrible idea in theory, as long as their effects are limited and mostly add flavor or are used to tip something barely successful over the edge. But super-powered strategems like those that let you move, shoot, or fight twice are just game-breaking--and yes, this should have been noticed during the first draft. These strategems pump the level of lethality up to 11 in a way that's just not fun to play against, and require that everyone chase the metagame just to stay alive until turn three.
Argive wrote: I don't know what the fix is. Previous edition rules were slow but the result was more immersion and more meaningful gameplay.
I'd imagine it's difficult to roll things back at this point short of splitting the game into apoc (current rules) and skirmish... but then people will just complain until they have all their apoc stuff in skirmish and around it goes. And I doubt GW has any interest in a revised oldhammer game.
Argive wrote: I don't know what the fix is. Previous edition rules were slow but the result was more immersion and more meaningful gameplay.
I'd imagine it's difficult to roll things back at this point short of splitting the game into apoc (current rules) and skirmish... but then people will just complain until they have all their apoc stuff in skirmish and around it goes. And I doubt GW has any interest in a revised oldhammer game.
Vehicle facings were for sure my favourite thing from the past. Had to run gene stealers toward the back of the tank in order to try and rip through it to deal some damage... Fire arcs, difficult terrain, templates etc... I get are an annoyance but these days you can get a laser pen that draws target lock line for your. Army painter sells em for like £6-7. Could easily make one that cross sections your vehicle into 4 quarters. Just need t o have a centre point designated for every model and youre golden.. Oopps tere I go wishlisting again..
The stupidest thing is auras... Everything is just conga lining and it looks so dumb... Everything bunching together to get all the -+ modifiers and rerolls.. Lack of templates has seriously removed any need to think tacticaly about where your dudes go. They just need to be within 6" to get this cool buff. That's all.
Re-rolls everything should not be a thing.
Has anyone played a game of 8th without modifiers or re-rolls btw? I want to do an experiment if ignoring anything that allows for re-rolls or modifiers apart from cover.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's in large parts the game overcompensating for unkillable death stars in 7th.
7th kinda went off the deep end with things you couldn't reasonably hurt, thus in reverse 8th went off the deep end on the other side with everything dying, usually long before the game is even half done.
I dunno. I still have issues with triple riptide spam with freaking tau. They do a lot of damage and just don't die regardless of what I hit them with. You can't actually bog them down because they fly. They also shoot a lot from a long distance with a weapon that's effective against most things and then they have drones all over the place to bodyguard them. Absolutely un-fun and the only anti-infantry shooting weapons dark eldar have worth a crap beyond like 12" range are poison and disintegrators and poison is honestly not that effective in many situations.
It's not as bad as 7th by any means with an absolute delete all gun-line of tau that never dies and wipes out fragile dark eldar. However it's not as shooty as it used to be and that's a good thing. Still needs the nerf bat somewhat with drones and riptides.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Auras annoy me. The most effective way to play Space Marines is in a big bubble of dudes, marching up the table. Boring.
Be glad your auras actually get a chance to work. Much of a dark eldar army is mounted in transports meaning none of the guys inside want to be inspired by auras. The issue with auras is even if you have a leader mounted in a transport with their buddies they don't want to all be inspired for some reason....not even the hq themselves. Oh and in one of the most mobile factions in the game we only have HQ's on foot. I find this all absolutely Eff'ing stupid.
Darsath wrote: Some stratagems are a straight bad idea. Like, you wouldn't need to test play or anything to tell someone that it's stupid. Mainly the "fire twice" stratagems, or extra shots stratagems. Anything that substantially increases your fire power, and can combo with other stratagems and auras, will be easily abused. I think it's this kind of comboing that results in the issues we see now.
They've started to catch on a little by tying the cost to unit size. I'd love it if Cacophony cost varyied CP based on the PL or size of the unit
I mean, as much as I too hate 8th ed (moral, vehicle facings, everything can kill everything, psychology in general) I played a game of 8th last weekend and it wasn't so bad. Would I rather be playing 6th? Hell yes, but unfortunately noone else at my club does.
Blackie wrote: I honestly have no idea why a 5th edition ork army (when the standard format was 1500 points, but I can ask the same question even if it was 1750) can't fit into 2000 points of an 8th edition game.
Even in 5th 2000 was a very commonly played format, and those don't fit into today's 2000. I was running a typical battlewagon bash back then, so 3-4 battlewagons, lootas, burnas, boyz, 1-2 trukks, koptas, thrakka, kff mek, nob bikers, painboy on bike. Almost all models stayed the same price or got more expensive.
Darsath wrote: Some stratagems are a straight bad idea. Like, you wouldn't need to test play or anything to tell someone that it's stupid. Mainly the "fire twice" stratagems, or extra shots stratagems. Anything that substantially increases your fire power, and can combo with other stratagems and auras, will be easily abused. I think it's this kind of comboing that results in the issues we see now.
They've started to catch on a little by tying the cost to unit size. I'd love it if Cacophony cost varyied CP based on the PL or size of the unit
IMO all shoot twice stratagems need to go - and yes, that includes the two ork stratagems. How do you properly balance anything when you have to account for it doubling its output?
remove stratagems, and make the actual units have interesting rules again for gods sake
Not really. Stratagems could be a good tool to make 1x unit X in an army list interesting and "competitive", without making it spamable, as only one unit benefits from that key stratagem in a given turn. It's an interesting way to get a soft 0-1 limit into the Codex, combined with the "named character" tag and the "relic" tag, that appear to be more socially accepted by players than a straight mechanical 0-1 limitation in the unit rules.
Daedalus81 wrote:I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.
Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.
Leaf Blower?
You know, one of the things I absolutely DETEST about netlist garbage is the pet names that you damn near need a WIKI to keep track of.
The Newman wrote:Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
The only times I ever saw tablings that fast in 3rd is if someone faced a BA player and wasn't smart enough to put distance between them. Lethality was only really an issue in 3rd if you were caught in a crossfire or a Sweeping Advance.
remove stratagems, and make the actual units have interesting rules again for gods sake
Not really. Stratagems could be a good tool to make 1x unit X in an army list interesting and "competitive", without making it spamable, as only one unit benefits from that key stratagem in a given turn. It's an interesting way to get a soft 0-1 limit into the Codex, combined with the "named character" tag and the "relic" tag, that appear to be more socially accepted by players than a straight mechanical 0-1 limitation in the unit rules.
My army had gear choices turned in to stratagems. I would very much like to have weapon upgrades on all units in my army, same way 1ksons or DW has it. There is nothing interesting in to having to pay points for a potential stratagem use all across all the units, when in most ideal situations it will affect one unit in the army.
You know, one of the things I absolutely DETEST about netlist garbage is the pet names that you damn near need a WIKI to keep track of.
It's a pre-Grey Knights 5th Edition list that won one of the 'Ard Boyz tournaments at the time.
It's essentially an Imperial Guard gunline (including things like Psyker Battle Squads which throw out large templates, as well as large template artillery tanks) with, at the time, an Inquisitor in there that allowed most of the army to shoot/intercept anything coming from reserves (with things like Drop Pod armies being the counter-of-choice-during-that-time for gunlines and/or avoid having your army in your deployment zone covered in large templates turn 1).
Also, it was a 2500 points army list that had 5 (FIVE!!!!!!!) Imperial Guard Artillery tanks, 2 Valkyries and 2 Chimeras. Man, spam was bad in those days
catbarf wrote: I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.
It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.
In 8th a lot of the problem is that you need meaningful terrain which is large, clunky, or immersion breaking where as in past editions the smaller stuff like wrecks, barracades, rocks, craters, etc where practical because it didn't need to cover a whole unit to have a gameplay effect.
That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.
Actually, they're fine, and one of the best short factions. Remember in kill team unlike 'proper' 40k, a '6' is always a hit, and penalties come thick and fast - at 15" range with a target in cover, both a guardsmen and a shoot a boy need a 6....But the ork is firing twice as many shots at higher strength.... in fact he puts out statistically the same firepower as a one-shot-hitting-on-5 bolter-armed marine.
Yes, the ork is much less effective firing at close quarters against targets in the open, but if you can't think of a reason why the enemy being at close quarters in the open in front of ork boyz is a good thing, you have more fundamental problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: re-roll everything bubbles needs to go. It needs to go now for everyone.
Guide, doom, chapter masters, etc. It needs to go.
An occasional very situational re-roll one strat for like 3CP might be acceptable.
Get rid of that and modifiers and I think we have a half-decent game.
Again, not to blow kill team's trumpet, but I think they made some very good design choices - most commanders have an aura ability, but they're a tactic you have to pay command points to 'switch on' for the turn... So a captain does give you rerolls a go-to, but only at a cost of not doing something else. And points get drip fed on a per turn basis, so you can't blow 8 on turn 1 on some reroll/double hit/shoot twice battalion-erasing combination rubbish.
Even in 5th 2000 was a very commonly played format, and those don't fit into today's 2000. I was running a typical battlewagon bash back then, so 3-4 battlewagons, lootas, burnas, boyz, 1-2 trukks, koptas, thrakka, kff mek, nob bikers, painboy on bike. Almost all models stayed the same price or got more expensive.
But there isn't a huge difference in points for the units you listed betwen these editions. Ghaz is exactly the same, boyz are a bit cheaper (+1ppm but cheaper nobz upgrades), KFF mek is 10 points cheaper, burnas are 2ppm cheaper while lootas are 2ppm more expensive, nob bikers plus painboy where really expensive back then, now certainly cheaper, koptas basically the same price unless you paid for the upgrades like the saw and in that case they were more expensive than now. BWs and trukks were cheaper (3-4 wagons and 1-2 trukks are 100 points of difference) but now you save a lot of points that you had to invest in fielding a nob, bosspole and power klaw; overall you should have basically the same army. Other common units like kanz, dreads, bikes are exactly the same cost, characters are maybe cheaper now as I remember the two biker HQs (warboss and Wazzdakka) were 150ish and 180 points. Buggies were way cheaper but they were also a different unit, now basically phased out. In lower formats armies from 5th edition and 8th can be even closer.
The only reason why I can't fit one of my 5th edition list (I also play with wagons, trukks, lootas and bikes) into a 8th one is the format of the current game which favors lists with multiple battallions. I didn't need more than 1 or 2 HQs in 5th (or 7th or 3rd, the other editions that I played) and 3-4 troops were enough. That's the difference, points values are quite close overall.
The Newman wrote:Pthth, I remember lists with a Captain, Librarian, two Terminator squads and a Dreadnaught coming in at 2000 points. I also remember turn 2 or 3 tablings being incredibly common in 2nd and 3rd.
The only times I ever saw tablings that fast in 3rd is if someone faced a BA player and wasn't smart enough to put distance between them. Lethality was only really an issue in 3rd if you were caught in a crossfire or a Sweeping Advance.
Tablings in turn 2 or 3 at competitive levels were not common in 3rd edition. It might have happen only because back then some units didn't have official models or they were super expensive metal blister (just consider that a 69 points unit of 20 gretchins and a runtherd had the same cost of a current gork/morkanaut as you needed to buy 8 blisters) so bringing optimized lists was hard for some armies. With my orks I got a lot of tablings in 3rd, but mostly because I played strictly WYSIWYG and fielding the army I wanted, or even something close to it, was flatout impossible due to ultra-expensive (gretchins, burnaboyz, meganobz, kanz, special weapons which competitive lists spammed and only available by metal models) models and other ones that needed to be scratch built like the cyborks, the KFF big mek, or the battlewagon because GW didn't sell official models. If I play now 3rd editions game I'd have all the models I need for competitive lists and games would be a lot more balanced and with more variety than 8th edition ones.
Even in 5th 2000 was a very commonly played format, and those don't fit into today's 2000. I was running a typical battlewagon bash back then, so 3-4 battlewagons, lootas, burnas, boyz, 1-2 trukks, koptas, thrakka, kff mek, nob bikers, painboy on bike. Almost all models stayed the same price or got more expensive.
But there isn't a huge difference in points for the units you listed betwen these editions. Ghaz is exactly the same, boyz are a bit cheaper (+1ppm but cheaper nobz upgrades), KFF mek is 10 points cheaper, burnas are 2ppm cheaper while lootas are 2ppm more expensive, nob bikers plus painboy where really expensive back then, now certainly cheaper, koptas basically the same price unless you paid for the upgrades like the saw and in that case they were more expensive than now. BWs and trukks were cheaper (3-4 wagons and 1-2 trukks are 100 points of difference) but now you save a lot of points that you had to invest in fielding a nob, bosspole and power klaw; overall you should have basically the same army.
All those "basically the same price" things are small point increases, which really add up while the discounts really aren't as big as they seem - the 15 lootas add 30 points, their move from elite to heavy requires addition HQ tax. - Thrakka went up by 10 - Runtherd went up by 25 - rokkit koptas used to be 45 and are 54 now, so +9 for each of the three to five I used to run - Nob bikers were 45 per model and went down to 38, with the three PK in that unit dropping to 13, the deleted Waaagh! banner reducing the cost by 15 and the skorcha went up to 17. Their pain boy went from 75 to 105, for a total of 37 points saved here - Nobz got 6 points cheaper per model and 36 for the three PKs, the Waaagh! banner went from 35 to 77, pain boy from 50 to 67. - Battlewagon were 125 (rolla, plates, 1 big shoota) and are 139 now and the removal of dedicated transport status requires additional HQ tax - Trukk was 35 and is 64 now - 20 boyz with PK nob were 160 and are 153 now, trukk boyz were 112 and are 97 now. If you include their transport, both units have gotten more expensive despite cheaper PK, nobz and no longer needing boss poles
In general, the armies I used to play in 5th are 100-200 points more expensive than they used to be, even if you drop stuff that's no longer needed like runtherds or shootas to protect wagons from immobilizing and ignore detachment limitations.
