Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

Nahhhhhh. You miss your free 500 points (or whatever it was, I forget the specifics) of units for using your "fluffy" formation.

" I miss the days of scatter bikes and D weapons."

No. You don't.

Gotta be a troll post

Every tyranid codex to me is boring because I compare the units in it to the first codex I ever owned (2nd Ed). I want my WS7 S6 genestealers and T8 W10 carnifexes back.

Care to explain to a newer player what these things were and what made them good compared to what we have now? I've heard rumors of OP scatterbikes and scary D-weapons but I never really understood what that meant.

 Castozor wrote:
Care to explain to a newer player what these things were and what made them good compared to what we have now? I've heard rumors of OP scatterbikes and scary D-weapons but I never really understood what that meant.

Before the introduction of the Damage characteristic, and back when Strength was capped at 10 and vehicles had an Armor Value instead of Toughness and save, there was a brief period of time during which Destroyer weapons (D-weapons) were the bane of tanks. Those weapons used a whole different system of wounding.

(Dunno what Scatterbikes are.)

 Castozor wrote:
Care to explain to a newer player what these things were and what made them good compared to what we have now? I've heard rumors of OP scatterbikes and scary D-weapons but I never really understood what that meant.

In 3e-7e vehicles didn't have a toughness or an armour save, they had front, side, and rear armour from 10-14, and when you attacked them you rolled d6+Strength. If your total equalled their armour you got a "glancing hit", if it was greater you got a "penetrating hit". The effects varied from edition to edition, but in 6th and 7th vehicles had "hull points" and any glancing or penetrating hit would remove one. Scatterbikes are just Craftworld Windrider Jetbikes, only in 7th they were Troops and they'd just gotten the ability to put an upgrade gun on every model. They could move and fire freely without penalty, they had a 2d6" assault phase move so they could pop in and out of line of sight on the same turn, and they put down four shots a model at 36" range, so they were incredibly destructive to anything AV12 and under as well as making non-vehicle models make loads and loads of saves.

"D-Weapons" was how the game handled really big guns in the days when Strength was capped at 10 and everything did one damage. They wounded/penetrated everything in the game on 2+, and if you got a 6 to wound they no-save RFPed almost anything they hit. This would have been pretty much fine if GW had been content to limit them to superheavy weapons like they did before 7th, but in 7th some joker decided that all distortion weapons in the Eldar book should be D-strength, which meant you could cheaply and easily wreck anything your scatterbikes weren't efficient at killing.

Both were bad design decisions. Anyone who claims to miss either is either being sarcastic or making a hyperbolic point that they prefer fighting the most broken things in 7th to fighting the most broken things in 9th. Personally I don't miss those specific rules, but I'd rather have them than play 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
" I miss the days of scatter bikes and D weapons."

No. You don't.

How do you know? Just because you don't doesn't mean nobody else does.

I mean one can miss 7th edition but missing the worst and most eggregious examples of his unbalanced stuff?

And knowing how Xenomancers posts I'm pretty sure back in the day he would be complaining about how scatter bikes destroy all marines tanks and units without a sweat.

Ah 7th edition eldar, the most fluffy dex we ever got. Wraithknights deleting armies, Scatterbikes dealing death by a thousand cuts. OH GW balance team what warp dust didst thou taketh?

also if i remember correctly bikes moved 12 inches, jet bikes moved an extra 12 and then eldar jet bikes could move 12 after shooting in the assault phase (i may be thinking 5th here) but you could zip up, move halfway up the board shoot then move out of line of sight again and not many units could actually ever catch you or even draw a bead to try and shoot them.

Ah, the good old days of
"Yeah, my 50 point model just oneshotted your 250 point model without you even getting to roll a single dice to avoid it"
or
"My army is composed by a single unit which kills anything it wants and is completely invulnerable from any attack."

Indeed I miss those times soooo much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
also if i remember correctly bikes moved 12 inches, jet bikes moved an extra 12 and then eldar jet bikes could move 12 after shooting in the assault phase (i may be thinking 5th here) but you could zip up, move halfway up the board shoot then move out of line of sight again and not many units could actually ever catch you or even draw a bead to try and shoot them.

And worst of all, even with all that mobility and firepower (and being troops), they costed 17 points per model.
Oh, did we mention that they had inbuilt rr all hits?

Spoletta wrote:
Ah, the good old days of
"Yeah, my 50 point model just oneshotted your 250 point model without you even getting to roll a single dice to avoid it"
or
"My army is composed by a single unit which kills anything it wants and is completely invulnerable from any attack."

Indeed I miss those times soooo much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
also if i remember correctly bikes moved 12 inches, jet bikes moved an extra 12 and then eldar jet bikes could move 12 after shooting in the assault phase (i may be thinking 5th here) but you could zip up, move halfway up the board shoot then move out of line of sight again and not many units could actually ever catch you or even draw a bead to try and shoot them.

And worst of all, even with all that mobility and firepower (and being troops), they costed 17 points per model.
Oh, did we mention that they had inbuilt rr all hits?

wasn't it you rolled on the scatter lasers first and if you hit with even one then you got to reroll the more powerful shurikan cannons which got better ap on wounds of a 6? again though i have 5 editions in my heads plus kill teams so i could be wrong there

Thanks for enlightening me on some 40k History. I must admit those do not sound very fun to me, even if they might be slightly better than some of the more egregious stunts you can pull these days.

 Castozor wrote:
Care to explain to a newer player what these things were and what made them good compared to what we have now? I've heard rumors of OP scatterbikes and scary D-weapons but I never really understood what that meant.

A d weapon always wounded on a 2 - did d3 damage during a time when all weapons did 1 damage and on a 6 it did d6+6 wounds with no save allowed. Couldn't take FNP against D weapons ether (Nor against double str weapons) in those days. The "competitive community" hated the d weapon so much - that ITC actually made rules changes to nerf them...which is a joke - they still allowed invisibility in the game (you can only be hit on 6's to hit for a whole unit) and(endurance which gave a whole unit 4+ FNP's and ignore move penalties). D weapons were very strong but also very expensive.

Scatter bikes had 4 shots wounding most troops on 2's and AP was utterly useless because every unit was getting a 4++ save for being in cover basically and fast units could "jink" when they got shot to get a specials 4+ save too. Also with str 6 could wound tanks on a 5 or 6 to wound unless they had armor 13. So They had the volume to put 3-4 wounds on tanks and "hull point" them. Basically tanks had 3 wounds and no saves in that eddition.

Tanks were like...really bad in those days but at the same time some weapons couldn't hurt them. Monsters on the other hand were Amazing but had a T value and anything could hurt them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I mean one can miss 7th edition but missing the worst and most eggregious examples of his unbalanced stuff?

And knowing how Xenomancers posts I'm pretty sure back in the day he would be complaining about how scatter bikes destroy all marines tanks and units without a sweat.

Are you kidding me? I was playing eldar and tau. Marines were pathetical bad in this edition.

I think your missing the point - this stuff was insanely OP for the time...we have moved way past that. You spend 1 CP you you remove a model/unit or make 45 saves...

Spoletta wrote:
...And worst of all, even with all that mobility and firepower (and being troops), they costed 17 points per model.
Oh, did we mention that they had inbuilt rr all hits?

17pts with shuriken catapults, 27pts with a scatter laser or shuriken cannon. The scatter laser had "if you hit with the scatter laser every other weapon fired from the unit re-rolls hits", which was put on it in 7th in an effort to make it a co-axial/guide-laser choice when put on a Falcon or a War Walker with another weapon on the same turret, but whoever wrote that rule forgot they'd put them in the Windrider kit too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Ah, the good old days of
"Yeah, my 50 point model just oneshotted your 250 point model without you even getting to roll a single dice to avoid it"
or
"My army is composed by a single unit which kills anything it wants and is completely invulnerable from any attack."

Indeed I miss those times soooo much...

