A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.
the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP -They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.
the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP -They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
I get that space marines have a lot of rules if you take every chapter into account, but realisticly you don't need to know every rule when playing against them. I mean you can just ask your opponent, right? What does that unit do if it charges me and what stratagems are there broadly speaking.
As to the question of why space marines have many rules differentiating the same unit across different chapters like assault intercessors: I think we have to acknowledge that the different space marine chapters are just a very big part of 40k and its history. Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels have had a seperate codex since 2nd edition and it has been this way ever since. For good or bad, GW has decided to provide these chapters with special rules and units to more clearly differentiate them from each other in order to better monetize the multitude of very popular space marine chapters.
Would I personally like to see all chapters rolled into one codex so the only difference between different space marine armies is the color scheme? No, absolutely not. I believe the different chapter cultures, special units and the different ways they play are a big part of 40k.
Does GW often release too much for marines and too little for xenos players? Yes, but maybe next year we'll truly get the big eldar release that's been overdue for so long.
the_scotsman wrote: the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
You say that like it's a new thing, and that we haven't had years and editions full of it. Like all those 8th edition characters that cost around 100pts and could out of the blue kneecap a titan if you threw enough cards at them.
There are players that vocally want it and feel that rules bonuses are what make an army and that is not a new thing (i.e. "Night Lords aren't Night Lords with Infiltrate!" - some CSM player circa 2007).
Does it enhance my personal experience? No. But ultimately GW have decided that their target audience is the rules heavy kind - or at least that they make the most money selling a game with lots of supplementary rules sold separately. Can't please everyone.
... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Are both units also 5PL? If so, that's utter madness and just another nail in the coffin against 40K for me. Pray to the Omnissiah such madness never reaches KT21
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
This is what we call a strawman carefully constructed to make this all seem lopsided.
The crux of course isn't the comparison, but the layers of rules. And to that I'd ask Black Templars players on whether or not those rules make them feel like Black Templars or not.
I think the core of the question is really how much information do you personally feel you need to make a meaningful decision during the game. Everyone of us lands somewhere between "[0] BT are a melee focused army" and "[10] knowing the exact damage probability against a unit" like in your post.
The closer you are to [10], the more unhappy you will feel about lack of information or amount of overall information used by the game imho.
Personally, I am happy in general to have more rules to be able to make it feel different wether you play against subfaction x or y.
the_scotsman wrote: We've found the nit, and now that it has been picked, nothing else needs be discussed! So quickly too, damn, you really got me.
HOLD THE NIT ALOFT LIKE ITS A MELEE WEAPON IN AN OLD PIECE OF CODEX COVER ARTWORK! YOU ARE TRIUMPHANT, EVERYTHING IS FINE!!!
I think that was needlessly harsh for a neutral remark.
No, this would not enhance my game experience. It's a big part of the reason why I'm not playing 40K at the moment. I prefer universal special rules where possible and don't really feel we need so many kinds of space marines in the game, and I've felt like that consistently since 3e.
Ill say that 40k would greately benefit from having less moving parts that add 0 decision making to the Game.
But Ill say here, and again , you dont need to know every single Rule of your opponent because you arent Jimmy Neutrón and are not gonna do mental mathematics mid Game outside the most basic ones.
In this example, you only realistically need to know two things:
-My opponent IS playing a meele céntric subfaction
-How much has he buffed that unit.
Generally when my opponent starts telling me all the buffs he IS giving to a unit I stop him.
Most people dont control and go full overkill with their buffing.
Iron Hands also have access to Honour the Chapter. I feel it's unfair to act as if they don't.
Furthermore, we don't know if Black Templars will keep Knights of Sigismund, or if Vows will replace that rule.
And finally, as has been pointed out, Black Templars cannot be Successors - one might posit that their Chapter Tactic, which includes no offensive buffs, is so weak that they deserve the buffs provided by their supplement.
Addendum - 6s to hit would cause one automatic wound, and one additional hit. Not two automatic wounds.
I remember when orks used to have neat secondary armies. An entire army list just for dread waaaaghs, speed waaaaghs, even feral gitz. Now it’s the unstoppable power armored tide it seems.
MinMax wrote: Iron Hands also have access to Honour the Chapter. I feel it's unfair to act as if they don't.
Furthermore, we don't know if Black Templars will keep Knights of Sigismund, or if Vows will replace that rule.