For exercise I've recalculated the 1500 points competitive armies I used to play in 5th edition. Yes I still got the lists!
Spoiler:
List A: Kan wall
2x Big meks with KFF 4x20 boyz with nob, bosspole and klaw
3x3 kanz with big shootas
2x7 lootas
8 lootas
1500 points in 5th edition, 1524 in 8th.
List B: triple wagon and biker troops
Wazzakka
2x6 bikes, nob, pk and one bosspole
3 wagons with big shoota and rolla
3x20 boyz with nob, pole and pk 8 lootas
1500 points in 5th, 1314 in 8th plus the cost of the bike HQ (180 in 5th)
List C: two wagons and ghaz
Ghaz
Big mek with KFF 2x17 boyz with nob, pole, pk 2 wagons with big shoota and rolla
3x12 trukk boyz, nob, pole, pk and ram on the trukks
2 buggies with rokkits
10 lootas
1500 in 5th, 1505 plus the cost of the buggies which I don't remember in 8th as they are index only.
List D: wagons, ghaz and nobz
Ghaz
Big mek with KFF 17 boyz with nob, pole, pk 5 nobz all with eavy armor and cyb body, dok, 2pks, pole, banner
2 wagons with 2 big shootas and rolla
2x12 trukk boyz, nob with pole, klaw, ram on the trukks
10 lootas
3 buggies with rokkits
1500 points in 5th, 1430 in 8th plus the cost of the buggies so overall a bit more expensive but with banner nob and painboy that aren't simple upgrades for the nob unit.
List E is basically the same but with 2x17 boyz in wagons and biker nobz, just one unit of trukk boyz, no buggies but a couple of more lootas. Harder to make a comparison because banner nob on bike doesn't exist anymore and biker painboyz are index only.
So, list A is just slightly more expensive, but with list B I even get to add new stuff as it's cheaper now, list C is now 80ish points more expensive, list D (and maybe also E) is very close.
Some stuff like bikes and dreads have the same price.
But some units like meganobz were ultra expensive before: 50 in 3rd, 40 in 8th, now 35 and we could get a discount on the pk sooner or later like power fists. Mad dok was 160 points in 5th, now 86. Biker boss 125 without attack squig and cyb bodies (150 with these mandatory updrades), now 99. Kommandos and stormboyz are cheaper. Painboy is a bit more expensive but now you can put it near any unit and he buffs a lot of models, in 5th he was just an upgrade for the nobz unit, same for the banner nob, little meks or the runtherd which are standalone units now, not just part of something else...
I honestly don't see any real difference, basically just trukks are now significantly more expensive, but with 8th edition mechanics we don't need as many as before. Something you could never afford before, even in casual games, like the aforementioned meganobz, stormboyz and grotsnik now can actually see the table.
Of course lists must be adapted shitfing from different editions but changing just like 25% of lists that were good 10 years ago to get a game with a long time collection doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
To me the biggest issue of 8th edition is playing at 2000 points as the new standard, I consider it too high, and the need of relying on stratagems to make stuff work. I consider games with no CPs (which means lists optimized on units, not combos) way more fun that current ones.
Argive wrote: I don't know what the fix is. Previous edition rules were slow but the result was more immersion and more meaningful gameplay.
I'd imagine it's difficult to roll things back at this point short of splitting the game into apoc (current rules) and skirmish... but then people will just complain until they have all their apoc stuff in skirmish and around it goes. And I doubt GW has any interest in a revised oldhammer game.
Ironically we have apoc and it is far, farrrrrrr less ridiculously lethal.
Play a current 2k sized army in apoc and 1/3 of your force will be alive turn 5 if you lose the game.
Chunk of the issue was tackled in last (this? I guess?) year's Chapter Approved, which effectively did away with tabling, as a total wipe out did not equate to an automatic win.
So someone cunning and clever with their objectives can rack up VPs in their favour.
Blackie wrote: For exercise I've recalculated the 1500 points competitive armies I used to play in 5th edition. Yes I still got the lists!
Out of curiosity I ran my old 1850 sisters list. A little over 2000 with the beta points, looks like a couple of hundred more on top after the codex releases. High vehicle costs while infantry keep dropping.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Chunk of the issue was tackled in last (this? I guess?) year's Chapter Approved, which effectively did away with tabling, as a total wipe out did not equate to an automatic win.
So someone cunning and clever with their objectives can rack up VPs in their favour.
We had a couple of games where this came up over the course of the year - a turn 3 tabling is almost always a guaranteed win for all CA 2018 missions. Unless you are playing one of the few maelstrom missions which leave you starved for new tactical objectives, catching a 10 point lead is usually doable. However, those missions where you draw only a few cards tend to be extremely reliant on luck, so I don't know whether that's better.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Chunk of the issue was tackled in last (this? I guess?) year's Chapter Approved, which effectively did away with tabling, as a total wipe out did not equate to an automatic win.
So someone cunning and clever with their objectives can rack up VPs in their favour.
If someone cripples you to having 1/3 or even half their points, and specially if he kills the scoring units and the units that are suppose to kill theirs, then no racking of points happens. Instead of a one turn tabling, there is just 2-3 turns of your opponent clearing your stuff from objective while you hope the dice will roll hot on inv, unless they can spam MW or are rolling 60+ attack dice per unit.
Jidmah wrote: Rokkit Warbuggies are 57 points a piece, pushing both of your mech list into the extra 100-200 points needed to play them and thus proving my point.
Well buggies are index only, and index units are extremely overpriced, not only ork ones. They are a phased out unit, if they were included in the codex they'd be 35-40 points. Rokkit koptas from index were 83 (!!!) points IIRC.
But your point was biased since the beginning. You played at 2000 points 10 years ago when the standard was way lower. From my perspective I feel like I have to bring +400-500 points of stuff now compared to 5th edition because tournaments usually had the 1500 points format and in 8th edition playing at 1500 points is extremely uncommon. Standard 8th edition games look like old apocalypse ones, with entire collections instead of selected units to fit a list with a restricted budget. No way I would field 150 troops in previous editions while only investing 33% of the list budget.
I also showed you some lists that are basically the same in terms of points and other units that have become cheaper, sometimes even way cheaper.
Blackie wrote: For exercise I've recalculated the 1500 points competitive armies I used to play in 5th edition. Yes I still got the lists!
Out of curiosity I ran my old 1850 sisters list. A little over 2000 with the beta points, looks like a couple of hundred more on top after the codex releases. High vehicle costs while infantry keep dropping.
Again, 1850 wasn't the standard in 5th edition though. To make an honest comparison you should fit that army in a 2250-2500 points one in 8th edition.
A.T. wrote: Out of curiosity I ran my old 1850 sisters list. A little over 2000 with the beta points, looks like a couple of hundred more on top after the codex releases. High vehicle costs while infantry keep dropping.
Again, 1850 wasn't the standard in 5th edition though. To make an honest comparison you should fit that army in a 2250-2500 points one in 8th edition.
Well if I stuck another 150pts of units on that list i'd not expect the 8e one to get any cheaper.
5 celestines, 2 meltas, and an immolator would add 150 in 5e (3e witch hunters) and 181 points in the betadex for instance. Something purely infantry based like seraphim or an inquisitor/assassin wouldn't add as much.
Really the normal points need to go down. 2000 is too much IMHO. 1850, 1750 or even 1500 would be much better. From what i've seen there have been a few european tournaments that do 1750 and I think the "official" GWGT at Warhammer World uses 1750 too. So that should be the standard since it's what the "official" tournament uses.
Of course in the USA ITC has decided on 2k and that is the standard, with no indication of changing. Whether or not thats really because people want 2k (which why wouldn't they? More points = more toys) is up for debate though but ITC needs to also standardize on 1750 if you ask me.
Wayniac wrote: Really the normal points need to go down. 2000 is too much IMHO. 1850, 1750 or even 1500 would be much better. From what i've seen there have been a few european tournaments that do 1750 and I think the "official" GWGT at Warhammer World uses 1750 too. So that should be the standard since it's what the "official" tournament uses.
Of course in the USA ITC has decided on 2k and that is the standard, with no indication of changing. Whether or not thats really because people want 2k (which why wouldn't they? More points = more toys) is up for debate though but ITC needs to also standardize on 1750 if you ask me.
In previous editions I felt suitably hampered by 1750, because it was much harder to fit in the things I needed as compared to other armies. Stepping down in points can have adverse consequences - especially when knights are a thing (and marines).
Does it equally present problems in 8th? I don't know until we try, but I think this will be pretty unlikely to happen regardless.
Point levels are not the issue as long poor external balance + IGOUGO exist at once.
You can double everything in price and still be at a disadvantage play your new 2000 points because the opponent still brought Numarines or Eldar or even just plain CSM and you're playing Grey Knights or Harlequins or non-consolidated Marines. Point levels don't affect this in any manner and people need to realize that.
Jidmah wrote: Rokkit Warbuggies are 57 points a piece, pushing both of your mech list into the extra 100-200 points needed to play them and thus proving my point.
Well buggies are index only, and index units are extremely overpriced, not only ork ones. They are a phased out unit, if they were included in the codex they'd be 35-40 points. Rokkit koptas from index were 83 (!!!) points IIRC.
You aren't shy of making up arguments in order to prove your point, are you? Buggies got a huge point reduction in CA to - guess what? 35 points, 5 points more than what they were in 5th. What making them expensive is the dual rokkit which is 24 now and was 5 points back them. And the best part? Even at 35-40, your lists would be way over 1500 points - the only reason your calculation worked out is because you intentionally omitted 2-3 models. Oh, and I never mentioned buggies, you are the one who brought them up.
But your point was biased since the beginning. You played at 2000 points 10 years ago when the standard was way lower.
You provided two lists at 1500 points, which also came out a lot higher than they are now. Which means you are wrong at both 1500 and 2000 points. Plus, you don't get to decide what the standard is/was. 2000 points was just as common as 1500, probably just not in your area. The battle wagon bash list was a 2000 points only archetype which didn't work at 1500 points. Up to that level you would play a kan wall, which didn't scale well beyond that. Because you couldn't bring more kans or bring more boyz to bear. For proof, just check the army list forum of dakkadakka between 2010 and 2011. Or any wargaming blog that was around back then.
I also showed you some lists that are basically the same in terms of points and other units that have become cheaper, sometimes even way cheaper.
You mean those where you intentionally left out 100-200 points of models to prove your point?
As a matter of fact, all ork armies I played during 5th have gone up in points, since I was primarily running mech orks. These are absolute facts, not a matter of opinion.
Argive wrote: I don't know what the fix is. Previous edition rules were slow but the result was more immersion and more meaningful gameplay.
I'd imagine it's difficult to roll things back at this point short of splitting the game into apoc (current rules) and skirmish... but then people will just complain until they have all their apoc stuff in skirmish and around it goes. And I doubt GW has any interest in a revised oldhammer game.
Ironically we have apoc and it is far, farrrrrrr less ridiculously lethal.
Play a current 2k sized army in apoc and 1/3 of your force will be alive turn 5 if you lose the game.
I've been playing quite a lot of apoc for exactly that reason!
You provided two lists at 1500 points, which also came out a lot higher than they are now. Which means you are wrong at both 1500 and 2000 points. Plus, you don't get to decide what the standard is/was. 2000 points was just as common as 1500, probably just not in your area. The battle wagon bash list was a 2000 points only archetype which didn't work at 1500 points. Up to that level you would play a kan wall, which didn't scale well beyond that. Because you couldn't bring more kans or bring more boyz to bear.
For proof, just check the army list forum of dakkadakka between 2010 and 2011. Or any wargaming blog that was around back then.
I think you missed the point here. Even if the 2000 points format was as common as 1500 (and I'm sure overall it wasn't but let assume it was) now the 1500 points format is dead. Which means that standard games have on average way more models than before. Yes someone used to play at 2000 points and they now can't fit the same lists using the same models by 100-200 points, which is just 5-10% of the list anyway, but many others were playing at 1500 points. These are absolute facts, not a matter of opinion The misconception of fielding less models than before comes from your personal experience, it's an absolute fact that now armies are significantly bigger than the average 5th edition ones, also due to the lack of old smaller formats: now the there aren't different standards that are equally common, there's only the bigger one. .
Here there are people that regularly play at 2500 points or even more (heck, even in 3rd edition I remember games of 3000 points). If 9th or 10th edition adopted their formats as the new standard they could complain that their older armies don't fit the new edition, but many other players would probably have to add something rather than cutting.
You mean those where you intentionally left out 100-200 points of models to prove your point?
No, I made the examples of meganobz, grotsnink and wazzdakka among others. The list with biker troops was complete and actually cheaper than a specular 8th edition one. The meganobz+grotsnik+trukk combo is 65+ points cheaper now, while any biker character (index biker boss or mek and even the wartrike) is cheaper than the old biker boss or that named character. A unit of nobz in a trukk or BW is certainly cheaper now: the banner got a new profile and it's +30 pts but now we hit on 3s anyway, so we basically have the banner for free. Nobz are 14ppm including the 4+ save (they were 25 pts with eavy armor) so 5 or 10 nobz can be extremely cheaper than before, not to mention the pk drop. 5 nobz were a deathstar of 250ish points (with no transport or bike factored in) back in 5th edition.