I don't get why people think getting to roll a save adds agency. I don't find the 50-pt models one-shotting 250pt models in 9th any less frustrating because someone says to me "Why are you complaining? You got to roll a save as part of the attack procedure!"

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
...And worst of all, even with all that mobility and firepower (and being troops), they costed 17 points per model.
Oh, did we mention that they had inbuilt rr all hits?

17pts with shuriken catapults, 27pts with a scatter laser or shuriken cannon. The scatter laser had "if you hit with the scatter laser every other weapon fired from the unit re-rolls hits", which was put on it in 7th in an effort to make it a co-axial/guide-laser choice when put on a Falcon or a War Walker with another weapon on the same turret, but whoever wrote that rule forgot they'd put them in the Windrider kit too.

That rule never existed for "scatter bikes" as they were known. I think the rule disappeared after the CWE codex in 7th.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't get why people think getting to roll a save adds agency. I don't find the 50-pt models one-shotting 250pt models in 9th any less frustrating because someone says to me "Why are you complaining? You got to roll a save as part of the attack procedure!"

Rolling a save does add agency, or at least 'involves' the controlling player in the process (which is, arguably, agency). It's not much and it's not exactly rewarding, but it is generally more "fun" than just spending the whole turn being told your model(s) died and now you need to remove them.

Not really disagreeing with the rest of what you've got there, just indicating that the original intent for armor saves and how they operate is positive and surprisingly 'aware' so far as game design goes.

Then go back. No one is stopping you from playing older editions.

go ahead, make my day.

And I'll go back to using my 7th edition Tau Empire codex. With working markerlights, and working jump packs, and the ability of FSE to take Crisis Suits as troops. And no limits on the number of Commanders that I could field.

 carldooley wrote:
go ahead, make my day.

And I'll go back to using my 7th edition Tau Empire codex. With working markerlights, and working jump packs, and the ability of FSE to take Crisis Suits as troops. And no limits on the number of Commanders that I could field.

Like I said. Good Ole days.

Riptide win / + Drone net / + Stormsurge formation. The most fun you could have with tau. Not to mention...Crisis suits were really good cause they could hit.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

What chaff infantry gets 2+ saves?

The only one I can think of is Sisters of Battle in cover, who only MAYBE qualify as chaff. And if you have AP, then they don't get a 2+ anymore unless they're Valorous Heart.

I miss vortex grenades, used rarely.
I miss flamer templates.
D weapons are essential.
Eldar jet Bike squadrons may include one scatter laser replacing its shuriken guns for every three models.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What chaff infantry gets 2+ saves?

The only one I can think of is Sisters of Battle in cover, who only MAYBE qualify as chaff. And if you have AP, then they don't get a 2+ anymore unless they're Valorous Heart.

Skitarii can do it a few ways.

Sterling191 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What chaff infantry gets 2+ saves?

The only one I can think of is Sisters of Battle in cover, who only MAYBE qualify as chaff. And if you have AP, then they don't get a 2+ anymore unless they're Valorous Heart.

Skitarii can do it a few ways.

Ah, good point. I should know that.

IIRC the laser lock rule for scatter lasers that let you re-roll was per model, not per unit, so did nothing for scatbikes. And I think it was only in the 6th ed codex.

I don't miss Scatter Bikes or D-weapons. Not in the slightest.

I do, however, miss some of the stuff that was last seen in that edition - not least two entire armies.

I do miss harlequins melee weapons having unique and interesting abilities. Now they are just same as power weapons with slightly different stats.

I must admit I don’t miss the passive aggressive response my eldar got back then.

Someday GW will do craftworlds Eldar right, maybe a few more editions for them to work out some basics.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I mean one can miss 7th edition but missing the worst and most eggregious examples of his unbalanced stuff?

And knowing how Xenomancers posts I'm pretty sure back in the day he would be complaining about how scatter bikes destroy all marines tanks and units without a sweat.

Are you kidding me? I was playing eldar and tau. Marines were pathetical bad in this edition.

I think your missing the point - this stuff was insanely OP for the time...we have moved way past that. You spend 1 CP you you remove a model/unit or make 45 saves...

So, you just miss when your armies had "insanely OP rules"? That's what I'm getting from this. Scat Bikes and D-weapons were ok because you played Eldar and got to slap around armies without broken stuff like yours. "OP rules = Good for me, but bad for anyone else".

 morganfreeman wrote:
Rolling a save does add agency, or at least 'involves' the controlling player in the process (which is, arguably, agency).

Player agency as a design term conventionally refers to the ability to make decisions. If you're just rolling dice and checking the result with no capacity to make decisions that affect the outcome, you have no agency in the process. Saves are not a mechanism for adding agency, they're a legacy of the game's RPG roots and a very shallow way to keep both players involved in 30+ minute IGOUGO turns.

I can't say I miss 7th edition.

I didn't dislike it as such - the core rules themselves were fine, other than a few wonky interactions. It was just the codexes I didn't like. The slow release schedule, the Decurions, etc.

Hell, I actually liked the concept of Decurions, but the implementation was so wildly varied.

What I do miss is 8th edition Indexhammer. Simple, fun, and a great way to introduce the game to new players. IMHO, GW should put out a free version of 9th edition, where you can download the core rules and all the basic unit rules (i.e. no subfactions, no detachment rules, etc) for nothing. You can already kind of do this with the free core rules booklet and the unit rules that come with kits, but having everything online would be a great way to rope in players who played in previous editions and already have a few models.

I may be somewhat a grey beard now but the good old days is 2-5th edition. 6,7 and even most of 8th honestly are The Dark Ages of warhammer where the rules writing was so laughably terrible that 40K barely functioned as a coherent board game and was mostly just a “show your funkopop collection off!” cash grab. 8th may be a stretch to say it was as bad as 6 & 7 (because it was much better). But the fact they released 8th edition with such god awful terrain rules is not something I will forget easily.

I don't. I really don't.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

All you people complaining about how broken stuff in this game is; you just gotta learn to FORGE THE NARRATIVE!

Also, people like to complain about ScatBikes and D-weapon spam when talking about 7th edition Eldar, but the thing they had that gives me the Vietnam flashbacks was Warp Spiders. Little feths were just impossible to hurt unless you somehow got close enough to charge them, and their weapons were good too. And most Eldar players I knew loved to spam the everloving crap out of them. There were plenty of armies in 7th that had broken rules and would mercilessly pound you, but Eldar didn't even give you the courtesy of lube.

I love the potential that was 7th edition but in no way do I miss the fan dex that GW somehow greenlit for publication under the name of Craftworld Eldar. The fact that somebody looked at that codex and said "This gets the Game Workshop seal of approval" is mind blowing. Then they made the Ynnari codex which could use the already broken Craftworld units, detachments, and formations but then layer on top the insanely OP Ynnari Strength from Death / Souburst or whatever it was called in exchange for losing the far less powerful Battle Focus (which scatterbikes couldn't run so it did literally nothing for them). Ynnari Warp Spider aspect hosts was more of a cancer than Nurgle.

Str D and Super Heavies in regular 40k ranks up there with the decision to make invisibility in terms of really bad ideas.

Apple fox wrote:
I must admit I don’t miss the passive aggressive response my eldar got back then.

Someday GW will do craftworlds Eldar right, maybe a few more editions for them to work out some basics.

CWE have been alternately game-breakingly powerful and unplayably bad, flipping about every two editions, since the beginning of Warhammer. If they haven't figured it out in thirty years I wouldn't hold out hope.

I don't miss the editions that killed off the local community for good.

3rd (when I started) to 5th were much better.

7th edition without SM, tau and eldar wasn't actually a bad edition.

 Blackie wrote:
7th edition without SM, tau and eldar wasn't actually a bad edition.

Yes it was. Daemons and Chaos soup were just as busted as Eldar and Marines for most of the edition (screamer star anyone?) and took the uncontested top spot once Cabal Star and ifinite horrors started making its rounds. Admech War Conclave and Necron decurions were also busted, they just happened to be overshadowed by even more OP nonsense. Flying Hive Tyrants were also a thing.