And finally, as has been pointed out, Black Templars cannot be Successors - one might posit that their Chapter Tactic, which includes no offensive buffs, is so weak that they deserve the buffs provided by their supplement.
Addendum - 6s to hit would cause one automatic wound, and one additional hit. Not two automatic wounds.
this is true, they both do. Primarily, however, i was intending to highlight the multiplicative nature of the power difference between a melee chapter and a shooting chapter - the Iron Hands squad could choose to double their attacks, in theory, but in practice if theyve killed only 1 of my nobz and I swing back with a unit that's probably armed with big choppas, that unit is dead, while in the hands of a melee chapter, that unit will probably kill 3 of my nobz and wound 1, and then could use HtC to clear out the remaining 3W worth of nobz.
Regardless, the burden of knowledge on me, as an opponent still exists - I cannot look at that model, the assault intercessor, and know what it does to any degree of accuracy because of the massive distinction in various capabilites caused by subfaction, stratagem, what turn it is, what relics it may have, etc.
if it makes you feel better, lets think about it as a White Scars successor - I need to recall that that unit of assault intercessors is going to go from something that is very well countered by my nobz (aha, this unit is highly dangerous to my single-wound boyz, but I can counter their anti-chaff weaponry with my tough multi-wound nobz with good armor!) to something that will instantly obliterate my nobz come turn 3, because suddenly they will be swinging at AP-2 and D2 on the charge.
....I also, thanks to the Successor Chapter system, need to recall that the passive bonuses on that unit of white scars are not fixed, but could in fact be any combination of various capabilities, with all the same "d2 on the charge" nastiness thrown in turn 3+.
I would put forth that the reason miniature games are in any way playable is because the miniatures serve as visual representations of their general capabilities to both players, that if you tried to play any miniature game substituting the various miniatures with identical board game meeples and just put it on the players to recall what each unit was and what it did, even the simplest game would be rendered basically impossible. You couldn't play chess, let alone warhammer.
The assumption is that BT can be used as a Successor Chapter, which they won't be. The Inheritors of the Primarch Trait lets you pick from the original Legions, not any Chapter you want. So if you're using the BT rules, you're using the BT rules, with no access Successor Traits, just like the Flesh Tearers, Crimson Fists and, you guessed it, Black Templars.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
This is what we call a strawman carefully constructed to make this all seem lopsided.
The crux of course isn't the comparison, but the layers of rules. And to that I'd ask Black Templars players on whether or not those rules make them feel like Black Templars or not.
I'm curious why you feel like this is a strawman.
A unit armed with Chainswords - weapons with low strength, low AP, and many attacks designed to kill chaff infantry - should be able to be countered defensively by putting a high-toughness multiwound elite unit with a comparatively better save in front of them and arming them with melee weaponry designed to kill marines - like say, presenting a unit of Nobz with Big Choppas as opposed to equivalent points of Ork Boyz.
Having systems present in the game whereby that unit's combat threat is on a sliding scale from "This is an extremely good tactic, and you will be rewarded by losing roughly 1 nob and then swinging back and murdering the unit of assault intercessors" to "this is an extremely bad idea, and that unit of assault intercessors will carve through your nobz like butter because you silly goose dont you remember that this is turn 3, and your opponent has selected White Scars as the parent chapter for their purple space marines today??" is a perfect example of how the current state of the game piles a massive amount of burden of knowledge on a player.
Before the pandemic, when I was playing 40k basically every weekend like clockwork, I was able to keep up with this burden and didnt notice it. 40k was able to exist as my hyperfixation game, to the exclusion of essentially every other system, so it was possible for me to know most of the general capabilities of opposing armies and how to tactically assess standard situations on the table.
Post-pandemic, and now with a more unforgiving schedule and a child on the way, 40k is massively less accessible as a system. Players are punished MASSIVELY for failing to keep up with the huge number of rules layers, and GW does not seem to be slowing down. A Black Templars opponent will need to track:
1) Shock Assault
2) bolter discipline
3) ATSKNF 4 and 5) two-part chapter tactic
6) Doctrines
7) Superdoctrine
8 9 and 10) 3-part rules from Vows
across the opponent's entire army, the entire game. The primary balancing mechanic of the vows as advertised is that I, as an opponent, must keep track of the drawback rule to the two positive rules and play in such a way to maximise it against my opponent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: The assumption is that BT can be used as a Successor Chapter, which they won't be. The Inheritors of the Primarch Trait lets you pick from the original Legions, not any Chapter you want. So if you're using the BT rules, you're using the BT rules, with no access Successor Traits, just like the Flesh Tearers, Crimson Fists and, you guessed it, Black Templars.