If you need other examples of units that are cheaper now than in 5th here you go:
footslogging warboss with pk and 4+: -12 pts
big mek with SAG: -15 pts
big mek with KFF: -10 pts
snikrot: -15 ppm badrukk: -47 ppm burnaboyz: -3 ppm kommandos: -2 ppm (and nob upgrade for free for another -10, not to mention the saved points for pole and klaw)
stormboyz: -3 ppm (same as above)
bikers: -2 ppm (same as above)
kopta with KMB: -1 ppm
But also the weirdboyz can be cheaper since it's +7ppm than the basic old one but -23 compared to the warphead, min squads of gretchins are -10 points per units (how many people would take the runtherd in 5th if it wasn't mandatory?), flash gitz are +5ppm but gained 4+ save and to have the same gun older ones should pay for kustom job making them more expensive than the current unit. Painboyz are +15ppm but gained a klaw and they're not restricted to be included and buff those specific couple of units.
If your army actually went up a little bit in points it doesn't mean that all older orks lists did the same. And I've showed you at least one list that I played that is actually cheaper, but I can make several other ones also cheaper. I've posted those specific lists because I played exactly those ones in old tournaments but I had models left out from those lists that were expensive and couldn't fit in 5th edition while they can now. I don't contest that your specific list doesn't fit, if I did it's my mistake, but you sounded like all the 5th edition players had to give up models in order to fit the 8th edition standard format, and that's completely false. That's my point.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, and I apologies for that, I didn't mean to say that your specific list should absolutely fit the same format shifting from editions, but that on average, considering the entire codexes, there's not a huge difference between points costs. And now, also speaking on average, games have more models than before. That's not an opinion.
So yeah, all the debate to quote the OP: yes, 40k has lost its way IMHO and the new standard is too high. We now have the same killyness and roll the same amount of dice than 3000+ points older armies.
Really? In 3rd edition, especially with local GW stores featuring 4x4 tables exclusively to fit more tables per sq ft, many many people simply ran BA armies with a lightning claw chaplain and a jump pack in front of Death Company and were assaulting in turn 2. Most armies were wiped out around turn 4. My Kult of Speed was always in assault by round 2. There were Armored Companies that could cover your entire deployment zone in templates in 1 volley. You could easily get through 4 or 5 matches in an afternoon.
sitz wrote: In 3rd edition, especially with local GW stores featuring 4x4 tables exclusively to fit more tables per sq ft, many many people simply ran BA armies with a lightning claw chaplain and a jump pack in front of Death Company and were assaulting in turn 2. [...] My Kult of Speed was always in assault by round 2.
I remember that. However, let us not forget that turn 2 charges meant that you had at least one turn to prepare when facing one of these superfast mechanized assault-optimized armies. You could re-position your forces so they hit a speed bump unit and then were left in a killzone. You could try to shoot the biggest threats before they hit you. You could dig into cover so your guys would be fighting simultaneously or even first. And so on.
Those are options you don't generally get today against a similarly optimized assault army today, because they can charge you in the first turn. So if they go first, your only chance to prepare was earlier in the deployment phase, and it's quite possible for you to lose the initiative and a large part of your army before you've gotten a chance to do *anything.* This is just.... not fun.
Last night I watched a game between two friends at my local game store, Ultramarines Vs. Catachan Artillery.
Ultramarine player went first, deepstruck 25 Hellblasters and two Invictus Warsuits within an inch of the guard deployment zone and the game was over. This was the first time our local guard guy was ever tabled since 8th began. He's one of our best players.
What is the fun in a 30 minute game where only one of the two players gets to even have a turn?
Karol wrote: Well the marine player wins, and if it is a store event game, this means he has a chance to get prizes. Both things are good and fun.
No.
Why would you even bother playing, just say "Ultramarines win" collect trophy and leave. I can't believe how broken the ultramarines are. The reroll everything, all the damn time. If you shoot them, you get shot in return on a 4+ thanks to that banner.
Karol wrote: Well the marine player wins, and if it is a store event game, this means he has a chance to get prizes. Both things are good and fun.
No.
Why would you even bother playing, just say "Ultramarines win" collect trophy and leave. I can't believe how broken the ultramarines are. The reroll everything, all the damn time. If you shoot them, you get shot in return on a 4+ thanks to that banner.
I understand that there has to be something hidden in the question, that I don't get. But collect trophy and leave, is kind of a how every game works. I go to a sports school, gloating after you win isn't something people like to see, even those from your school.
So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
This... Id go further and remove modifiers as well..
Like maybe one or two abiltiies/strats allowing for re-roll 1's situationally.
You are contradicting yourself so often, apply different standards to your and my arguments, keep making up weird unit combinations that make absolutely no sense to prove your point and then finish off with a conclusion that has absolutely nothing to do with your original, objectively wrong, statement to declare yourself right from the beginning.
None of that is actually worth answering in detail. Just accept when you are wrong.
Togusa wrote: Last night I watched a game between two friends at my local game store, Ultramarines Vs. Catachan Artillery.
Ultramarine player went first, deepstruck 25 Hellblasters and two Invictus Warsuits within an inch of the guard deployment zone and the game was over. This was the first time our local guard guy was ever tabled since 8th began. He's one of our best players.
What is the fun in a 30 minute game where only one of the two players gets to even have a turn?
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it wasn't possible to deepstrike before turn 2. How'd the marine player pull that off without drop pods?
Togusa wrote: Last night I watched a game between two friends at my local game store, Ultramarines Vs. Catachan Artillery.
Ultramarine player went first, deepstruck 25 Hellblasters and two Invictus Warsuits within an inch of the guard deployment zone and the game was over. This was the first time our local guard guy was ever tabled since 8th began. He's one of our best players.
What is the fun in a 30 minute game where only one of the two players gets to even have a turn?
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it wasn't possible to deepstrike before turn 2. How'd the marine player pull that off without drop pods?
That game also lists the primary issues with IGOUGO not that some people want to admit it's a garbage system.
Togusa wrote: Last night I watched a game between two friends at my local game store, Ultramarines Vs. Catachan Artillery.
Ultramarine player went first, deepstruck 25 Hellblasters and two Invictus Warsuits within an inch of the guard deployment zone and the game was over. This was the first time our local guard guy was ever tabled since 8th began. He's one of our best players.
What is the fun in a 30 minute game where only one of the two players gets to even have a turn?
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it wasn't possible to deepstrike before turn 2. How'd the marine player pull that off without drop pods?
Good question.
My money is on true infiltrate vanguard deployment shenanigans but thought that was a RG thing. I don't have all the supplements/rules so I'm only going by bat reps I've seen/games I've seen. I.E. You deploy 1" outside of enemies deployment zone/9" away from enemies. Lots of armies had such abilities and were essentialy T1 DS (scout move for sentinels, War walkers or Ranger units etc.) It all got FAQ to count as DS and DS being a T2 restriction. (Naturaly Marine dreadnaughts are better at infiltrating and being sneaky than Eldar rangers... Sounds Legit)
The SM rules circumvent that as its done during deployment. So if you are going first you have essentially DS stuff on top of enemies. Even though technically it is not arriving as reinforcements (but lets be honest its probably better as you get to move). This allows to really stack the deck if you likely to go first as well as offer huge advantage in board control.
Maybe it's just me but every 8th edition game I've played no one got tabled. I've had a few 4 player games but mostly 1 on 1 but every one has come down to victory points. Granted I play with the same group consistently so maybe it's just how our armies are built and how we happen to play. I'm sure none of us are playing the meta, after all.
The big changes that need to happen imo....(at least for the game to be better for tournament play/competitive play).
1. No more IGOUGO, other systems are far better than one player losing 20% of his army before his turn (more if you play against space marines). Honestly I like bolt actions way, definitely gives for a more balanced turn.
2. We need to go back to very few things having armor pen values.
3. Auras need to go, characters can join units again and buff them that way.
4. Command points and strats need to go, make units unique and give them rules again. Between how innately unbalanced some command points are compared to others, CP batteries, and just the amount of CP some armies get...wayyyyy to much balance swings... (sure, they are neat and can be fun...but at tournament level they get really out of hand)
Togusa wrote: Last night I watched a game between two friends at my local game store, Ultramarines Vs. Catachan Artillery.
Ultramarine player went first, deepstruck 25 Hellblasters and two Invictus Warsuits within an inch of the guard deployment zone and the game was over. This was the first time our local guard guy was ever tabled since 8th began. He's one of our best players.
What is the fun in a 30 minute game where only one of the two players gets to even have a turn?
Yeay, time to play a different game!
But seriously, I don't understand this reasononing either,
that the game is better because you can play through faster with everything you want on the table - boom crash!
And because the first game takes so little time, you can do it again - boom crash!
Just, infantile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soccerlfb6 wrote: The big changes that need to happen imo....(at least for the game to be better for tournament play/competitive play).
1. No more IGOUGO, other systems are far better than one player losing 20% of his army before his turn (more if you play against space marines). Honestly I like bolt actions way, definitely gives for a more balanced turn.
2. We need to go back to very few things having armor pen values.
3. Auras need to go, characters can join units again and buff them that way.
4. Command points and strats need to go, make units unique and give them rules again. Between how innately unbalanced some command points are compared to others, CP batteries, and just the amount of CP some armies get...wayyyyy to much balance swings... (sure, they are neat and can be fun...but at tournament level they get really out of hand)
Agreed. Less of a card game.
And impulsors/yada need tracks.
Soccerlfb6 wrote: The big changes that need to happen imo....(at least for the game to be better for tournament play/competitive play).
1. No more IGOUGO, other systems are far better than one player losing 20% of his army before his turn (more if you play against space marines). Honestly I like bolt actions way, definitely gives for a more balanced turn.
2. We need to go back to very few things having armor pen values.
Agree.
3. Auras need to go, characters can join units again and buff them that way.
All auras or just the re-roll auras? IMO none of the utility auras are causing any notable problems.
I also remember all the unit joining rules to be nothing less but a huge mess. I'd rather have the buff characters select units to support (like Immotekh or Tor Garadon) and keep the characters rules as is, maybe with some limitation to how characters can hide.
4. Command points and strats need to go, make units unique and give them rules again. Between how innately unbalanced some command points are compared to others, CP batteries, and just the amount of CP some armies get...wayyyyy to much balance swings... (sure, they are neat and can be fun...but at tournament level they get really out of hand)
I think the entire stratagem problem would solve itself when you can only play 1-2 stratagems per turn instead of just answering "Which stratagem do you want to use?" with "Yes".
Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
You are contradicting yourself so often, apply different standards to your and my arguments, keep making up weird unit combinations that make absolutely no sense to prove your point and then finish off with a conclusion that has absolutely nothing to do with your original, objectively wrong, statement to declare yourself right from the beginning.
None of that is actually worth answering in detail. Just accept when you are wrong.
Yeah, I intended your original post as: "I'm complaining about orks being more expensive than older editions", not "My specific list that I used to play 10+ years ago doesn't fit the 2000 points format now and I'm complaining about that even if I'm completely ignoring units that now cost less points because they weren't part of my favorite 5th edition list". That's my bad.
I said you're wrong because as I intended your post you've been disohnest as you can field a lot of things now that were simply too expensive before. Some things went up, but many other ones went down and some 5th edition 2000 points lists can easily be just 1800-1900 in 8th. Haven't you played grotsnik or SAG big mek in this edition? It's a 90 points discount just with those two dudes.
In fact the majority of the units/wargear included in the codex is actually cheaper than it used to be in 5th edition. This is a fact on which I based my discussion, if you can't agree with that just grab an old codex e check yourself. And just out of curiosity, what are the weird combinations you are talking about? I made just one, which I actually played and played against not only in that specific edition, but it's irrelevant since taking the single units (and not the combination) you'll end up with the same result. Meganobz being 5ppm cheaper and grotsnik being 74ppm cheaper.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
Soccerlfb6 wrote: The big changes that need to happen imo....(at least for the game to be better for tournament play/competitive play).
1. No more IGOUGO, other systems are far better than one player losing 20% of his army before his turn (more if you play against space marines). Honestly I like bolt actions way, definitely gives for a more balanced turn.
2. We need to go back to very few things having armor pen values.
3. Auras need to go, characters can join units again and buff them that way.
4. Command points and strats need to go, make units unique and give them rules again. Between how innately unbalanced some command points are compared to others, CP batteries, and just the amount of CP some armies get...wayyyyy to much balance swings... (sure, they are neat and can be fun...but at tournament level they get really out of hand)
I disagree on the 1 and 3 points but about point 2 I think high AP weapons should be harder to spam. Same options than now but harder to spam. Clan bonuses and auras are healthy for the game, and auras are definitely better than deathstars. About stratagems I can agree, I think a game with no stratagems at all is more fun, but unfortunately some units have a points value that includes the possible buff by stratagem and they'd be quite overcosted without the specific stratagems that make them work. Maybe fixing the total amount of CP to a maximum of 15 could help, along with raising the most powerful ones like "shooting twice" to 3-4 CPs instead of just 2.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
Open to other thoughts.
Oo forgot one. Just lose mortal wounds...period
Mortal wounds are fine in smaller doses. However GW being uncreative slaps them everywhere. Then there's the fact all offensive Psyker powers do it too.
Soccerlfb6 wrote: The big changes that need to happen imo....(at least for the game to be better for tournament play/competitive play).
1. No more IGOUGO, other systems are far better than one player losing 20% of his army before his turn (more if you play against space marines). Honestly I like bolt actions way, definitely gives for a more balanced turn.
2. We need to go back to very few things having armor pen values.
3. Auras need to go, characters can join units again and buff them that way.
4. Command points and strats need to go, make units unique and give them rules again. Between how innately unbalanced some command points are compared to others, CP batteries, and just the amount of CP some armies get...wayyyyy to much balance swings... (sure, they are neat and can be fun...but at tournament level they get really out of hand)
I disagree on the 1 and 3 points but about point 2 I think high AP weapons should be harder to spam. Same options than now but harder to spam. Clan bonuses and auras are healthy for the game, and auras are definitely better than deathstars. About stratagems I can agree, I think a game with no stratagems at all is more fun, but unfortunately some units have a points value that includes the possible buff by stratagem and they'd be quite overcosted without the specific stratagems that make them work. Maybe fixing the total amount of CP to a maximum of 15 could help, along with raising the most powerful ones like "shooting twice" to 3-4 CPs instead of just 2.