'SM' here includes 4.5 codexes (blood angels were rare) because even if you got rid of stock SM and its grav spam battle companies, you still had unkillable deathstars you could form out of Space wolves, Dark angels, and Grey Knights.

The codex balance was a nightmare top to bottom and the Core Rules weren't much better with the incredibly binary AP system, USRs being a snarled mess, swooping flying monstrous creatures, everything about the psychic phase, etc.

The good old days with armor values when you could blow up a leman russ with a bolt pistol with one shot.

I miss how it was a bit more thematic and flavourful compared to 8th/9th, where now any environmental effect or bonus etc is just Mortal Wounds. Boring as hell.

At least wytchfires now work.
Previously we had the entire pyro discipline which was just a big meme, and the only wytchfire power used (scream), actually caused Mortal Wounds.

Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

I miss uh... armorbane warscythes I guess? 7th sucked.

In his defense, the thread about Drop Pods being OP was a joke, as the DP physically broke off a bit of his Dreadknight.

On the other hand, this seems to be in a stark contrast to "7th was a great edition with lots of fun all around"

 Xenomancers wrote:
...Just forget it. This game is so broken I might never play it again...

I had fun in 7th but only because well IA13 was a thing and the locals more or less decided to implement a ban list on certain psy and formations....

Isn't Xeno the guy that's said before he's here just because he enjoys fething with people?

Pointer5 wrote:
The good old days with armor values when you could blow up a leman russ with a bolt pistol with one shot.

IIRC it was never possible to make them explode, but there was a 1 in 36 chance of wrecking a leman russ with a hit from behind in 3rd and 4th edition.

That's why you'd sometimes see tanks paired off back to back in early editions, or very closely packed walls of battlewagons.

A.T. wrote:

Pointer5 wrote:
The good old days with armor values when you could blow up a leman russ with a bolt pistol with one shot.

IIRC it was never possible to make them explode, but there was a 1 in 36 chance of wrecking a leman russ with a hit from behind in 3rd and 4th edition.

That's why you'd sometimes see tanks paired off back to back in early editions, or very closely packed walls of battlewagons.

Not with a S4 weapon, right, but a Heavy Bolter or any other S5 weapon could definitely instant kill an AV10 vehicle. A battlewagon was also open topped which made it easier to get instant killed.

Wall of BWs was a thing in 5th because not only it was harder to target the sides of those vehicles but also because a Big Mek with KFF embarked in the vehicle in the centre granted a nice 4+ cover save to ALL three battlewagons making them very hard to kill. It was actually my favorite tactics in that edition .

7th was awful.

If you squinted and only played the bad factions against each other you could have a vaguely interesting game that went to the last dice roll. But the bulk of people didn't, and there were just so many ways luck could give you an awful game.

You had an awful and incredibly concrete tier system:
[Eldar-Tau-Marines-Daemons-Knights]
[Necrons]
[Hive Tyrant Spam/Reaver Spam]
[Orks/CSM/Guard/non-Spam Tyranids and DE].
And usually games between those in the top tier were determined by who went first. (I.E. if Tau went first they had a good chance of tabling anything, if however they didn't and people could pop of invisibility and cross half the board they were probably screwed.)

Then you had Ynnari (completely off the wall busted) and GSC (basically a coinflip insta-win or insta-lose based on your ambush rolls.)

Yeah, just awful. Late edition Marine dominance in 8th was better than this.

 Blackie wrote:
Wall of BWs was a thing in 5th because not only it was harder to target the sides of those vehicles but also because a Big Mek with KFF embarked in the vehicle in the centre granted a nice 4+ cover save to ALL three battlewagons making them very hard to kill. It was actually my favorite tactics in that edition .

Five battlewagons at 1850pts was one of my old gimmick lists in 5th (mek, warboss, 12 nobz, 60 boyz, and 2 deffkoptas).

I think that vs a space wolf army was one of the most one-sided games A couple of amusingly failed death or glory attempts, drive-by plankings, and a lot of missiles doing not a lot of good. Of course the whole thing would fall apart against the right kind of opposition but he'd been playing the same list over and over and earlier editions enforced the paper/scissors/stone aspect more strongly.

A.T. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Wall of BWs was a thing in 5th because not only it was harder to target the sides of those vehicles but also because a Big Mek with KFF embarked in the vehicle in the centre granted a nice 4+ cover save to ALL three battlewagons making them very hard to kill. It was actually my favorite tactics in that edition .

Five battlewagons at 1850pts was one of my old gimmick lists in 5th (mek, warboss, 12 nobz, 60 boyz, and 2 deffkoptas).

I think that vs a space wolf army was one of the most one-sided games A couple of amusingly failed death or glory attempts, drive-by plankings, and a lot of missiles doing not a lot of good. Of course the whole thing would fall apart against the right kind of opposition but he'd been playing the same list over and over and earlier editions enforced the paper/scissors/stone aspect more strongly.

God, I miss planks. One of the worst things that 7th took away from orks, among with cybork. At least 8th gave us the deff rolla back.

Are you sure you played that at 1850? If my memory serves me right, that only adds up to 1850 if have everything bare bones.

But yes, battle wagon bash was the golden age of ork gaming. Still hoping for it to come back.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Monsters on the other hand were Amazing but had a T value and anything could hurt them.

Unless they were T8+, in which case they were immune to the vast majority of basic infantry weapons and melee since the Wound chart had a cap at T that were double or more the S of the attack. Monsters also didn't degrade with wounds so that Wraithlord was just as deadly at 1 Wound as at full while its Imperial counterpart the Space Marine Dreadnought, assuming it didn't die in a single volley thanks to its lack of save, was probably missing its main weapon and unable to move at 1 hull point.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Monsters on the other hand were Amazing but had a T value and anything could hurt them.

Unless they were T8+, in which case they were immune to the vast majority of basic infantry weapons and melee since the Wound chart had a cap at T that were double or more the S of the attack. Monsters also didn't degrade with wounds so that Wraithlord was just as deadly at 1 Wound as at full while its Imperial counterpart the Space Marine Dreadnought, assuming it didn't die in a single volley thanks to its lack of save, was probably missing its main weapon and unable to move at 1 hull point.

I do miss the toughness chart honestly. its silly to me that anything can wound anything on a 6. a str 2 grot blaster that should barely function as a gun and might break if used as a club still has a 1/6 chance to harm an imperial knight or any other super heavy. Same thing for a lasgun or evne bolter vs a titan. even if it slowed play i would prefer somethign along the lines of a 6 means you now reroll and on another 6 cause a wound/hull point

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

What chaff infantry gets 2+ saves?

The only one I can think of is Sisters of Battle in cover, who only MAYBE qualify as chaff. And if you have AP, then they don't get a 2+ anymore unless they're Valorous Heart.

Don't worry about it JNAP, because while those Chaff get 2+ saves remember,

 Xenomancers wrote:

Almost half the weapons in the game have d2+ almost half have ap-1 or 2.

So that 2+ save isn't that important anymore

The chance is not 1 in 6, it's 1 in 180. Add void shields and you are looking at 1260 grot blasters each shooting once to plonk off a single wound of the smallest titan on average, 3420 for a warlord titan.

The most commonly used argument for this being a problem is hyperbole. Take that away and the problem disappears.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
I must admit I don’t miss the passive aggressive response my eldar got back then.

Someday GW will do craftworlds Eldar right, maybe a few more editions for them to work out some basics.

CWE have been alternately game-breakingly powerful and unplayably bad, flipping about every two editions, since the beginning of Warhammer. If they haven't figured it out in thirty years I wouldn't hold out hope.

5th-8th Eldar have been top tier. 7th it was just so ridiculously obvious how broken almost every aspect of them was.

 Blackie wrote:
7th edition without SM, tau and eldar wasn't actually a bad edition.