Change the assumption to White Scars successors then. The distinction between 'Iron Hands Assault Intercessors on turn 3 in front of my army' and 'White Scars Successors Assault Intercessors on turn 3 in front of my army' is either, putting an elite infantry unit out in front of them like Nobz is a good idea, they are an anti-chaff unit and my high-tough W2 unit will mostly withstand their attacks and kill them with the counterswing, or, putting an elite infantry unit out in front of them is suicide because these two subfaction traits from Codex: Space Marines and this superdoctrine from Supplement: White Scars combine to make them 3x as effective in combat and their survival will allow them to use a stratagem specific to that unit (1/140 datasheets in Codex: Space Marines, and 1/roughly 50 stratagems my opponent could use) to finish off my unit at the end of the fight phase.
I disagree with the idea that subfactions should not affect how units play. I think subfactions, thematic army lists (like legendary legions in ESDLA or sectorils on Infinity) is something most people like and that when done well can give a ton of life to factions. I mean, look at Chaos Marines, both 3.5 and 7th Traitor Legions completely change how you play your army going from the same baseline and applying different special rules and altering army composition.
And I, as a player, like to have more life out of my models if I can play my custom marines as a gunline one game, as a meele elite force another, a fast attacking strike squad in other tournament, etc... thats why I'll never support the "You must play your units with the paintscheme they have" because I reject the notion than my paintscheme makes me unable to use 3/4 of the rules of my Codex. As someone that has never had a "main" in any game because I grow bored very fast, I need the variey
But I agree with the amount of overlaping stuff that we are using right now with stratagems, buffs from characters from auras from targeted buffs from prayers from psychic powers, etc...
So, I need to remember that Iron Hands are primarily a shooting/durability focused Chapter that focuses on vehicle buffs, and that they're dedicated melee units are generally no nastier than the "average" dedicated melee units of other loyalist Chapters, and that Black Templars are a melee focused Chapter, and getting into a fistfight with one of their melee focused units is a Bad Idea. I think I can do that.
Does having special rules that reflect sub factions various in lore abilities and tactics enhance my gaming experience? Yes. Playing games that reflect the lore of the 40k universe is kind of what I want out of the game. I got into this because I wanted to play a bunch of Nihilistic Godless Psychopathic Transhuman Super Soldiers that rely on fast hit and run tactics and do "Vlad Tempes stuff" to their enemies, not "spikey dudes team #8". I'm fairly sure many people got into the game for similar reasons.
the_scotsman wrote: the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
You say that like it's a new thing, and that we haven't had years and editions full of it. Like all those 8th edition characters that cost around 100pts and could out of the blue kneecap a titan if you threw enough cards at them.
There are players that vocally want it and feel that rules bonuses are what make an army and that is not a new thing (i.e. "Night Lords aren't Night Lords with Infiltrate!" - some CSM player circa 2007).
Does it enhance my personal experience? No. But ultimately GW have decided that their target audience is the rules heavy kind - or at least that they make the most money selling a game with lots of supplementary rules sold separately. Can't please everyone.
Part of me wonders whether GW could possibly leverage Open Play into a slightly less useless form than they currently have it.
Make it clear that things like Subfactions, Purity Bonuses, Stratagems, Relics, etc are intended to be used with Matched Play and the points costs printed in Chapter Approved are intended for Matched Play and Tournament Play. Construct a simplified mission set, and balance the points costs as printed in the codexes explicitly for this stripped down version of play.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
Incidentally one thing i was happy about new stormcast book was that custom stormhosts were for aos crusade.
Galas wrote: I disagree with the idea that subfactions should not affect how units play. I think subfactions, thematic army lists (like legendary legions in ESDLA or sectorils on Infinity) is something most people like and that when done well can give a ton of life to factions. I mean, look at Chaos Marines, both 3.5 and 7th Traitor Legions completely change how you play your army going from the same baseline and applying different special rules and altering army composition.