There is no balancing them, that's the problem. So you get turn one SM, spend 4 CP...shoot twice off a deep strike and ive lost at least 30% of my army...probably more. So between them and IGOUGO, there isn't a balance at all. One player is always behind the 8 ball, CP just make things more extreme.
We get clan bonuses, they are your armies special rules. I don't think every army having a reroll machine is unique, clan specific, or helpful. Deathstars still exist....their nature just changed a little. Went from being unkillable (because everythings high AP and giving out mortal wounds like candy) to super killy. I dont know how 1 HQ in one unit buffing is worse and more deathstar than an HQ who can literally buff as many units as can daisy chain to within 6 in of his model.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
There is far more randomness now. Weapons shooting D (some number) shots. Weapons do D (some number) damage, charge rolls are 2 D6 randomness....
The only crap RNG was when units arrived from reserve. Scatter was fine, and flamers were IMO better with the tear drop template.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Reroll auras represent much of what's currently wrong with 40k so they absolutely should be removed. Right now, several armies have so many reroll abilities the dice aren't actually random any more. So yes, having the pendulum swing back towards more randomness would be a welcome change. Randomness is required in any wargame and is not inherently bad as you seem to imply. What's important is the degree of randomness and its impact on decision making in the game. The bigger armies is also purely because of GW's approach to points changes - everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition. Reverse the direction of those changes (keep most of the weaker stuff at its current points cost and make the average/good stuff more expensive while keeping the relative values intact) and I think the game would improve.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
The thing is, this is not true for everyone. A marine player is now used to high AP, re-rolling all hits and re-rolling most to wound rolls, so he can basically expect that something he is shooting at an optimal target will deal damage, so no next to no randomness for him. You have basically taken dice out of the equation. Unless you do that for everyone, this needs to go.
There is far more randomness now. Weapons shooting D (some number) shots. Weapons do D (some number) damage, charge rolls are 2 D6 randomness....
The only crap RNG was when units arrived from reserve. Scatter was fine, and flamers were IMO better with the tear drop template.
But isn't that why those random shot or random wound doing weapons are skiped over weapons that do flat d2 or d3 damage? Lascannon and multimelta are suppose to be the pinacle of anti tank weapons, but in game turns autocannons, heavy bolters and such weapons used more often.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo 782835 10646278 wrote:
Just because people complain doesn't mean you should listen to them!
That is a dangerous argument to make. It can back fire strongly, once you get something bad for your army. I am not sure what is fun in moving your lascannons in to postion, planning your deployment, maybe some stratagem and screening is used too, and then when you engage a tank you miss 2 out of 4, and then do 2 Wounds to a something that has to die turn one. And you lose the game.
The thing is, this is not true for everyone. A marine player is now used to high AP, re-rolling all hits and re-rolling most to wound rolls, so he can basically expect that something he is shooting at an optimal target will deal damage, so no next to no randomness for him. You have basically taken dice out of the equation. Unless you do that for everyone, this needs to go.
I mean it's pretty much just marines doing most of the this, right? I don't think we get rid of rerolls. We just maybe drop the cost of buffers and make auras one unit at a time.
But then that's a whole huge mess. I guess maybe a 'matched play only patch'.
Why not? Do we need to be rolling 5-7 sets of dice per attack or is that just slowing the game down? (To-hit roll, to-hit rerolls, to-wound roll, to-wound rerolls, save roll, save rerolls, FNP, FNP rerolls?)
The thing is, this is not true for everyone. A marine player is now used to high AP, re-rolling all hits and re-rolling most to wound rolls, so he can basically expect that something he is shooting at an optimal target will deal damage, so no next to no randomness for him. You have basically taken dice out of the equation. Unless you do that for everyone, this needs to go.
I mean it's pretty much just marines doing most of the this, right? I don't think we get rid of rerolls. We just maybe drop the cost of buffers and make auras one unit at a time.
But then that's a whole huge mess. I guess maybe a 'matched play only patch'.
You can make a cake without breaking some eggs, right?
I think the only re-roll mechanics should be the ones which allow you to re-roll single dice, all the others are just a waste of everyone's time and make certain armies just way to reliable.
A dice game without randomness has clearly lost its way.
Hitting on 2s or 3s with effecitve weapons is already huge, those massive re-rolls that SM have are pure nonsense.
Generally speaking I think all the auras that give re-rolls are bad game design, they simply should be +1 to hit, wound, etc... with rolls of 1s being always failures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: ...everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition.
That's also sad reality. My current SW favorite 2000 points list was way above the budget during index times and now looking at the CA leaks I have another 90 points available thanks to the new points reduction. The 2-3 lists I'm currently playing really are 2300-2500 armies from the beginning of the edition, despite I'm stubborn in bringing ass can razorbacks which are the only units that went up in points
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Or we ditch the mass aura abuse and go back to attaching a character to a unit to grant it the bonus.
I'd take death stars back over doomblob.
Blobs make more sense though compared to your all important dude only benefitting one unit.
Except you not get conga lines where only one dude needs to be within aura range to benefit the unit... It should be models wholly within or nada.
To be honest I just think re-roll abilities should be cut bar like one or two expensive strats allowing for re-roll 1's in specific circumstances. Like if unit is not within terrain feature, there is no friendly units between firing unit and target unit etc.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Or we ditch the mass aura abuse and go back to attaching a character to a unit to grant it the bonus.
I'd take death stars back over doomblob.
Blobs make more sense though compared to your all important dude only benefitting one unit.
Except you not get conga lines where only one dude needs to be within aura range to benefit the unit... It should be models wholly within or nada.
To be honest I just think re-roll abilities should be cut bar like one or two expensive strats allowing for re-roll 1's in specific circumstances. Like if unit is not within terrain feature, there is no friendly units between firing unit and target unit etc.
Well it sounds like you want more stuff to operate like Necron Overlords and Commanders. I'm not against that but it would require a giant rewrite.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
Open to other thoughts.
Oo forgot one. Just lose mortal wounds...period
Mortal wounds are fine in smaller doses. However GW being uncreative slaps them everywhere. Then there's the fact all offensive Psyker powers do it too.
Then what kind of damage should offensive psychic powers do? How does an armor save stop your soul from being burned out and such? Do you suggest we get a new ‘psychic wounds’ system, and each unit now gets a psychic save? That’s a hole bunch of rules bloat. Goodness’s sake, we can’t have any more rules! You should feel bad as a person for recommending something so daf.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
Open to other thoughts.
Oo forgot one. Just lose mortal wounds...period
Mortal wounds are fine in smaller doses. However GW being uncreative slaps them everywhere. Then there's the fact all offensive Psyker powers do it too.
Then what kind of damage should offensive psychic powers do? How does an armor save stop your soul from being burned out and such? Do you suggest we get a new ‘psychic wounds’ system, and each unit now gets a psychic save? That’s a hole bunch of rules bloat. Goodness’s sake, we can’t have any more rules! You should feel bad as a person for recommending something so daf.
Better yet- remove armor saves. Roll to hit, roll to wound, apply damage- done.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Or we ditch the mass aura abuse and go back to attaching a character to a unit to grant it the bonus.
I'd take death stars back over doomblob.
Blobs make more sense though compared to your all important dude only benefitting one unit.
Except you not get conga lines where only one dude needs to be within aura range to benefit the unit... It should be models wholly within or nada.
To be honest I just think re-roll abilities should be cut bar like one or two expensive strats allowing for re-roll 1's in specific circumstances. Like if unit is not within terrain feature, there is no friendly units between firing unit and target unit etc.
Well it sounds like you want more stuff to operate like Necron Overlords and Commanders. I'm not against that but it would require a giant rewrite.
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he wants all auras to work like the KFF, so you don't have weird conga-lines across the board to your one buff character.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Just my two cents, if we're wishlisting. I'm probably gonna get roasted for some of these ideas, but they're just my opinions and I am prone to forgetting/failing to consider something.
1- Incentivize mono-faction under 1000 points. Soup shouldn't even exist at this level (Inquisition, Assassins, etc. can get a pass if certain requirements are met).
2- Take a note from Horus Heresy, and establish HQ 'tiers'- require certain point levels, detachments, and even units to have a certain "level" of HQ as a tax.
3- Require army point and HQ level minimums for LoW and Flyers. There's no reason a Knight should appear in a 500-point game. And "pLaY tHe ObJeCtIvEs" only works while you still have models on the table.
4- Make weapon turrets and locations matter, perhaps on a card for easy reference for the vehicle.
5- Require a certain % of a model to be visible in order for it to shoot or be shot, and exclude protrusions such as antennae, spines, etc. True Line of Sight is a joke.
6- Cover should make you harder to hit, not harder when you get hit.
7- Establish a clear balance for each faction's capability to deal or mitigate mortal wounds- and limiting the amount possible through some means might be an option.
8- Auras should be gone, because bubbles of dudes marching across the table isn't fun. Make these auras some kind of buff that can be applied to one or more units, depending on the HQ level.
9- Stop restricting valid units to "exactly the things in and on the box", it reduces conversion/kitbashing to being aesthetics without function and has no incentive.
10- Subfaction super-doctrines should be taxed as a purchased package during list creation, sort of like Formations in AoS. Require and restrict units as required for balance.
11- Offer an upgrade to 'level up' select units to Veteran Status with additional attack.
12- Rework transports from the ground up, incentivize their use and make them worth taking again, but not a requirement for infantry.
13- Bring back vehicle damage rolls and combine them with the wound track system, make the performance of a damaged vehicle more random and unpredictable.
14- Develop additional means for charging out of deep strike- it shouldn't be able to happen all the time, but there should be ways to reliably execute this for melee-focused units.
15- Bring Horus Heresy models into 40k, I'm sure all 10 people on each continent that still play HH won't be bothered by that at all.
16- Consider "Underdog Strategems" that only work when players have a large VP disparity (maybe optional?)
Open to other thoughts.
Oo forgot one. Just lose mortal wounds...period
Mortal wounds are fine in smaller doses. However GW being uncreative slaps them everywhere. Then there's the fact all offensive Psyker powers do it too.
Then what kind of damage should offensive psychic powers do? How does an armor save stop your soul from being burned out and such? Do you suggest we get a new ‘psychic wounds’ system, and each unit now gets a psychic save? That’s a hole bunch of rules bloat. Goodness’s sake, we can’t have any more rules! You should feel bad as a person for recommending something so daf.
Psychic powers used to work like regular weapons with a Strength, AP, number of shots and range. In fact, they used to literally be a shooting weapon in some editions. Why shouldn't they be able to be stopped by armour? Some maybe shouldn't, but many psychic powers are described as being physical attacks manifested through psychic means. If I shoot psychic lightning at someone why should that be significantly more dangerous than something like Tesla, for example? You've also completely missed the point that simply dumping a whole load of Mortal Wounds onto targets is frustrating and poor game design, especially when those attacks can ignore character targeting rules. Playing Necrons and watching some armies just remove entire chunks of your army while you don't even get to make saves is not a fun experience.
I think the entire psychic phase needs a rework, TBH. There's no decision making and no counter play making it a dull process of dice rolling which can often be swung by factors outside of any player's control. Manifesting and Denying are just too random and devoid of tactical considerations to make the phase engaging and the powers themselves often lack imagination in their design and execution.
Also keep in mind that pre-measuring was not allowed in those editions, so the 6" charge was not a guaranteed charge if you eyeballed the distance wrong. The main argument for moving to 2d6 charges was to keep charges "interesting" because 6th allowed you to measure at any time.
Psychic powers used to work like regular weapons with a Strength, AP, number of shots and range. In fact, they used to literally be a shooting weapon in some editions. Why shouldn't they be able to be stopped by armour? Some maybe shouldn't, but many psychic powers are described as being physical attacks manifested through psychic means. If I shoot psychic lightning at someone why should that be significantly more dangerous than something like Tesla, for example?on.
I don't maybe because it costs 4-6pts per model to cast a 12" 1MW smite? If it was a str anything weapon that is 12" has to hit, wound and then can be saved, they would have to rework some books from ground up as pricing goes. And GW does not seem to do that, or to do that well, if they try. If anything MW generations should be buffed up. A 12" single MW, isn't much comparing to the number of -2AP shots an avarge marine army can through at opposing armies. And then it only gets buffed with all the re-rolls, shot when I die, move without negative mods to hit and no opponent stoping your psychic power cast.
Slipspace wrote: Playing Necrons and watching some armies just remove entire chunks of your army while you don't even get to make saves is not a fun experience.
Which of those armies aren't Thousand Sons?
In my opinion none of the armies whose psykers have access to only a single discipline are causing any trouble.
There's no decision making and no counter play making it a dull process of dice rolling which can often be swung by factors outside of any player's control. Manifesting and Denying are just too random and devoid of tactical considerations to make the phase engaging and the powers themselves often lack imagination in their design and execution.
Most powers are just X% chance to deal damage to a unit, which is pretty much the same as they did in previous editions, except you have less dice rolls. Whether some of those are too powerful, especially when stacked upon each other, is another discussion.
In general, everything you said also applies to the shooting phase. Higher warpcharge powers are unreliable and must be considered as such, plus you have the play and counter-play of moving in or out of deny range. Non-psychic armies should have the option to engage in that counter-play in a meaningful way.