I don't agree Blackie. 7th was literally just broken combos. Almost every faction had a broken combo that wasn't that fun to play against and if you brought that broken combo to a friendly game, your opponent basically lost right away. Eldar were just hte biggest offenders because they had like 10 broken combos while most had 1-2. Even our orkz had the green tide teamed with VSG and Painboy/KFF Warboss to make hundreds of bodies with a giant AV Shield, a 5+ Invuln and a 5+ FNP.

 Jidmah wrote:
The chance is not 1 in 6, it's 1 in 180. Add void shields and you are looking at 1260 grot blasters each shooting once to plonk off a single wound of the smallest titan on average, 3420 for a warlord titan.

The most commonly used argument for this being a problem is hyperbole. Take that away and the problem disappears.

i am more talking about a shadowsword or imperial knight equivilant less the actually should be in apocolypse only stuff. i meant just the to wound roll to be 1 in 6, but vs a bog standard knight warden or something. grot hits on 4+, then 1 in 6 to wound, and the knight saves 2/3 of the wounds. so through the whole sequence its almost a 3% chance to wound so admitadly not game breaking but still something about a lasgun or a grot gun actually damaging them. maybe my referring to imperial knights as titans is the confusion.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The chance is not 1 in 6, it's 1 in 180. Add void shields and you are looking at 1260 grot blasters each shooting once to plonk off a single wound of the smallest titan on average, 3420 for a warlord titan.

The most commonly used argument for this being a problem is hyperbole. Take that away and the problem disappears.

i am more talking about a shadowsword or imperial knight equivilant less the actually should be in apocolypse only stuff. i meant just the to wound roll to be 1 in 6, but vs a bog standard knight warden or something. grot hits on 4+, then 1 in 6 to wound, and the knight saves 2/3 of the wounds. so through the whole sequence its almost a 3% chance to wound so admitadly not game breaking but still something about a lasgun or a grot gun actually damaging them. maybe my referring to imperial knights as titans is the confusion.

So 3 unsaved wounds to cause 1 dmg, wounding on 6s means 18 hits, BS4 means 36 shots required. A Grot is currently 1 shot at 12' for 5pts. Meaning, to strip 1 Wound off a Knight (or any vehicle of T6+ sv3+) you would require 36 grots or 180pts.

If people are actually concerned about small arms fire plinking wounds off a vehicle, they should probably run the math themselves to see that its not an issue.

Another great complaint ive seen in the tank thread is that bolters and such should be nerfed vs vehicles as well. Even buffed with -1AP its going to take 9 bolter shots to strip 1 wound off a T5+ vehicle with a 3+ save. That means if they are rapid firing it would take 4.5 Marines to inflict 1 dmg. Minimum you are talking about 81pts, significantly more cost effective than the grots but not game breaking in the slightest.

I like the anything can wound anything mechanic because it opened up more avenues of 5+ to wound scenarios while also making weapons that fire a ridiculous number of shots at least somewhat scary to heavier units. I mean, in real life terms, look at the GAU-8 that things fires a 30mm round and can defeat tank armor to a degree. Keeping in mind that most modern battle tanks roam around the battlefield with a 120mm Main gun.

Sterling191 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What chaff infantry gets 2+ saves?

The only one I can think of is Sisters of Battle in cover, who only MAYBE qualify as chaff. And if you have AP, then they don't get a 2+ anymore unless they're Valorous Heart.

Skitarii can do it a few ways.

Well..one way, anyway, AFAIK. Mars skitarii can do the +1sv -3" move doctrine and shroudpsalm to start in cover, and then they can take a 100-point buffer model to give one unit ignore AP-1/AP-2.

When presented with this tactic, you can

1) ignore it, realize that they can only do it one turn and the Ignore AP modifier is only on one unit, and play defensively instead of trying to alpha strike through the defensive buffs

2) fire some blast weaponry at the skitarii anyway, because you get max shots and theyre still only T3 W1.

I didnt have to deal with this combo in the game I played against admech, because my opponent went first so all the offensive buffs were up on them when I killed the big bad skitarii blocks, but I have seen a game with the same person where he did go second, did drop the combo and his opponent just went "OK, I'm still gonna just shoot you with this Executioner tank commander then, have 18 un-overcharged plasma shots."

 the_scotsman wrote:


Well..one way, anyway, AFAIK. Mars skitarii can do the +1sv -3" move doctrine and shroudpsalm to start in cover, and then they can take a 100-point buffer model to give one unit ignore AP-1/AP-2.

When presented with this tactic, you can

1) ignore it, realize that they can only do it one turn and the Ignore AP modifier is only on one unit, and play defensively instead of trying to alpha strike through the defensive buffs

2) fire some blast weaponry at the skitarii anyway, because you get max shots and theyre still only T3 W1.

I didnt have to deal with this combo in the game I played against admech, because my opponent went first so all the offensive buffs were up on them when I killed the big bad skitarii blocks, but I have seen a game with the same person where he did go second, did drop the combo and his opponent just went "OK, I'm still gonna just shoot you with this Executioner tank commander then, have 18 un-overcharged plasma shots."

And this would be a key difference between people complaining about a new rule without playing against it, or even seeing it, and not. A lot of those buffs come at a cost, are single use, or have significant drawbacks. its good enough to be scary, and shouldnt be ignored, but its also not as good as people think they are.

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

I still have see a single reason why one in 90/180 gretchin plinking off a wound from a vehicle is a problem.
It's just not a real problem, just like flamers hitting planes isn't.

 Xenomancers wrote:

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

"

Xeno, I'm not a fan of Jidmahs, but that dude has forgotten more stuff about Orkz than you will ever know. Orkz did get formations, none of them were worth a damn. Even the aforementioned green tide formation (which got removed before the end of 7th) wasn't even good, it was just a psychological shock. But Jidmah was saying none of the formations orkz got were worth taking, especially compared to the super formations that Marines, Tau, Eldar and Necrons got. And you are wrong again, Those 4 factions I mentioned had formations equally broken, which doesn't even cover super friends.

Seabass wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

Well I play about half the armies so..

Yeah - I played scatter bikes and D cannons but I did so against formations of tau and daemons and gladius. It was all OP. Nothing really touches invisibility deathstars though - anything that could deal with those (d weapons) was good for the game. Right now nothing can fix the game short of removing / nerfing stratagems 2 or 3 fold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

"

Xeno, I'm not a fan of Jidmahs, but that dude has forgotten more stuff about Orkz than you will ever know. Orkz did get formations, none of them were worth a damn. Even the aforementioned green tide formation (which got removed before the end of 7th) wasn't even good, it was just a psychological shock. But Jidmah was saying none of the formations orkz got were worth taking, especially compared to the super formations that Marines, Tau, Eldar and Necrons got. And you are wrong again, Those 4 factions I mentioned had formations equally broken, which doesn't even cover super friends.

It was better than nothing.

Hammer of wrath for all your units and waaagghh every turn is really good.

True it's no skyhammer formation.

 Jidmah wrote:
Are you sure you played that at 1850? If my memory serves me right, that only adds up to 1850 if have everything bare bones.

One klaw and pole per infantry unit, painboyz for the nobz, basic klaw/field only for the characters and just enough to fit a waaaugh banner. The vehicles were all tooled up though.

I considered it a gimmick list because an opponent could play around it if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with too much listhammer. By comparison there was no playing around scatbikes, they were just superior units for their cost and position.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Seabass wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

Well I play about half the armies so..

Yeah - I played scatter bikes and D cannons but I did so against formations of tau and daemons and gladius. It was all OP. Nothing really touches invisibility deathstars though - anything that could deal with those (d weapons) was good for the game. Right now nothing can fix the game short of removing / nerfing stratagems 2 or 3 fold.

yeeah...no. some strats may need to be changed, ill grant that (though i honestly dont know which ones, to be honest, none of them are truly OTT from my experience) but your argument of "this game is broken beyond repair and the only thing that can fix it is to destroy this mechanic" and then pining for the most broken and damaging version of the game as its typically or widely considered just tells a completely different story.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

You might want to give this post a read: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/798984.page#11151563

I also created the list of formations for the 7th edition ork tactics thread at that time, so I was fairly well aware of what orks could and couldn't do.