Rolling armor/invulnerable saves is not a tactical decision - or a decision at all, so nothing would be gained by turning spells back into weapon profiles.
I think the entire psychic phase needs a rework, TBH.
I agree, but I think it should be re-worked into a command phase, where all the special abilities of armies are used - IMO imperial orders, tau elemental abilities, C'Tan abilities, and all the other "pick a unit within X to do something"-abilities also belong here.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Reroll auras represent much of what's currently wrong with 40k so they absolutely should be removed. Right now, several armies have so many reroll abilities the dice aren't actually random any more. So yes, having the pendulum swing back towards more randomness would be a welcome change. Randomness is required in any wargame and is not inherently bad as you seem to imply. What's important is the degree of randomness and its impact on decision making in the game. The bigger armies is also purely because of GW's approach to points changes - everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition. Reverse the direction of those changes (keep most of the weaker stuff at its current points cost and make the average/good stuff more expensive while keeping the relative values intact) and I think the game would improve.
Every-time I deep-strike my Obliterators or move them up the field into firing range, I make sure they've been buffed by a sorcerer to hit, a Captain is nearby, VoTlW is active. Hitting on 2+ rerolling 1s and +1 to wound. I have yet to play a game where three Obliterators run like this haven't murdered the intended target. And in doing so I keep wondering, "Why am I even rolling this, why not just pay the CP and have my opponent pick up his model."
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Reroll auras represent much of what's currently wrong with 40k so they absolutely should be removed. Right now, several armies have so many reroll abilities the dice aren't actually random any more. So yes, having the pendulum swing back towards more randomness would be a welcome change. Randomness is required in any wargame and is not inherently bad as you seem to imply. What's important is the degree of randomness and its impact on decision making in the game. The bigger armies is also purely because of GW's approach to points changes - everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition. Reverse the direction of those changes (keep most of the weaker stuff at its current points cost and make the average/good stuff more expensive while keeping the relative values intact) and I think the game would improve.
Every-time I deep-strike my Obliterators or move them up the field into firing range, I make sure they've been buffed by a sorcerer to hit, a Captain is nearby, VoTlW is active. Hitting on 2+ rerolling 1s and +1 to wound. I have yet to play a game where three Obliterators run like this haven't murdered the intended target. And in doing so I keep wondering, "Why am I even rolling this, why not just pay the CP and have my opponent pick up his model."
This is main issue with 8th. It’s almost as if removing player interaction on the table was a design goal.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Reroll auras represent much of what's currently wrong with 40k so they absolutely should be removed. Right now, several armies have so many reroll abilities the dice aren't actually random any more. So yes, having the pendulum swing back towards more randomness would be a welcome change. Randomness is required in any wargame and is not inherently bad as you seem to imply. What's important is the degree of randomness and its impact on decision making in the game. The bigger armies is also purely because of GW's approach to points changes - everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition. Reverse the direction of those changes (keep most of the weaker stuff at its current points cost and make the average/good stuff more expensive while keeping the relative values intact) and I think the game would improve.
Every-time I deep-strike my Obliterators or move them up the field into firing range, I make sure they've been buffed by a sorcerer to hit, a Captain is nearby, VoTlW is active. Hitting on 2+ rerolling 1s and +1 to wound. I have yet to play a game where three Obliterators run like this haven't murdered the intended target. And in doing so I keep wondering, "Why am I even rolling this, why not just pay the CP and have my opponent pick up his model."
This is main issue with 8th. It’s almost as if removing player interaction on the table was a design goal.
Smirrors wrote: So in summary remove massive reroll auras and remove stratagems that allow many units to attack twice and then repoint units based on their base performance and tweak rules for units that lost out. This will speed the game up too.
It really would speed things along. Rerolls aren't needed at all. I think the game is just too lethal as it is and a lot of that is because of rerolls.
This would likely result in even bigger armies as effectiveness dropped off. People complained soooooo much about randomness in previous versions and now we want to swing the pendulum back?
Reroll auras represent much of what's currently wrong with 40k so they absolutely should be removed. Right now, several armies have so many reroll abilities the dice aren't actually random any more. So yes, having the pendulum swing back towards more randomness would be a welcome change. Randomness is required in any wargame and is not inherently bad as you seem to imply. What's important is the degree of randomness and its impact on decision making in the game. The bigger armies is also purely because of GW's approach to points changes - everything gets cheaper rather than making things more expensive, so we now have a situation where a 2000 point army after next week's Chapter Approved could be more like a 2300 point army from the beginning of 8th edition. Reverse the direction of those changes (keep most of the weaker stuff at its current points cost and make the average/good stuff more expensive while keeping the relative values intact) and I think the game would improve.
Every-time I deep-strike my Obliterators or move them up the field into firing range, I make sure they've been buffed by a sorcerer to hit, a Captain is nearby, VoTlW is active. Hitting on 2+ rerolling 1s and +1 to wound. I have yet to play a game where three Obliterators run like this haven't murdered the intended target. And in doing so I keep wondering, "Why am I even rolling this, why not just pay the CP and have my opponent pick up his model."
This is main issue with 8th. It’s almost as if removing player interaction on the table was a design goal.
I agree. I've been sending them monthly emails telling them that it's time to let IGUGO Go. We need alternating activation, otherwise I'm just doing things while my opponet sits on the other side of the table and reads their codex.
Bharring wrote: IGOUGO -> AA would take basically a new edition to do right. It'd be a bigger change than 6E -> 8E, or anything in between.
It doesn't require that big a change. GW proved they can do a mediocre job doing AA based style turns. It might require a rewrite of some core rules (which needed to be done anyway so who cares), and at the same time I don't think it'll take much adjusting of points either.
Bharring wrote: IGOUGO -> AA would take basically a new edition to do right. It'd be a bigger change than 6E -> 8E, or anything in between.
It doesn't require that big a change. GW proved they can do a mediocre job doing AA based style turns. It might require a rewrite of some core rules (which needed to be done anyway so who cares), and at the same time I don't think it'll take much adjusting of points either.
I suppose "big change" is a bit relative. But what change has happened in 40k since the advent of 6th that's been anywhere near the scale of a change from IGOUGO to AA?
Whether we're talking scale in terms of mechancial impact, balance impact, quantity of rules, or complexity of rules, I don't think anything else that's changed would come close.
Bharring wrote: IGOUGO -> AA would take basically a new edition to do right. It'd be a bigger change than 6E -> 8E, or anything in between.
You can just use the Kill Team movement and shooting phase rules for 40k and it works. How is that a bigger change than 8th which required new codices for everyone, twice?
Obviously, the current balance would be thrown out of the window, but that happens pretty much every edition anyways.
recently saw a kind of a review/comparision video between games including 40k
funny fact, they guy described the alternating activation of other games as "classic IGoUGo" and the alternating phases of 40k as the exotic new (in SciFi Skirmish games) system.
So it is all about what people are used to
And don't expect that alternating unit activation will fix anything or increases player interaction by default.
Bharring wrote: IGOUGO -> AA would take basically a new edition to do right. It'd be a bigger change than 6E -> 8E, or anything in between.
Going from Alternating player turns to alternating phases or alternating unit activation will be a smaller change than going from 5th to 6th
And of course it needs a new edition to do it.
GW makes any changes to the core rules with a new edition, even the Errata/Patch to fix the 6th Edition core was rolled out as 7th.
While the overal impact to the game would be much smaller than changing the to hit & to wound rules without adjusting the unit & weapon profiles (or add flyer rules but adding AA guns only with a new Codex).
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
Every-time I deep-strike my Obliterators or move them up the field into firing range, I make sure they've been buffed by a sorcerer to hit, a Captain is nearby, VoTlW is active. Hitting on 2+ rerolling 1s and +1 to wound. I have yet to play a game where three Obliterators run like this haven't murdered the intended target. And in doing so I keep wondering, "Why am I even rolling this, why not just pay the CP and have my opponent pick up his model."
Incidentally that's what I'm often doing. I just pick up my models and not make opponent waste both of our time rolling dice.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
If the static never moving gunline has always the advantage, stop playing without terrain will help a lot
What if the board is full of terrain and it still doesn't help, because either the gunlines move a lot, or just ignore terrain that isn't 30cm high and LoS blocking?
Karol wrote: What if the board is full of terrain and it still doesn't help, because either the gunlines move a lot, or just ignore terrain that isn't 30cm high and LoS blocking?
If you are changing to AA you are changing whole ruleset so can release new rulebook with actually terrain rules that doesn't require being 30cm los blocking to have an impact. You could also introduce such a dramatic concept as indirect fire not being as accurate as direct.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
If the static never moving gunline has always the advantage, stop playing without terrain will help a lot
I never play without terrian, dunno why you would jump to that conclusion. Also this was a hypothetical scenario where new rules were implemented, im just saying units like artillery would be annoyingly good in that environment unless nerfed. And at some state during the game armies will be within line of sight to eachother. If in that situation the army standing still gets to shoot first with everything it would seem movement is not encouraged.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
If the static never moving gunline has always the advantage, stop playing without terrain will help a lot
I never play without terrian, dunno why you would jump to that conclusion. Also this was a hypothetical scenario where new rules were implemented, im just saying units like artillery would be annoyingly good in that environment unless nerfed. And at some state during the game armies will be within line of sight to eachother. If in that situation the army standing still gets to shoot first with everything it would seem movement is not encouraged.
The attack phase is before the Shooting phase. Meaning that you can aggressivly charge if you use the terrain decently.
Also Artillery, despite some peoples claims, is not particulary good overall.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
If the static never moving gunline has always the advantage, stop playing without terrain will help a lot
I never play without terrian, dunno why you would jump to that conclusion. Also this was a hypothetical scenario where new rules were implemented, im just saying units like artillery would be annoyingly good in that environment unless nerfed. And at some state during the game armies will be within line of sight to eachother. If in that situation the army standing still gets to shoot first with everything it would seem movement is not encouraged.
If a gunline that does not move has the advantage, the conclusion is that it is able to see everything all the time, so there is not enough terrain on the table
Of course there will be a point in the game were units see each other, best case would be that thise is close enough for everything being in charge range, were moving out of range or stay to shoot (and be charged) are the available options
If a gunline that does not move has the advantage, the conclusion is that it is able to see everything all the time, so there is not enough terrain on the table
Of course there will be a point in the game were units see each other, best case would be that thise is close enough for everything being in charge range, were moving out of range or stay to shoot (and be charged) are the available options
how do you block LoS to a flyer or hover tank like an exorcists? I can't imagine anything helping other then playing on a litteral labyrinth table with tall 3 tier buildings everywhere and slim corridors. With everything else, the enemy will see you turn 1 most of the time, turn 2 if you want to take any objectives and not lose the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alternating phases is way cooler than alternating activations.
Out of interest, why do you think that?
I think a player can have nothing to do for a long time during alternate turns....wheras you are soon moving and firing again on alternating units and its a bit more 'real time combat' rather than a load of men stood there waiting for the enemy to fire, charge etc
Karol wrote: What if the board is full of terrain and it still doesn't help, because either the gunlines move a lot
So what if the static gunline starts moving a lot and lose the advantage of not moving?
problem solved I guess
and if the terrain does not block LOS, you can also play without
You must be playing in a place where people dont play much marines do you? Because here, marine armies lose nothing from moving. Because they either ignore it and have in build re-rolls, or arrive en mass 9" away from you. Plus flyers seem to be used a lot this days, and it is really hard to hide from something that moves that fast and has a big fly stand that when placed on top of a building always sees most, if not all of the table.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
The thing is, so does that unit of lootas in your backfield. The guard player picks one basilisk to shoot, you then pick your lootaz and kill or degrade the other one before it can shoot. Also note that in KillTeam charging happens in the movement phase, so a charged unit immediately loses its chance to shoot.
You also have to move in order to score objectives - all CA2018 missions heavily punish sitting in a corner and shooting, and the new missions seem to be doubling down on that.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alternating phases is way cooler than alternating activations.
Out of interest, why do you think that?
I think a player can have nothing to do for a long time during alternate turns....wheras you are soon moving and firing again on alternating units and its a bit more 'real time combat' rather than a load of men stood there waiting for the enemy to fire, charge etc
Two players bunker up, you go first, nothing in LoS, slowly creep on enemy and objectives. His turn happens he alfa strikes you. Then wins going first for turn 2 and alfa strikes you again. So next game you don't creep on to objectives you bunker up. So he moves on to objectives un opposed. Scores points, with infiltrators, gets first turn and scores again. Now he had scored for 2 turns when you did not, and has most of his army on objectives.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alternating phases is way cooler than alternating activations.
Out of interest, why do you think that?
I think a player can have nothing to do for a long time during alternate turns....wheras you are soon moving and firing again on alternating units and its a bit more 'real time combat' rather than a load of men stood there waiting for the enemy to fire, charge etc
Two players bunker up, you go first, nothing in LoS, slowly creep on enemy and objectives. His turn happens he alfa strikes you. Then wins going first for turn 2 and alfa strikes you again. So next game you don't creep on to objectives you bunker up. So he moves on to objectives un opposed. Scores points, with infiltrators, gets first turn and scores again. Now he had scored for 2 turns when you did not, and has most of his army on objectives.
I can imagine something like that happening.
I think you're both misinterpreting Unit here. Alternating phases is just another take on the turn structure, which can take many forms and doesn't necessarily mean it would have more downtime than straight activations. Karol on the other hand seems to be thinking about double turns in non-alternating turn order, which is an entirely different thing.