Oh and it wasn't any effort. I just searched your created threads and sorted them by date. That's like six mouse clicks. You're just predictable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Are you sure you played that at 1850? If my memory serves me right, that only adds up to 1850 if have everything bare bones.

One klaw and pole per infantry unit, painboyz for the nobz, basic klaw/field only for the characters and just enough to fit a waaaugh banner. The vehicles were all tooled up though.

I considered it a gimmick list because an opponent could play around it if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot with too much listhammer. By comparison there was no playing around scatbikes, they were just superior units for their cost and position.

Ah, ok. I just did the rough math in my head and remembered just barely being able to fit 4 wagons into 2k. I did bring a crapton of lootas though...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Hammer of wrath for all your units and waaagghh every turn is really good.

True it's no skyhammer formation.

it was Hammer of Wrath on units with 10 or more models and only if they rolled a 10+ on the charge roll and what did it get you? Every boy that got into Base to base contact got to make a S4 AP 0 free hit. I mean, totally on the same power tier as free razorbacks for everyone or shooting twice with a riptide.

Jidmah already covered it well in the post he linked to you, the Orkurion was god awful in every way possible.

@Jidmah: Dakka is the only way.

Some of the stuff of 7th was so out of whack that i seriously doubt anyone would want to go back to it without some serious rework

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

My "favorite" Ork formation was the one that took 20 Flash Gitz + Named Freeboota Kaptain and allowed you to reroll 1 shot per Git. The great thing about this was that it required you to roll for each git at a time because you couldn't tell which misses came from which Git. That is potentially 42 separate rolls you have to make to resolve a shooting attack and those 6+ armor Gitz couldn't fit in a battlewagon due to requiring the 1 named character so they are forced to footslog. The dice rolling alone is proof that NOBODY actually did a rudimentary play test of the formation to see if it was actually functional.

The fearless MANz, Blitz Brigade (5 Battlewagons with scout), 3 Dakkajets formation, and Greentide where the only good Ork formations that I can recall. Even the later rerelease of the supplement that added the Orkurion was completely phoned in with it's abysmal bonuses that basically did the same thing as the codex Ork detachment.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Isn't Xeno the guy that's said before he's here just because he enjoys fething with people?

No, you're thinking of Canadian 5th.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I don't get why people think getting to roll a save adds agency. I don't find the 50-pt models one-shotting 250pt models in 9th any less frustrating because someone says to me "Why are you complaining? You got to roll a save as part of the attack procedure!"

Rolling a save does add agency, or at least 'involves' the controlling player in the process (which is, arguably, agency).

I disagree. It's not agency, it's making the resolution process longer so that both players share the burden of operating the game's engine which is a loss-loss scenario. If it's automatic (no decision involved, anyone could perform it - attacker, defender, random passerby) it's not agency in my book.

Combining the entire slog of multiple rolls into just one would make the system a lot smoother and more elegant IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Seabass wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

Well I play about half the armies so..

Yeah - I played scatter bikes and D cannons but I did so against formations of tau and daemons and gladius. It was all OP. Nothing really touches invisibility deathstars though - anything that could deal with those (d weapons) was good for the game. Right now nothing can fix the game short of removing / nerfing stratagems 2 or 3 fold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

"

Xeno, I'm not a fan of Jidmahs, but that dude has forgotten more stuff about Orkz than you will ever know. Orkz did get formations, none of them were worth a damn. Even the aforementioned green tide formation (which got removed before the end of 7th) wasn't even good, it was just a psychological shock. But Jidmah was saying none of the formations orkz got were worth taking, especially compared to the super formations that Marines, Tau, Eldar and Necrons got. And you are wrong again, Those 4 factions I mentioned had formations equally broken, which doesn't even cover super friends.

It was better than nothing.

Hammer of wrath for all your units and waaagghh every turn is really good.

True it's no skyhammer formation.

D weapons and even stomp didn't "Deal with" Deathstars anymore than bolter shots did. Which is why by the end of the edition Tau and Eldar actually started to fall off because they just couldn't keep up with post Angels of Death/Whatever-the-chaos-equivalent-was-called psychic stars anymore. Ynnari was a flash in the pan that was obscenely OP for about 5 minutes until the deathstars figured out how to play against them.

There was no such thing as 'good for the game' by the end of 7th. That edition was irrevocably fethed.

Scatter dice had risk/reward and could create interesting situations.

Now you roll a d6 and say “I got 4 shots”

Pancakey wrote:
Scatter dice had risk/reward and could create interesting situations.

Now you roll a d6 and say “I got 4 shots”

With the risk you mean the risk of your opponent arguing how many model were hit, looking through templates at an angle or them not properly moving the template in the scatter direction?

 Jidmah wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Scatter dice had risk/reward and could create interesting situations.

Now you roll a d6 and say “I got 4 shots”

With the risk you mean the risk of your opponent arguing how many model were hit, looking through templates at an angle or them not properly moving the template in the scatter direction?

Blasts were interesting in 4th where you rolled to hit, and if you hit you placed the marker where you wanted it to, and if you didn't it scattered the full 2d6". The change in 5th to "always scatter 2d6-BS"" and the push in later editions to the multiple-barrage flip and twin-linked blast weapons made blasts way harder to resolve (you had to scatter them short distances a lot more, plus the re-rolls and having to hold one blast in position and move another around), the push to more powerful blasts made the differences of milimeters and degrees have a lot more impact on how much stuff died (if you're wounding on 2+ and ignoring armour and cover with a Riptide's ion cannon each model under the template is probably dead, so exactly how many models are under the template makes a lot more difference than with less powerful templates that don't wound on 2+ and don't ignore all the saves and don't ID T4), and the shorter scatter distances made blasts way less risky (since you're virtually guaranteed to hit what you shoot at).

Scatter dice aren't the only solution (Warmachine uses a blast template with six directions marked around the perimeter so you need to eyeball differences of sixty degrees instead of minute differences in where the scatter die arrow is pointing), scattering at all isn't the only solution (Bolt Action and Infinity only let you use the template if you hit your shot, if you miss you just don't place the template), and blast templates aren't even the only solution (the 8e FW conversion beamer fired one shot, then did a random number of additional hits at a different profile to the unit if the initial shot killed someone), but I'd prefer any of those to how the game currently resolves blast weapons as incredibly high rate-of-fire autocannons that kill vehicles incredibly efficiently.

I'm fairly sure that with 5th-7th a hit was still a hit unless the weapon explicitly said otherwise. It was a cool system and all, but I totally don't miss the arguments.

As for the autocannon blurb... that's not how it works for me in my games - and between plague burst mortars, missile launchers, bile spurt, grenades, da boomer, rokkit kannons, kustom-mega-zappas, supa-kannons and SAG, I use a lot of blasts.

 Jidmah wrote:
I still have see a single reason why one in 90/180 gretchin plinking off a wound from a vehicle is a problem.
It's just not a real problem, just like flamers hitting planes isn't.

So, 90 bugs hit the windshield of your car today while driving to work. Bug #91 causes the windshield to crack, just a bit, say 1/20th of the windshield. So you take the car to the dealer and he says “I do not see a problem.”

Flamers hitting planes... did I miss the /s? Yikes...

 Jidmah wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Scatter dice had risk/reward and could create interesting situations.

Now you roll a d6 and say “I got 4 shots”

With the risk you mean the risk of your opponent arguing how many model were hit, looking through templates at an angle or them not properly moving the template in the scatter direction?

Its the same argument that happens with charge distances, true LOS, which models can swing in close combat, whats in range for buff auras, etc. Bad sportsmanship and overly try-harding results in these sorts of arrangements where as a more laid back give and take sort of arrangement makes the game go a lot more smoothly regardless of which edition of the game your playing. The template "which models are getting hit" issue is definitely has potential to be problematic but its not in any way a unique one but more of a general issue with anything requiring measuring.

I don't think scatter dice made for much in the way of risk/reward as I personally rarely found myself having to worry about hitting my own stuff (it happened but it was a rare occurrence). What it did do is make clumping up units a bad idea as blast weapons almost always hit something if you fired them into the center of a giant concentration of units. My Ork Battlewagons use to love early game when they could just fire their big kannons (Killkannons?) into packs of enemies to hit anything. Having those blast scatter onto jetbikes so they couldn't jink was *chef's kiss*.

 Jidmah wrote:
...As for the autocannon blurb... that's not how it works for me in my games - and between plague burst mortars, missile launchers, bile spurt, grenades, da boomer, rokkit kannons, kustom-mega-zappas, supa-kannons and SAG, I use a lot of blasts.

That's a complaint about how there's nothing to distinguish a blast weapon from a high rate-of-fire high S/D weapon, which makes blasts too effective AT, which makes some artillery efficient anti-everything guns, which you can then spam, which most people who play 9th aren't worried about but which really annoys me.

 jeff white wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I still have see a single reason why one in 90/180 gretchin plinking off a wound from a vehicle is a problem.
It's just not a real problem, just like flamers hitting planes isn't.

So, 90 bugs hit the windshield of your car today while driving to work. Bug #91 causes the windshield to crack, just a bit, say 1/20th of the windshield. So you take the car to the dealer and he says “I do not see a problem.”

Flamers hitting planes... did I miss the /s? Yikes...

It is not a problem because this is a game and not real life, so if the bug player takes that much of his force to scratch your car then yeah that IS a good thing.

Yes, flamers hitting planes is a bit of a laughable reality of the game right now but you know what? What is the fix? Just say that "Flamer" weapons can't target flyers? How many of YOUR flyers have been killed by d6 S4 shots? Or a Hellhounds 2d6 S6 Ap -1 shots?

 Vankraken wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
Scatter dice had risk/reward and could create interesting situations.

Now you roll a d6 and say “I got 4 shots”

With the risk you mean the risk of your opponent arguing how many model were hit, looking through templates at an angle or them not properly moving the template in the scatter direction?

Its the same argument that happens with charge distances, true LOS, which models can swing in close combat, whats in range for buff auras, etc. Bad sportsmanship and overly try-harding results in these sorts of arrangements where as a more laid back give and take sort of arrangement makes the game go a lot more smoothly regardless of which edition of the game your playing. The template "which models are getting hit" issue is definitely has potential to be problematic but its not in any way a unique one but more of a general issue with anything requiring measuring.

I disagree.
LOS discussions can easily be concluded with laser pointers and tapes (except for that one time, when my opponent didn't understand why a red dot on both miniatures meant that there was LoS)
The combat gauge tool can quickly solve any engagement range issues, even if there is a ball of genestealers fighting choppa boyz. And even 12" auras aren't that hard to measure unless there is a metric ton of terrain in between.

The issue with templates is that you have to look straight through them, sometimes at a position near the center where you physically can't do that. And then there are these people who think they are looking straight through them, but in reality aren't. I had a literal fight break out between to of my friends (one my teammate, the other my opponent) over how many of my orks were hit by a small blast.
Then there were these units which were "throwing" flamer templates which required you to hit as many models as possible and have the thin end closer than the long end, which caused endless fiddling.
Last, but not least, only about half the people I played were able to scatter templated properly with high scatter dice. Either the dice wasn't close enough to the targeted model, or the tape measure would bend while moving, or they would move both their arms at the same time to effectively scatter in a curve, etc, etc.

The big difference between the things you mentioned and templates is that there are no tools available to quickly resolve those problems without room to argue. I guess technically there are some construction tools to draw laser markings in the way you need it, but those are as expensive as whole armies.

I don't think scatter dice made for much in the way of risk/reward as I personally rarely found myself having to worry about hitting my own stuff (it happened but it was a rare occurrence). What it did do is make clumping up units a bad idea as blast weapons almost always hit something if you fired them into the center of a giant concentration of units. My Ork Battlewagons use to love early game when they could just fire their big kannons (Killkannons?) into packs of enemies to hit anything. Having those blast scatter onto jetbikes so they couldn't jink was *chef's kiss*.

I agree, I do miss that blasts could hit friend or foe alike. I remember many fun situations that occurred from that. However, if I had to decide between having to space out all my models properly and getting scatter back, sorry, I'd rather enjoy all my movement phases than some shooting phases. If there was a way to bring back scatter without templates - sign me up.

 Blackie wrote:
7th edition without SM, tau and eldar wasn't actually a bad edition.

It was how we played the last year of 7th in my group back then, no one brought their SM Eldar or Tau. But the game was still quite clunky and took forever to play (especially GSC). Balance was ok though (Necrons were also a bit too good)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
...As for the autocannon blurb... that's not how it works for me in my games - and between plague burst mortars, missile launchers, bile spurt, grenades, da boomer, rokkit kannons, kustom-mega-zappas, supa-kannons and SAG, I use a lot of blasts.

That's a complaint about how there's nothing to distinguish a blast weapon from a high rate-of-fire high S/D weapon, which makes blasts too effective AT, which makes some artillery efficient anti-everything guns, which you can then spam, which most people who play 9th aren't worried about but which really annoys me.

Uhm sorry, but you're wrong? Blast is distinguished from high RoF weapons in a way that you actively want to shoot it at large units because you a higher amount of hits from that. For most blasts, shooting single models makes them very unreliable, in a similar way it did in the past - hitting 20 orks was much easier than hitting a battlewagon.

Let's address your claim (blasts are effective anti-tank) for all the weapons I listed earlier:
plague burst mortar - a gamble against vehicles, mediocre unless you turn it into an anti-tank weapon with disgusting force. Great for shelling light and heavy infantry, especially those hiding in cover.
missile launcher - S4 AP0 DMG 1 against vehicles? Nope. Frag is used to blow up cultists, boyz and wyches.
bile spurt - small blasts do maximum shots against units with 6+ models, so target those whenever you can. Otherwise, S5 AP-1 DMG1 isn't great against vehicles at all.
grenades - DG have six or seven grenades that all can plonk a wound or two off a vehicle with above average rolls, or completely devastate a unit of infantry.
da boomer - Admittedly a decent gun to shoot at vehicles, but if you catch a non-chaff unit of 11+ models, that's always what you want to be shooting.
rokkit kannon - Anti-tank weapon, I rarely, if ever, shoot it at light infantry. I'm honestly surprised that this weapon was made blast at all, it's a rapid fire rokkit launcher.
kustom-mega-zappas - Primary anti-tank weapon, because why waste such powerful (and expensive!) shooting on infantry. Blast adds a bit of utility, but whether you get 6 or 9 shots isn't much of a difference.
supa-kannons - Technically the gun is good against hordes, but even at max shots, you don't want to be shooting such an expensive gun at cheap models.
SAG - Highly unreliable, and if it does go off, you want an expensive unit to disappear, not to get maximum hits against a unit of gaunts.

TL;DR: The profile of a weapon decides whether a unit is good anti-tank, not the blast rule. Blast provides reliability to actual anti-infantry guns, but does not make high strength, high damage weapons efficient at killing hordes. Even less so for blast weapons rolling multiple d6, as the minimum 3 does little for them and units with 11+ models are rare.

 Castozor wrote:
Care to explain to a newer player what these things were and what made them good compared to what we have now? I've heard rumors of OP scatterbikes and scary D-weapons but I never really understood what that meant.

They didn't. All of the junk that was removed from the game was nothing more than a source for endless arguments, slowing down the game and making playing with certain opponents insufferable.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Seabass wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.

arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

Well I play about half the armies so..