Two recent examples of alternations within the GW sphere: Kill Team and Adeptus Titanicus. Kill Team is a bit weird in that one side first moves all while the fighting is alternating, but Titanicus does a very nice hybrid of the phases/actions idea. The turn is divided to phases, within each phase players activate alternating between them pretty straightforwardly, except there are tricks for group activations and other out of sequence shenanigans. This way all participants are able to respond to parts of the others' actions and activation order becomes a very important decision point. Also curbs alpha striking rather nicely.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
Gitdakka wrote:Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
Karol wrote: What if the board is full of terrain and it still doesn't help, because either the gunlines move a lot
kodos wrote: So what if the static gunline starts moving a lot and lose the advantage of not moving?
problem solved I guess
Karol wrote:You must be playing in a place where people dont play much marines do you? Because here, marine armies lose nothing from moving. Plus flyers seem to be used a lot this days, and it is really hard to hide from something that moves that fast and has a big fly stand that when placed on top of a building always sees most, if not all of the table.
Somehow I have lost were the problem is.
The KT kind of mixing alternating phases and alternating activation does not work because there are units that want to be static and therefore will always get the aim bonus, were terrain can help to force movement as they won't have LOS all the time, and it does not work because some armies want to move?
And flyers have a minimum movement so never get the aiming bonus.
Also, alternating unit activation in the shooting phase means that there is no alpha strike
Karol wrote:
Two players bunker up, you go first, nothing in LoS, slowly creep on enemy and objectives. His turn happens he alfa strikes you. Then wins going first for turn 2 and alfa strikes you again. So next game you don't creep on to objectives you bunker up. So he moves on to objectives un opposed. Scores points, with infiltrators, gets first turn and scores again.
This is neither alternating phases nor alternating unit activations, but random player turns. Something no one is talking about
Here's what tends to happen when new players play Kill Team: first, they don't use enough terrain, then the shootier team sits still all the time and kills the non-shooty team, then both players start going all-shooty before, eventually, they start using enough terrain and an interesting game breaks out.
With the KT-style alternating movement phases then alternating units in the other phases, if the shooty player goes first and stands still with everything he'll find himself without any targets to shoot at because the second player will move his units out of range and LoS. The activation system forces you to cover multiple angles and lanes of fire and the objective system forces you to move to secure points to win the game. In practice, the shootiest army does not have the greatest advantage and against a good player sitting still the whole game to shoot first will see you lose every single time.
I think this thread has convinced me to see if anyone local wants to give a small (1250ish) AA game of some sort a try.
Basic implementation leaves a couple core questions. I think I'll see if they want to:
-Alternate Move phases
-Alternate psychic phases
-Alternate *unit* shoot phase
-Alternate *unit* charge
-Alternate unit fight
Should it be that or full alternate-unit activations, where each unit does everything?
For a simple game, I figure just basic alternate until one player is done, then the other player finishes theirs. But if the rules were well designed, there could be a better system (to handle unit count skews, for example).
I think my CWE infantry are in for a world of hurt this way. But it should be interesting.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alternating phases is way cooler than alternating activations.
Out of interest, why do you think that?
I think a player can have nothing to do for a long time during alternate turns....wheras you are soon moving and firing again on alternating units and its a bit more 'real time combat' rather than a load of men stood there waiting for the enemy to fire, charge etc
Karol wrote:Two players bunker up, you go first, nothing in LoS, slowly creep on enemy and objectives. His turn happens he alfa strikes you. Then wins going first for turn 2 and alfa strikes you again. So next game you don't creep on to objectives you bunker up. So he moves on to objectives un opposed. Scores points, with infiltrators, gets first turn and scores again. Now he had scored for 2 turns when you did not, and has most of his army on objectives.
I can imagine something like that happening.
Sherrypie wrote:I think you're both misinterpreting Unit here. Alternating phases is just another take on the turn structure, which can take many forms and doesn't necessarily mean it would have more downtime than straight activations. Karol on the other hand seems to be thinking about double turns in non-alternating turn order, which is an entirely different thing.
Two recent examples of alternations within the GW sphere: Kill Team and Adeptus Titanicus. Kill Team is a bit weird in that one side first moves all while the fighting is alternating, but Titanicus does a very nice hybrid of the phases/actions idea. The turn is divided to phases, within each phase players activate alternating between them pretty straightforwardly, except there are tricks for group activations and other out of sequence shenanigans. This way all participants are able to respond to parts of the others' actions and activation order becomes a very important decision point. Also curbs alpha striking rather nicely.
I quoted all three of them, but will reply to them in total because clearly I didn't explain what I meant, and Sherrypie is right, but also wrong.
The game that I use as an example is Games Workshop's Lord of the Rings, which I think is their best balance rule-set so far. But I'll explain for those who have the misfortune to be unable to play it:
Alternating phases in a turn is thusly:
1) The players roll off for Priority, with the player who didn't have it last turn taking it on ties (re-roll if it's turn 1 and you tie).
2) The Priority Player (PP) moves all of his units, the same way the Movement Phase works in 40k now. This is also where charges would happen, and any unit tied up by a charge cannot act in any subsequent phase.
3) The Non-Priority Player (NPP) now takes his own movement phase, moving everything. This is naturally reactive to how the PP moved, and again, charges happen now.
4) The PP takes any shots he can - essentially the shooting phase.
5) The NPP takes any shots he can - essentially his shooting phase. There are certain actions the NPP can take that allow him to "steal a march" and fire first at the cost of some in-game resource (Might, in the case of LOTR). The PP can expend Might as well to try to steal the march back, at which point it becomes a 50/50 who actually shoots first (in LOTR, the side playing Good wins on a 4+ and the side playing Evil wins on a 1-3, and you only roll 1 dice)!
6) The PP and NPP fight simultaneously, rolling what's called a "Duel Roll." This is by model in LOTR but it could be by unit for 40k, if we're willing to adjust scale to fit game size. The Duel Roll is a roll-off (with certain modifiers or whatever), and the winner of the roll-off wins the duel and gets to Strike the enemy (essentially a roll to-wound). Where the skill of the model comes into it (e.g. an SM being more skillful than a Guardsman) is what is called in the LOTR game a "Fight" value. The higher Fight value takes ties. Between rerolls, modifiers, buffs, additional supporting dice (e.g. roll 3 take the highest), and whatnot, it's quite common to see both players roll a 6 in the duel roll (which is obviously the maximum) and therefore the skill of the model is often quite crucial into determining who wins the fight, but not always!
To me, the impact this would have on 40k is the following:
1) You never know if you will have priority or not on the next turn, and so you have to maneuver very carefully to not overexpose yourself, and then suddenly be caught out by a bad priority roll! Maneuvering becomes very tactical, and you often have to risk it for the biscuit, especially keeping in mind point 2:
2) Sometimes, you don't want priority first. In fact, in LOTR, having priority is a huge burden, because your opponent is playing reactively that turn, and a single mistake in movement can see a unit caught up into a combat it didn't expect by a charge, or out in front of a unit spending some resource (say, command points or Might) to try to shoot it first!
Movement also becomes very, very, very tactical. Since both players move before anyone shoots, they get to do as they wish. The PP has the advantage in the shooting phase, possibly destroying enemies before they can retaliate, but actually is at a severe disadvantage in the movement phase. The NPP might move to threaten units in an unexpected way, forcing the PP to shoot at sub-optimal targets to preserve his power for next turn (e.g. enemy lascannons shifting quickly to threaten a Basilisk might take some heat from the Basilisk itself, rather than the Russ that the Basilisk was lining up on!). Alternatively, the NPP might move his units out of LOS, trying to preserve his own power. Though in this case he has to be careful - if he becomes the PP next turn, his units cannot engage the enemy without moving, which has all sorts of ramifications for heavy weapons, etc.
Close Combat is also more dynamic - in LOTR, units that lose a duel automatically fall back out of combat (though only 1", so that the enemy can still charge them if they steal priority). This avoids awkward questions of "wat do wit combat locking" and the Duel Roll allows both units a chance to fight at their full strength, rather than one unit striking first simply because. And since charges happen before movement, units can re-tie enemy units in combat if they have Priority or they go first with spending a Might point (or CP, or whatever. Same way you can shoot first for the same cost). That said, LOTR has a funny rule where you can shoot into combat with a 50/50 of hitting your friend or the enemy, but only if you're Evil. Good models cannot risk the lives of other Good models in the rules, and so they cannot shoot into combat.
Anyways, I feel like I dove down a rabbit hole but I am happy to expound further.
The thing is, so does that unit of lootas in your backfield. The guard player picks one basilisk to shoot, you then pick your lootaz and kill or degrade the other one before it can shoot. Also note that in KillTeam charging happens in the movement phase, so a charged unit immediately loses its chance to shoot.
You also have to move in order to score objectives - all CA2018 missions heavily punish sitting in a corner and shooting, and the new missions seem to be doubling down on that.
Then it just becomes a race to have the models with the most guns. Split fire from a super heavy will knock down multiple units and is a far superior activation than other smaller units. The system works in kill team, because you're always deal with a single model that has a single gun. To make it work in 40K requires a lot more layering - most importantly a damage phase like Apoc.
This alternating phase in LotR works because the focus of the game is on movement and melee and the game has a different balance
For 40k, there would be no downside in going first as having the possibility to kill everything in one shooting phase (alpha strike) is > being the reactive player
Bharring wrote: I think this thread has convinced me to see if anyone local wants to give a small (1250ish) AA game of some sort a try.
Basic implementation leaves a couple core questions. I think I'll see if they want to:
-Alternate Move phases
-Alternate psychic phases
-Alternate *unit* shoot phase
-Alternate *unit* charge
-Alternate unit fight
Should it be that or full alternate-unit activations, where each unit does everything?
full alternate unit activation won't work for 40k without bigger changes to what a unit can do (eg limiting the actions of units)
kodos wrote: This alternating phase in LotR works because the focus of the game is on movement and melee and the game has a different balance
For 40k, there would be no downside in going first as having the possibility to kill everything in one shooting phase (alpha strike) is > being the reactive player
I don't think you understand what "reactive" means. It means the ability to deny/degrade the enemy shooting automatically before it is executed (by, say, moving out of LOS, or blowing your smoke dischargers, or moving a unit in front of your character, turning on your buffs, etc).
Furthermore, LOTR has a mechanic where the Non-Priority Player can shoot first (though it costs them resources to do so, and is not infinitely capable). I assume 40k would (and any game rightly should) have a mechanic that allows for that sort of "interrupt" - a reactive one.
Yes, it works in LOTR because the focus is on movement (I wouldn't really say melee; there are plenty of armies that specialize in shooting just like how 40k has plenty of armies that specialize in melee). Which is good for a wargame. Good maneuver really ought to be the emphasis of a wargame. Player decisions, and all that.
And yes, the game has a different balance. 40k's balance would have to change, but that's rather the point, innit - pivot 40k away from its current gakky-ness.
in the local Club we also have experimented with different kind of rules for 40k in the past
alternating phases with the possibility of a double phase did not really worked that well for 40k
Shooting has too much range and is too powerful compared to melee to work out (a melee unit in LotR will still kill the ranged unit with the models that are left most of the time, while in 40k most of the time the melee unit won't be able to get the kill)
I can see why the Kill Team rules, taken as they are (removing overwatch) can work very well for 40k without needing a re-work to fit an alternating unit activation system and still have the classic turn sequence that people associate with the game
PS: as 40k is heavy in shooting and not so much into melee, going alternating unit activation for the shooting phase instead of the melee phase should have been the initial idea
I've tried building AA rules for 40k, and I found that harsher area-terrain LOS rules alongside alternating shooting makes for the biggest improvement.
in the local Club we also have experimented with different kind of rules for 40k in the past
alternating phases with the possibility of a double phase did not really worked that well for 40k
Shooting has too much range and is too powerful compared to melee to work out (a melee unit in LotR will still kill the ranged unit with the models that are left most of the time, while in 40k most of the time the melee unit won't be able to get the kill)
I can see why the Kill Team rules, taken as they are (removing overwatch) can work very well for 40k without needing a re-work to fit an alternating unit activation system and still have the classic turn sequence that people associate with the game
PS: as 40k is heavy in shooting and not so much into melee, going alternating unit activation for the shooting phase instead of the melee phase should have been the initial idea
I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.
I don't really see what the problem you're articulating is, honestly. You're just asserting it won't work because "shooting is too powerful", which doesn't make sense, because the relative power of the units is a balance problem, not an activation order problem. That's like saying "we can't play Civilization 6 as a real time strategy game because battleships are more powerful than phalanxes." Like, sure, maybe you can't play CIV as an RTS, but what does the battleship being more powerful than the phalanx have anything to do with it?
Mumble, mumble, something about the price of tea in china.
Here you have the company giving the majority what they want.
Players want fast games done as fast as possible to move on to the next game. Players want tournaments with many rounds that require not a lot of game time, so in need of a fast game.
This is a glorified board game that bases a lot of its design off of card games only using pretty miniatures.
Its also the #1 wargame of all time because of that... because thats apparently what players are willing to shovel out truck loads of money for regularly.
IGOUGO is a big part of the problem.
Bad points is another.
Bad terrain rules yet another.
But rules aren't what the average GW consumer cares highly for, they care about models, lore, and size of community first and foremost.
auticus wrote: Here you have the company giving the majority what they want.
Players want fast games done as fast as possible to move on to the next game. Players want tournaments with many rounds that require not a lot of game time, so in need of a fast game.
This is a glorified board game that bases a lot of its design off of card games only using pretty miniatures.
Its also the #1 wargame of all time because of that... because thats apparently what players are willing to shovel out truck loads of money for regularly.
IGOUGO is a big part of the problem.
Bad points is another.
Bad terrain rules yet another.
But rules aren't what the average GW consumer cares highly for, they care about models, lore, and size of community first and foremost.
Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.
While GW could clearly keep doing what they're doing and be successful, what's frustrating is that they don't stand to lose anything by tightening up the balance a bit more. Tightening the rules may lead to more issues as the game moves away from what GW wants to sell but, IMO, that's where the game designers earn their money. It's a pity GW isn't interested in it because the less they're interested in it the less the game seems to hold the interest of a lot of the more experienced long-term players in my area.
You're just asserting it won't work because "shooting is too powerful", which doesn't make sense, because the relative power of the units is a balance problem, not an activation order problem
No, we tried it, previous edition but still, and the main problem is Alpha Strike in the shooting phase
and alternating phases does not solve the Alpha Strike problem at all
And re-balancing the units is a different story, but as GW just want to change core rules but will never change unit profiles at all this not a real possibility
I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.
So there is no possibility that the play who went last the previous phase will be first the next phase?...
Initiative is rolled at the beginning of the round, not per phase, in LotR. You can use Heroic Actions (expending Might, a limited resource) off a Hero to interrupt the turn order and activate first, but your opponent can counter-Heroic Action and the way the turn's structured it can't produce a "double turn" the way Sigmar does where one player might get to attack twice where the other person has no opportunity to respond.
AnomanderRake wrote: I've tried building AA rules for 40k, and I found that harsher area-terrain LOS rules alongside alternating shooting makes for the biggest improvement.
This is probably the way to go for any sort of new edition. Shooting is way too powerful, which is directly caused by weak cover rules. When I think back to 5th, just being behind another unit reduced any damage my ork army took by 50% - now I just play as if there were no terrain rules, as it's nigh impossible to get the large units into cover, and if I do AP-2 ignores it anyways.
5th wasn't perfect by any means, as armies with good saves basically didn't benefit at all, but improving cover rules to allow gaining cover much easier and cover having a higher benefit seems necessary.
I still play LOTR in the new edition, and there's no possibility of a "double phase" in either it or my proposed version of 40k.
So there is no possibility that the play who went last the previous phase will be first the next phase?
Nope. No possibility of that at all. Priority is done by turn, not by phase.
EDIT:
Of course, there's the mechanic I keep talking about (Heroic Shoot, in LOTR) that expends a resource to let a few models go first in the next phase, even if you don't have Priority, but once you've declared you're doing it, the enemy can also declare it (again with a specific few models and expending a resource) that forces it to another 50/50 roll. So it's not something you can do super reliably unless the enemy has more limited resources (might points) than you, or has models out of position that have those resources.
No, we tried it, previous edition but still, and the main problem is Alpha Strike in the shooting phase
and alternating phases does not solve the Alpha Strike problem at all
And re-balancing the units is a different story, but as GW just want to change core rules but will never change unit profiles at all this not a real possibility
It is unlikely that GW will change their activation order mechanics as well.
Alternating phases absolutely solves the alpha-strike problem, at least in my experience, because we've tried it also. Being able to move vulnerable units before the enemy shoots is like, the best way to mitigate alpha strike. Were you playing with LOS blocking terrain? And tons of it?
Martel732 wrote: You shouldnt need tons of los blocking terrain. If you do, that means shooting is undercosted.
Which is utterly unrelated to whether or not alternating phases or alternating activations is good. The relative balance between units can be skewed regardless of the system in which they operate, always.
That Said, you shouldn't cost shoot units as if it's Planet Bowling Ball either, because then they'll be dramatically overcosted in a real game.
Martel732 wrote: You shouldnt need tons of los blocking terrain. If you do, that means shooting is undercosted.
Not necessarily. One of the issues with 40k is that it's so easy to attack with everything at full efficiency every turn (due to few move-and-fire restrictions, poor LOS rules, accurate indirect fire, and very long ranges) that when a gunline hits the table the whole thing becomes a simple game of numerical efficiency where we could compute who's going to win based solely on whose guns are better/army is tougher. If you have more LOS block, independent of how the guns are costed, and the game requires you to move to get things done, that adds a whole extra phase of interesting things happening where in 8e the movement phase is all too frequently "I move towards the nearest thing" or "I maintain optimum range from the nearest thing".
Martel732 wrote: Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.
Yes and no. Lots of stupid battles were on open fields. Especially when it was fought due to "honor" and such. But in more modern battles that dont have any gentlemen agreement to duke it out in a field and decide the result that way its stupid. 2 centuries ago when we had rank and file warfare in real life and not only in games like warhammer fantasy.
Terrain matters a lot in war. If not the wars the US been in the last few decades would have been decided in days instead of years. And in 40k battles are fought species against species in all out warfare mostly so the armies are not gonna decide a place and time for a friendly spar in an open field. Lots of gritty warfare in all manners of terrain to wipe each other out is what is gonna happen.
Bharring wrote: A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.
"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...
But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.
There's a lot of precedent of a "few bombed out buildings", features, or anything of value on/near the engagement shifting the engagement from "by the books" to something of interest.
Martel732 wrote: Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.
On planed level ground with no dips or crests of any kind? Name one of those that anyone's been enough of an idiot to fight since the advent of gunpowder.
Bharring wrote: A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.
"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...
But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.
You're wrong. Using terrain as a necessary feature is awesome. Planet bowling ball should be outright impossible in the rules so that terrain can be a source of engaging counter play.
The sooner terrain filled tables become a requirement the better.
Martel732 wrote: Battles should be able to play out on relatively open boards. Lots of battles did.
On planed level ground with no dips or crests of any kind? Name one of those that anyone's been enough of an idiot to fight since the advent of gunpowder.
I said relatively. Many of the posters on here want Pac-Man boards to balance out GW's ineptitude.
Bharring wrote: A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.
"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...
But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.
You're wrong. Using terrain as a necessary feature is awesome. Planet bowling ball should be outright impossible in the rules so that terrain can be a source of engaging counter play.
The sooner terrain filled tables become a requirement the better.
Why? Why is engaging play dependent on random terrain?
Bharring wrote: A flat-open featureless and meaningless terrain would just be carpetbombed, orbitally, into nothingness.
"Our armies show up, then our navies reduce both forces to nothing before Top of 1" isn't the sort of 40k game I'd like to play...
But a few bombed out buildings stop this? Using terrain as a primary balancing feature is a mistake.
There's a lot of precedent of a "few bombed out buildings", features, or anything of value on/near the engagement shifting the engagement from "by the books" to something of interest.
Martel732 wrote: I'm just pointing out that terrain is not a panacea. There reaches the point where you can't hit the IG at all and they just blow you apart.
It shouldn't be a panacea, but it certainly should be part of the equation. I think we can mostly agree on that?
Martel732 wrote: I'm just pointing out that terrain is not a panacea. There reaches the point where you can't hit the IG at all and they just blow you apart.
The flaw here isn't in the terrain rules. It's in the NLOS rules and scale confusion that 40k seems to have.
A single artillery shell fired at a target it cannot see is either guided by some ISR platform (if it's a guided shell) or is likely to miss, unless it was pre-registered with a spotter some time ago (and one could argue a spotter counts as an ISR asset). The fact that NLOS has no penalty to-hitting is either reflective of supreme technology (e.g. self-guided shells) which should be interfere-with-able, or bad rules writing.
What should happen is the Basilisk / other artillery weapons should require a spotter of some kind (either a Valkyrie with a certain upgrade/pre-battle stratagem, or a character/Weapon Team with binoculars on the ground) to be able to fire out of LOS - the spotter must have LOS though, and therefore can be taken out by the right weapons. Otherwise, permit speculative fire but it only hits on a 6 or whatever.
The fact that artillery is very very very very very very very very very very badly instantiated right now is not an argument to not put adequate/good terrain on your boards.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.
So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?
Or that terrain does and it rightly should?
And are you saying "no effect" or "less effect"?
Abbott: You throw the ball to first base.
Costello: Then who gets it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You don't! You throw it to Who!
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: Well, that's it—say it that way.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: You did not.
Costello: I said I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You don't! You throw it to Who!
Costello: Naturally.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.
So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?
Or that terrain does and it rightly should?
And are you saying "no effect" or "less effect"?
We've been trying something new in my group with terrain.
1. If your unit is at least partially within terrain (50% of THE model or the MODELS) then the unit gets +1 to AS.
2. If there is a piece of terrain that you can see over/through/under between you and the target you are shooting at, then the unit gets +1 to AS.
3. If a target is within a piece of terrain and loses enough models to take a leadership test, add 1 to the LD score of the unit.
Claims that 40k won't work with alternating actions of some sort are ludicrous, lots of people have done and continue to do that because it works. I play it with AA from time to time and it is a better game for that.
Same with the terrain, using only the most basic +1 cover is just shooting yourself in the foot when CoD and rulebook "extras" are there officially without having to make any up yourself. Movement penalties (though minor, mostly important in deterring charges), +1/+2 cover, -1 to hit for obscurement, buildings that give bonuses for occupants... make of the game what you want.
Slipspace wrote: Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.
My first game of 8th edition after getting back into the hobby was a 25 PL match, Orks vs Death Guard. I had about 65 models, and my opponent started out with 4 (he summoned more during the game). But I wasn't the slow player--he was! Every model of his had like a dozen special rules, and statlines with no particular pattern, so he kept needing to look through three distinct books to find out what all of his stuff did. After 3 hours, I forfeited the game because it was obvious I was going to lose and it was dragging on like a game of Monopoly. Even slow games of 3rd-5th played faster!
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.
Here is the thing about considering incorporating Kill Team like mechanics. Readying (what you refer to as an aim bonus) just means the shooting unit gets to act in the what I call the Readied subphase when teaching Kill Team. That's it. Worst case scenario is that static gun line player loses initiative, their opponent whatever reason makes all their units Move/Advance/Charge forgetting that their opponent is is playing a very range heavy (read: static gun line) army and has the their whole Movement Phase to decide how to maneuver. The gun line player unsurprisingly readies all their units. You know what was just created? A regular turn in current full 40k. Except it was the player with initiative that created their own demise, and their opponent had to give up all movement to capitalize on it.
Players already get to act with all their units without their opponent having a whole lot of input to change that. By using Kill Team's phase and Shooting/Combat alternation action system. An opponent that forgets their opponent is playing a static gun line and moves their units like their opponent isn't just going to Ready to shoot them first deserves everything they get. It wasn't a single die roll that determined who got to shoot all their units first. It was the player that allowed their opponent the opportunity to shoot all their units first.
I strongly, strongly suggest anyone that already has a 40k army to play a few games of Kill Team. The turn mechanics work very well in comparison to the IGOUGO of full 40k where whole chunks of each players' army is ripped out during their opponent's turn. And I am not entirely against IGOUGO either. I would rather use the IGOUGO mechanics of Dust Warfare over any strict alternating activation where the player with fewer unactivated units can't pass until there opponent has the same or less unactivated units. As you might have guessed, I have played bunch of different initiative mechanics, and I can tell you poorly realized alternating activation systems can be just as frustrating as IGOUGO. You have never seen such impotent rage of a player that gets activation juggled by a player that knows how to manipulate alternating activation. It is one thing to know by the rules your opponent gets to do everything then you get to. It is a whole other thing to have your opponent kill/cripple your units before you ever get a chance to activate them.
I think full 40k could have an edition that makes use of Kill Team's activation mechanics and would probably greatly benefit from it. It would take some tweaking as Kill Team really feels like if was designed for the 30" x 22" board typically with a no man's land of about 18". I don't think Charges as a unit's movement action would work in the current rules of full 40k. At same time, I feel allowing Move + Charge (especially being able to still move that charge roll distance) feels right either. I think it is step in the right direction moving from the IGOUGO system it currently has.
Banville wrote: I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.
Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.
In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.
Banville wrote: I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.
Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.
In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.
You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alternating phases absolutely solves the alpha-strike problem, at least in my experience, because we've tried it also. Being able to move vulnerable units before the enemy shoots is like, the best way to mitigate alpha strike. Were you playing with LOS blocking terrain? And tons of it?
One of the problems we encountered was that melee in 40k is designed to happen after shooting and that some melee units are able to shoot before they attack
Shifting the charge phase between movement and shooting solves the Alpha Strike problem up to a part but makes some units that rely on movement in the shooting phase or shooting before they attack unplayable
while keeping like in regular 40k at the end, at least Overwatch need to go and moving out of LOS/range is not a real option if you want to charge in the same turn.
Without special rules that change order (or stuff like acting twice) it is a different story, but it needs more adjustment than just changing from alternating turns to alternating phases.
I guess we have more or less the same opinion and there is just something lost in translation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".
Warpath 2nd Edition and Starship Troopers would like to have a talk with you
Alternating player turns (some people from other games would call alternating unit activations IGoUGo) works if the game is written that way.
Main disadvantage is that such a game has no real player interaction during the turns and therefore either need be played fast or have some kind of reaction rules.
40k, as most GW games, has the problem that there was a basic idea of reaction rules to compensate the missing interaction but they are done badly and/or do not match the changed core rules any more and are left for legacy reasons
(throwing a lot of dead dice is also just there to give the opponent something to do, while using less dice for the same outcome is possible and would speed up the turn)
Martel732 wrote: Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.
So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?
Or that terrain does and it rightly should?
I think that he is trying to say that amount of terrain currently has little impact on the massive advantage the rules give to shooting over any other sort of strategy.
I agree with that, my experience is that terrain does little to lesser the power of a dedicated shooting army - either they are mobile enough to maneuver around terrain, or they have means to ignore LOS. In any case, the protection terrain offers is symmetrical, LOS blocking terrain doesn't just protect from shooting, it also protects from assaults and many psychic powers.