Yeah - I played scatter bikes and D cannons but I did so against formations of tau and daemons and gladius. It was all OP. Nothing really touches invisibility deathstars though - anything that could deal with those (d weapons) was good for the game. Right now nothing can fix the game short of removing / nerfing stratagems 2 or 3 fold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

"

Xeno, I'm not a fan of Jidmahs, but that dude has forgotten more stuff about Orkz than you will ever know. Orkz did get formations, none of them were worth a damn. Even the aforementioned green tide formation (which got removed before the end of 7th) wasn't even good, it was just a psychological shock. But Jidmah was saying none of the formations orkz got were worth taking, especially compared to the super formations that Marines, Tau, Eldar and Necrons got. And you are wrong again, Those 4 factions I mentioned had formations equally broken, which doesn't even cover super friends.

It was better than nothing.

Hammer of wrath for all your units and waaagghh every turn is really good.

True it's no skyhammer formation.

D weapons and even stomp didn't "Deal with" Deathstars anymore than bolter shots did. Which is why by the end of the edition Tau and Eldar actually started to fall off because they just couldn't keep up with post Angels of Death/Whatever-the-chaos-equivalent-was-called psychic stars anymore. Ynnari was a flash in the pan that was obscenely OP for about 5 minutes until the deathstars figured out how to play against them.

There was no such thing as 'good for the game' by the end of 7th. That edition was irrevocably fethed.

Well - ITC literally nerfed D weapons...so you know what we call that? House rules...I don't care about your house rule games at all man. Literally every game during 7th edition ITC can be completely ignored due to the D weapon nerf - D weapons were actually fantastic at killing deathstars for those of us playing by the rules. Esp stomps.

In my group we played the actual game.

I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

7.5 was crazy but fun. The core rules were fine though. Really it was just the psychic trees and character rules that were out of touch with the rest of the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

You still had:

Useless AP system, Terrible Psychic system, terrible vehicle terrain interactions, terrible character rules, terrible vehicle damage charts, firing arcs that generally only work on square or rectangular vehicles, AV facings that again only really work on square of rectangular vehicles, ambiguous blast templates, the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice.

7th was a jenga tower of iffy design decisions. 30k did a good enough job on codex design that you can kinda ignore a lot of it, but it's one major misstep from falling apart just like 7th did.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

Can you pick out a thing in the core rules other than Invisibility that wasn't fine? (I ask because the usual litany of complaints about 7th (D-weapons, scatterbikes, too much cover-ignoring, flyers, free transports, etc., etc.) are almost universally things that were statted wrong in the Codex, not something the core rules got wrong. I know 7th wasn't perfect and there are things I'd change if I could but I'm curious what other people would pick out as actual flaws with the core rules.)

After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

Can you pick out a thing in the core rules other than Invisibility that wasn't fine? (I ask because the usual litany of complaints about 7th (D-weapons, scatterbikes, too much cover-ignoring, flyers, free transports, etc., etc.) are almost universally things that were statted wrong in the Codex, not something the core rules got wrong. I know 7th wasn't perfect and there are things I'd change if I could but I'm curious what other people would pick out as actual flaws with the core rules.)

I won't say they weren't fine because I had fun with all those things in previous editions, and I'm someone that somehow enjoyed 7th, but I'm glad they removed: Initiative, re-rollable invulns, arc facings, AV system, "all or nothing" AP, blasts/templates, challenges, multiple units being unable to join the same transport. Just the first things off the top on my head.

 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.

Plus there is extra stuff. Lets say you don't spend your time on forums. Opponent shows you their book, you look at a succubus, you see the stats you see the rules. He strife, and then durning the game you get the expiriance the rules he had for her in another book. Which drastically up her damge.

I don't even know what someone maybe thinking about GK, besides them being bad, if they just got the codex to see for them, and didn't know they still run on an OOP book from prior edition. Which they may not even know about, if they started in 9th.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

Uh, I'm not too solid on 30k, but in 6-7th you definitely had those things as well, just that instead of auras and stratagems those things were found on psychic powers, relics, special wargear options, upgrade characters or independent characters joining units.
Nothing about the 7th edition guard platoon datasheet or rules page told you that it would turn into an fearless melee murderblob when you added a bunch of characters with the right USRs and abilities.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

Interestingly, I play 5 different 30k armies, none of which are marines, and there's one non-marine army I don't even play! Therefore, they don't actually have the advantage you assert they do.

ERJAK wrote:
You still had:

Useless AP system, Terrible Psychic system, terrible vehicle terrain interactions, terrible character rules, terrible vehicle damage charts, firing arcs that generally only work on square or rectangular vehicles, AV facings that again only really work on square of rectangular vehicles, ambiguous blast templates, the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice.

A lot of that - in fact, all of that - sounds like opinion or badly misconstrued facts... or indeed, things that depend on codex/miniature design rather than core rules design. The only things I think that are valid is "the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice" which I won't objectively argue with, but also hasn't been a problem in all the events I've run since 2017. It usually takes some discussion to sort out, but that's it. No different than all sorts of ambiguity built into the current 40k rules - for example, the pre-FAQ'd "eligible to fight last" vs "fight last" confusion, or the confusion between dense and obscuring terrain ("is it any line from any point on the model or one line from one point on the model?" etc).

If you REALLY wanted to nitpick the rules, you could instead go with things objectively bad like how the Apocalyptic Barrage template works with multi-shot ApocBarrage weapons (*shudder*) or the length of unfun time it takes to resolve multiple small blast Barrage templates (e.g. the old Quad-Gun). That said, they've worked around this by improving unit design somewhat, so the unit design is working deliberately to overcome very real shortcomings in the core rules.

But, I suppose it's easier to complain about stuff you just don't like, rather than identifying real problems.

ERJAK wrote:
7th was a jenga tower of iffy design decisions. 30k did a good enough job on codex design that you can kinda ignore a lot of it, but it's one major misstep from falling apart just like 7th did.

I think what you consider an "iffy design decision" is stuff you just don't like. I don't think you'd like any of the same games as me, and that's allowed, but it doesn't make those games objectively bad. Chain of Command, for example, you'd probably not touch with a 10-foot pole, but in my opinion it's better than 30k!

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.

I have to disagree. I don't want to say that 7th/HH or older editions are extremely complex or whatever. But I really believe people is overstating how complicated 8th and 9th rules are to understand. Theres a reason this editions are much more easy to understand and play. Knowing 9-10 popular stratagems for your opponent army is really not complicated.

Really, the biggest difference I see between the two design paradigms is how much clearer and how better of a layout 8th/9th have for their rules. How the information is presented for you.

And I disagree about the datasheet, I mean, in HH you have stuff like warlord traits that apply to units, psychic powers, Rites of War, special upgrades for X units, attached characters that give unit X rules, vexillas or banners with auras, etc... I mean, the +1 to wound when red is no different that all the specific legion rules+rites of war rules.

This is not a "7th/HH bad 8th good" post. But after reading the HH books with my group (that we all have been playing 8th and 9th for years, and most of them started warhammer with 8th), the game is much more complicated to understand, learn, and just see where each rule is. Much more book fliping. I have to hard disagree with anybody that says 8th and 9th are more complicated or armies are harder to understand how they function. I mean, just compare any 8th or 9th weapon to each HH one, 80% of the weapons have 2-3 special rules many of them unique that you have to keep referencing until you become used to them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.

Right the stats of 8th edition and up you tossed at me. What exactly was the point of this breakdown report that doesn't represent 7th that we were talking about?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).

You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.

Right the stats of 8th edition and up you tossed at me. What exactly was the point of this breakdown report that doesn't represent 7th that we were talking about?

8.5 daemons PA made them a top 3 army. 7.5 demonic incursion made them a top army. If you are in denial about 1 you are probably in denial about the other.

I find it's a half-full/half-empty sort of affair with 6th-7th, versus 8th-9th.

Like, I liked the fact that the majority of Psychic disciplines were there in the corebook. You knew that Divination gave mean buffs, Invisibility was all-around dirty, and Pyromancy and Telekinesis were relatively gimped, but you also knew how the powers would work regardless of which codex was using them.