This is a table from a recent game, which was anything but planet bowling ball:
Spoiler:
The ultramarines were not affected by that massive amount of LOS blocking terrain at all. The TF cannon and the eliminators could pick targets at will, the leviathan and the chronos predator counted as stationary anyways. The only thing the terrain did was hindering my movement and my charges, so it helped the stationary shooting army more than it helped my orks.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”
I recently played a game where it was 1k IF allied to my 2k of Word Bearers/Slaneesh Deamons vs 3k Eldar/Dark eldar.
I effectively was playing a heavy possessed with daemonettes and Syll'Esske while my IF allies was running some Centurions and a Repulsor with a few support elements. By the end of turn two I was effectively off the table due to playing an assault heavy army while doing rather minimal damage to the eldar army. Most of my time was spent occupying the squad of six shinning spears that they were running of which one was left before I was left with a handful of cultist, a dark apostle and a greater possessed. The 1k of IF was pretty much up against 2k of eldar and by the end of turn 4 had almost tabled the eldar.
The idea that most of my army is eliminated turn one with most of it being wrapped up turn two leaving an IF force facing about double its points and watching four models (a Repulsor and three Centurions) devastate it.
The outcome of the turns and how beneficial it was to the IF player to have me there to soak the alpha is not important, what is important is how easy it was for them to wipe out almost 2k of points in two turns then to watch 1k points wipe out 2k.
The last five games I have played came down to a tabling as opposed to objectives and it is getting disheartening. At this point I look back at 7th more fondly than 8th. In 7th I could at least just say, "Hey I wont play that list unless you drop indivisibility" and while that wouldn't fix the game it made it more of a competition. At this point in 8th I feel like I have to ask for a points handicap depending on the army I face. 7th gave you free units but 8th is just stacking free rules, either way if you play any army that doesn't get a bunch of free stuff you are behind the curve.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”
Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”
Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.
Yup, you just gave up your Movement phase and telegraphed that to your opponent which can now make all that aiming have no target (unless playing on Planet Bowling Ball) to just make the game be IGOUGO like is now. Conversely, the opponent could just do the same and Aim with everything too and it would still be alternating activations. Honest and humble question, have you played the latest Kill Team? Because it doesn't seem like you realize how Reading works and how it isn't this amazing, game-breaking thing.
Daedalus81 wrote: I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.
There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.
Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.
This is all that really needed to be said.
I find this edition to be far more tactical than some past ones personally. Though the Marine firepower is definitely too much, that is a balance problem that needs to be fixed.
Jidmah wrote: I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.
IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.
I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”
Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.
It’s alternating actions. Sorry for the confusion.
Slipspace wrote: Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.
My first game of 8th edition after getting back into the hobby was a 25 PL match, Orks vs Death Guard. I had about 65 models, and my opponent started out with 4 (he summoned more during the game). But I wasn't the slow player--he was! Every model of his had like a dozen special rules, and statlines with no particular pattern, so he kept needing to look through three distinct books to find out what all of his stuff did. After 3 hours, I forfeited the game because it was obvious I was going to lose and it was dragging on like a game of Monopoly. Even slow games of 3rd-5th played faster!
At the local geedubs also this is the opinion... rules bloat. Layers upon layers of bloaty gimicky mechinacs that try to cover over the flawed core mechanics... just a ball of half baked garbage wrapped in pretty paper. I have been enjoying 500pt games with my index orks and using very few special rules. My opponent plays primaris so he has lots of rules like snipers that dont need line of sight and he uses those ... his turns used to take longer when i would ask things like "seriously those snipers dont even need to see anyone?" but still...
Banville wrote: I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.
Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.
In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.
You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".
I've seen games where the my turn/your turn structure does work, but they tend to have much more active participation and decision making from the defending player. A structure like Infinity, for example, where a unit shot at can react defensively by attempting to dodge to safety or offensively by firing back or engaging a close enemy in hand to hand combat means your'e not just stuck sitting there waiting for the casualties to roll in, but at the same time your overall strategy can be carried out in the active turn.
Turn structure aside, the point of my rant was that 40k has progressively moved further and further from tactical thinking and more towards "moar dice, moar death, remove moar modelz".
In the past, only troops could hold objectives.
Then any infantry could hold objectives, but troops did it better.
Now everything can hold objecives, and troops do it better, as do a variety of other units (all deathskull infantry, for example).
Make the killy things useless at anything but killing and it'll make a move in the right direction. people only takes troops as tax these days, with a few exceptions. Units are entirely measured in "making their points back", and it's rubbish.
1: Reduce Killyness
2: Reduce/specialise Utility
3...
4: A more balanced game.
Emicrania wrote: You know I didn't understood how bad it was until I had a game with my well practised orks list vs IH.
3 TFC and 2 whirlwind plus 3*3 eliminators basically wiped my army in one round.
I honestly believe this is the worst meta I ever been in.
And I played etc comped rules Nids in 7th, so no dakka flyrant.....
Yeah, it does seem like marines with superdoctrines pretty much cause this issue single-handedly where I play. This weekend I watched a game at the table across from me that was marines vs CSM daemon engines while we played Ork speed freeks vs Necrons.
End of turn 2 they called the game because the CSM side had 1 tank and 3 cultists left and our game ended on turn 5 with over 750 points alive on either side, basically because I got to the point where I had pretty good board control but I could no longer fully wipe any of his squads and they kept coming back. A game where you lose 1-2 big things per turn, terrain and defensive abilities feel like they matter, and it all came down to points and board control in the end was a huge relief. We've reached the point where our games start at noon and generally go until 4, and by about 2PM all the tables that had marines on them pack up and head out because they've just obliterated eachother.
I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.
the_scotsman wrote: I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.
Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.
the_scotsman wrote: I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.
Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.
no power armor is a bit silly considering it means:
So basically kick Chaos.
SoB..
All non supplement marines, including GK.
No if anything, telling supplement users to not bring them is fair enough. And the C:SM 2.0 dex is firmly in the medium to high tier by itself. And that is a good thing.
the_scotsman wrote: I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.
Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.
Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)
no chaos dex is anywhere close to supplement-tier so I'm not avoiding them. And theoretically if there ever was some guy who decided "you know what, I could choose to use Doctrines and table my opponents turn 2-3, but instead I shall not do that, let's bring some allies and choose to play out of the core Marines 2.0 codex!" then, sure, I'd probably play them.
But there's not. We've got about 15 loyalist marine players, 2 play Blood Angels, 1 plays White Scars, 3 play Salamanders, and 2 play Iron Hands, and the remainder all play mostly Primaris focused custom chapters (read: unpainted Graymarines) that have all become IH/IF since the supplements dropped. Come to think of it only like 2 of them were even showing up to play before Marine Codex 2.0, this is the hardest I've ever seen a meta get bandwagoned where I play since I started in 5th ed.
Sorry I referred to space marines as "power armor" at the bottom of a post that started "Superdoctrines seem to be singlehandedly causing the problems where I play". Great job clipping just that one statement out to make it seem like I'm referring to stuff like CSM and SOB
Sunny Side Up wrote: Marines still have the 1.0 Codex, which is pretty good if you add Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline. Probably right were Marines should be.
That's still a pretty weak force. GW just lost their mind on 2.0.
the_scotsman wrote: Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)
No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.
But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.
Martel732 wrote: The BA supplement is pretty tame, imo. Compared to the others at least.
Well yeah. They're stuck in the Assault Doctrine crap, but at least White Scars have TONS of Strat shenanigans and their Relics/Warlord traits are good.
the_scotsman wrote: Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)
No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.
But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.
That is how I play my Primaris only space marine army. I find it hilarious when the more competitively minded players ask which supplement am I using or if I am using the Raven Guard supplement since my Primaris look very much like Raptor chapter marines. I just tell them neither. Then they inform me that I have the option to use one. I just tell them I am aware. Then they kinda walk away confused. I like the strength of my army without it. Heck, I could go one step further and have the combat doctrine rules locked that I have to progress through them each round. Which is what I typically do anyways even if staying in Tactical Doctrine is usually the best for me. My Primaris army still feel much stronger than my Black Legion one regardless.
I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.
Marin wrote: I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.
We just got what we wanted, be happy.
... and that's why should always listen to your customers, but not do everything they want.
the_scotsman wrote: Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)
No, I literally meant don't use the supplement book at all, just the new codex.
But yeah, I see how people interested in hopping on the bandwagon won't do that.
That is how I play my Primaris only space marine army. I find it hilarious when the more competitively minded players ask which supplement am I using or if I am using the Raven Guard supplement since my Primaris look very much like Raptor chapter marines. I just tell them neither. Then they inform me that I have the option to use one. I just tell them I am aware. Then they kinda walk away confused. I like the strength of my army without it. Heck, I could go one step further and have the combat doctrine rules locked that I have to progress through them each round. Which is what I typically do anyways even if staying in Tactical Doctrine is usually the best for me. My Primaris army still feel much stronger than my Black Legion one regardless.
We had a diehard IH player here, that stuck with them through 8th and the gakfest that was dex SM 1.0
He took one look at the IH supplement, laughed, put it back on a shelf and just made custom traits and uses the dex 2.0.
his words:
"Anyone not out for a cheap powerspike of his sm army can see that the supplements themselves are on top of an now really good dex 2.0 too much."
is that true, i mean, kinda, some of the supplements are ok fluffy rules for a specific army, noone would complain about BT f.e. but what certain other suplements bring to the table, especially IF, IH and RG is just too over the top imo
Marin wrote: I don`t get it, GW just did what most players wanted.
Players cryed all edition against Allaitoc and Tao, instead of wanting their army to be more survivable they demanded that they are able to destroy any number of units for few turns.
GW created marines who negate most armies natural defense, so its normal that the edition became more deadly.
IH nerf was removing the faction defense and not decreasing the biggest SM problem, aka their insane damage output.
We just got what we wanted, be happy.
... and that's why should always listen to your customers, but not do everything they want.
TBF: those that wanted cheaper marines instead also got what they wanted with CSM regulars at 11 pts. And it doesn't really work out that well. Of course that also has to do with the surounding book aswell but the race to the bottom that is atm facilitated is also not the solution.
Martel732 wrote: Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.
Yep.
counterpoint:
GW created a wounding system whereby you need exponentially increasing values of strength and toughness to take full advantage of the scale.
In order to be able to wound a T8 model on a 2, you need S16. I assume what you mean by spreading toughness values around you mean getting more T2/T1 models as well as T9/T10/T11+ whatever, since we seem to have every other value covered between 1 and 8 for touhgness and 1 and 10 for strength with the addition of melee weapons sometimes going up to S16+.
I definitely agree that certain values are overstuffed - T7 being the big one. More light vehicles should be T6/5, and more heavy vehicles T8.
T4 is really bad too. They had the chance to make Necron infantry T5; ie distinct from marines. More units need to be distinct from the popular marines. But yes, T7 is really crowded.
They also had the opportunity to properly distinguish between anti-tank weapons and anti-personnel by using the full range of S/T values. At the moment the best anti-tank weapons are often things with D2, S6-7 and a fairly large number of shots. If vehicles were tougher but anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns had higher strength too you'd see much more differentiation in weapon options. Basically, GW changed the wounding chart and opened up the possibility of stats above 10...then completely failed to adjust the game accordingly, which speaks to how half-assed the "complete overhaul" from 7th-8th really was.
Martel732 wrote: Let's be honest here. GW implemented a new wounding table and then didn't take advantage by spreading out the T and S values.
Yep.
counterpoint:
GW created a wounding system whereby you need exponentially increasing values of strength and toughness to take full advantage of the scale.
In order to be able to wound a T8 model on a 2, you need S16. I assume what you mean by spreading toughness values around you mean getting more T2/T1 models as well as T9/T10/T11+ whatever, since we seem to have every other value covered between 1 and 8 for touhgness and 1 and 10 for strength with the addition of melee weapons sometimes going up to S16+.
I definitely agree that certain values are overstuffed - T7 being the big one. More light vehicles should be T6/5, and more heavy vehicles T8.
There should be a lot more str 16 guns...Like fireprisms - railguns - d cannons. More vehicals should be T 8 and 9 too. Just to add more variety to anti tank weapons.
Martel732 wrote: Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.
It should probably be str 14.
Nope, S16 would've been the key point.
Agreed the high number of t8 high wound count units currently in the game (cough, cough, knights) means we need more str16 weapons. In the case of meltas I could see them being str14 until within half range and then str16.
The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.
Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?
Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?
Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.
Martel732 wrote: Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.
It should probably be str 14.
Nope, S16 would've been the key point.
Look at the name of the topic and what you are asking, a MSU unit of devastators can clear T7 tank for 1 turn with the rerolls and you want the some to be possible for units like IK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.
Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?
Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?
Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.
People are taking starcannons because of the point difference, make bright lance cheaper and most people will use it.
Lance being only 5 pts cheaper than lastcannon is showing GW don`t rate range and STR9 enough.
Martel732 wrote: Melta in particular got hosed by being marooned at S8.
It should probably be str 14.
Nope, S16 would've been the key point.
Look at the name of the topic and what you are asking, a MSU unit of devastators can clear T7 tank for 1 turn with the rerolls and you want the some to be possible for units like IK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: The problem isint with STr values so much but with damage out put and number of shots.
Theres a reason you see starcannons spammed over BL/EML for killing tanks. Would I take higher ROF at lower strenght with D3 damage or one shot with D6 damage?
Who cares if your wepon is str 16 -5 if it deals D6 damage?
Need dedicated heavy AT wepons (lascanons, prisms, those detah beam necron things) to be Like 1+2D3.
People are taking starcannons because of the point difference, make bright lance cheaper and most people will use it.
Lance being only 5 pts cheaper than lastcannon is showing GW don`t rate range and STR9 enough.
So you're saying a group of Devastators packing S16 Multi-Meltas with points invested to a Chapter Master is a problem?Sounds like you don't know what actual problems are. But okay.