That individual codexes continually 'crept in' their own special and increasingly goofy disciplines undermined that some, yet it would have been relatively easy to streamline some effects/powers.

There were way too many USRs (Over 80) to the point of idiotic bloat; I always like to reference how "Missile Lock" did not exist for the first half of 7th edition, despite multiple codices having their own bespoke rules to represent "missiles locking onto stuff."

That said, removing it altogether and replacing them with "fluffy-named rules" does not feel like much of an improvement. Knowing that "Deep Strike" is "Deep Strike" as opposed to "Subterranean Strike" or whatever...

On another note, one aspect I've felt aren't in favor of the the current editions is the 'non-interactivity' with enemy positioning/inability to effectively 'snipe' out specials. It's one of those things that at times feels like a nit-pick, but bear with me.

7th had "nearest models in range and line of sight to the weapons fired". I found that when dealing with small enough units (mainly, 5-man Tactical Squads with a single Grav-Cannon), that it made it fairly simple to 'concentrate' firepower on a narrow frontage to snipe out said units. 5th edition provided similar options in a different manner via the Torrent of Fire rule, such that if you threw a lot of wounds on an enemy unit at once (say, via massed Shootas, Devourers, Bladestorm Catapults, etc), wounds had to be 'allocated' before saves, such that you had a chance to snipe out hidden meltaguns, sergeants, etc. Even 4th had the idiosyncracies of range-band/LOS "Lash-sniping", so-to-speak. Now, the defender tends to have near-perfect control of casualty allocation, such that the special and sergeant will almost always be the last to die no matter what.

Likewise, even if a melee was not necessarily in your favor, it was at times worth charging an enemy blob from a flank in order to force them to 'pile on', especially if it could kite them away from objectives.

Other than the defender 'choosing' the closest models to remove in order to negate an odd charge, there really isn't much of a focus over 'where/what' you are shooting, versus where the board opens up, and I imagine the 'control' over which models choose to pile-in (and in what order) was one of the reasons that 9th updated its coherency rules for large units.

TBH I like that I don't have to carefully position each single special weapon in every squad in a 3k point game.

But at the same time I come from Fantasy and his "when models die you remove the ones in the back because they are assumed to take the position in the front" and the champion, musician and banner bearer were always the last ones to fall because if they are killed another one can take the special equipement.

So if my plasma gun tactical dies, for another to take his gun doesnt seem a problem for me.

In our HH we are also using 8th and 9th wound rules of "no more than one wounded model in the unit" with the exception of attached characters.

 Galas wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.

I have to disagree. I don't want to say that 7th/HH or older editions are extremely complex or whatever. But I really believe people is overstating how complicated 8th and 9th rules are to understand. Theres a reason this editions are much more easy to understand and play. Knowing 9-10 popular stratagems for your opponent army is really not complicated.

Really, the biggest difference I see between the two design paradigms is how much clearer and how better of a layout 8th/9th have for their rules. How the information is presented for you.

And I disagree about the datasheet, I mean, in HH you have stuff like warlord traits that apply to units, psychic powers, Rites of War, special upgrades for X units, attached characters that give unit X rules, vexillas or banners with auras, etc... I mean, the +1 to wound when red is no different that all the specific legion rules+rites of war rules.

This is not a "7th/HH bad 8th good" post. But after reading the HH books with my group (that we all have been playing 8th and 9th for years, and most of them started warhammer with 8th), the game is much more complicated to understand, learn, and just see where each rule is. Much more book fliping. I have to hard disagree with anybody that says 8th and 9th are more complicated or armies are harder to understand how they function. I mean, just compare any 8th or 9th weapon to each HH one, 80% of the weapons have 2-3 special rules many of them unique that you have to keep referencing until you become used to them.

To me, they're both equally painful, but one is easier to memorize.

In the HH rules, several units have It Will Not Die. I have it on my Gargantuan Daemon, other people have it on their Primarchs, a couple Mechanicus magi/upgrades have it, Robots can get it, etc. They do the same thing in all cases.

Similarly, in 9th edition, you have Infernal Regeneration / Infernal Augmetics / Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, each of which does the same thing (regenerates wounds).

The problem is:
In HH, the rule is the same regardless of the model it's on. It can be found in the USR section of the rulebook.

In 40k, Infernal Regeneration happens in the movement phase while Infernal Augmetics happens in the command phase, and Fleshmetal Exoskeleton happens at the beginning of your turn. Furthermore, if you needed to look up what they do, one is on the datasheet for a regular unit, one is on the datasheet for a Legends unit (pdf only, no app or book), one is a relic in the original Chaos Space Marine codex - and it's an Iron Warriors only relic, which you could take alongside a relic from Psychic Awakening, also Iron Warriors, in a different book...

... or actually, the regenerating wound thing might be a CSM Warlord Trait, and the 2+ armor save is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton? Or the Warlord Trait gives 6++ and +1 wound, which I think is actually the truth. Anyways.

I recently built an army of Daemon Engines for both 30k and 40k and I'll tell you that in 40k I must:
1) Remember the applicable stratagems, stretched across 3 books (CSM, Psychic Awakening, Vigilus (using narrative stuff, so vigilus detachments are allowed)).
2) Remember the applicable special rules and warlord traits, stretched across 3 books, an FAQ, and the Legends PDF.
3) Remember the applicable 'shenaigan's across the detachment (unlike other armies, my vehicles don't get Legion Traits, but they can benefit from the slaanesh daemons aura in another detachment to get +1 strength, charging, whatever, and can benefit from psychic powers).
4) When moving, make sure all my auras on 3 different characters are kept together close enough.
5) Remember that 6s on attacks explode (Daemonsmith warlord trait from PA) and explode again, but this time with a to-hit roll that I have to roll (DTFE, which isn't elaborated on the datasheet).

With 30k, I generally have to remember the unit type and what special rules/movement rates it has therefore (standard across all units of the same type), what special rules it has (USRs, so again, standard across all units that share the same rule and pretty easy to remember for the common ones), and wargear.

Wargear is the hardest one, and the only one that improved for 8th/9th I'd argue, though it's a HUGE improvement I'll grant.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is:
In HH, the rule is the same regardless of the model it's on. It can be found in the USR section of the rulebook.

In 40k, Infernal Regeneration happens in the movement phase while Infernal Augmetics happens in the command phase, and Fleshmetal Exoskeleton happens at the beginning of your turn. Furthermore, if you needed to look up what they do, one is on the datasheet for a regular unit, one is on the datasheet for a Legends unit (pdf only, no app or book), one is a relic in the original Chaos Space Marine codex - and it's an Iron Warriors only relic, which you could take alongside a relic from Psychic Awakening, also Iron Warriors, in a different book...

... or actually, the regenerating wound thing might be a CSM Warlord Trait, and the 2+ armor save is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton? Or the Warlord Trait gives 6++ and +1 wound, which I think is actually the truth. Anyways.

I think this is an excellent point. When I first read that 8th was getting rid of USRs it raised an eyebrow. Sure there were a lot of USRs, but universal abilities are pretty handy when it comes to understanding a game. Making them universal means you know what the effect is. I was hoping 8th forward just meant that the rules stayed the same but the flavor and the title might change.

Unfortunately, the rules just got sloppy instead. As you point out in that example even if all these special abilities have the same net effect they may occur at different times or they may have different trigger or they may have a marginally different bonus effect. So now the average player can longer go, "Oh it's that rule" instead it's "oh it's like that rule". The special abilties and effects are similar but there's enough minutia between each one of them it makes it harder to remember what does what off the top of your head, not only your own rules but also your opponents. It gets further complicated when these are spread across different books and in different formats and of course juggling the errata.

I didn't love everything about USR's but the primary purpose at least was a good one. It was much easier for you and your opponent to be on the same page, and also easier to remember what your models did and how it worked without needing to look it up. Casting down USRs opens up flexibility in the design space to tweak things but in my opinion it's not worth the cost. I would have greatly preferred USRs with name changes for each faction and then use the design space on unique rolls for unique models or factions.