And I, as a player, like to have more life out of my models if I can play my custom marines as a gunline one game, as a meele elite force another, a fast attacking strike squad in other tournament, etc... thats why I'll never support the "You must play your units with the paintscheme they have" because I reject the notion than my paintscheme makes me unable to use 3/4 of the rules of my Codex. As someone that has never had a "main" in any game because I grow bored very fast, I need the variey
But I agree with the amount of overlaping stuff that we are using right now with stratagems, buffs from characters from auras from targeted buffs from prayers from psychic powers, etc...
Clearly there is nuance to this. You would find a game of 40k where instead of miniatures, players simply needed to remember the capabilities of all their units and you used identical tokens or meeples impossible to play. You would also find a game of 40k where all miniature differences were purely aesthetic and all models had the same rules horribly boring.
My argument is that the current edition punishes players for not keeping up-to-the-minute with the GW release grind incredibly hard by placing vastly too much of a model's power budget into things that are variable based on invisible factors.
most other games do not reflect 'the melee skew subfaction' by making their melee units twice as powerful than identical melee units from a different subfaction. Usually, they are given special allowance to skew their list and take more melee units as a greater percentage of their army (Different miniatures, because, you know, it's a miniatures game), and then maybe given a small 5-10% bonus with some kind of slight drawback to shooting or restriction on shooting units.
40k has a simply untenable level of 'invisible rules' at this point, in my opinion. It's getting similar to the end of 7th. How many shots do you need to kill that necron wraith? is it one amount, or is that wraith in a formation, and a super-formation, and therefore it is actually 6x that first amount?
Da Boss wrote: No, this would not enhance my game experience. It's a big part of the reason why I'm not playing 40K at the moment. I prefer universal special rules where possible and don't really feel we need so many kinds of space marines in the game, and I've felt like that consistently since 3e.
+1 Pretty much the exact words I was just about to write. As much as GW and others want to make 40k into some kind of competitive tournament "e-sport" game, the game's rules simply do not work well for that (they actually never have, across all editions in my opinion). With the current edition's layering upon layering of codex rules like those discussed in the original post, there are too many game elements to remember and manage and too many "x" factors (ex. stratagems) that directly impact a unit's value beyond its stated points. You cannot realistically attempt to balance a game with that much rules bloat (not that GW ever makes a full-hearted effort to truly balance the game . . .). A competitive tournament-level game should not require that much bookkeeping.
Treat 40k like the "beer and pretzels" game it really is, and it can actually be a lot of fun with good-natured opponents. But that means ignoring/discarding/forgetting much of the current edition's rules bloat, playing alternate game types like the new Apocalypse or Kill Team (I've only played the previous version of KT, and cannot speak to the current version), or going back to earlier editions that kept the majority of game rules in the main rulebook and did not attempt to add too many additional rules via the codexes.
I will forever maintain that this is why Dataslate Cards should be a thing, permanently, for every army--and that the Datacards should include a "Reminder Card" for each subfaction.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap. And the OP did a bang up job of how these advantages can synergize exponentially to make a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
I think that nowadays you need be a lawyer to be able to play 40K.
The complexity of the rules expressed in multiple sources kinda remind all the none sense of jurisprudence that you can find in any legal system.
mmm nah! screw that. In fact, the lawyers are pushovers in front of a Warhammer 40K player. If they want to know what is real complexity of laws and rules contradicting each other they have to try to play 40K 9th edition.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
We've found the nit, and now that it has been picked, nothing else needs be discussed! So quickly too, damn, you really got me.
HOLD THE NIT ALOFT LIKE ITS A MELEE WEAPON IN AN OLD PIECE OF CODEX COVER ARTWORK! YOU ARE TRIUMPHANT, EVERYTHING IS FINE!!!
I mean, I was going to say the same thing and I didn't think it was a nitpick at all, I mean it was part of your argument as to why it's getting pretty absurd with the layering of rules and it's good to have all your ducks in a row IMHO.
That being said, your original point still stands and is totally valid (maybe that not changing is your definition of a nitpick?) so to address that, yeah I do totally agree with you that it's too much.
You shouldn't have to have a million references to other things in order to figure out exactly what you're doing. IMHO if you're playing an army, all you should need is the rulebook, the main codex, and I guess the specific sub faction supplement if they are going to keep going that route, which to me has both +/-. That should be it. (Points adjustments for balance over time could be fine, but nothing that changes functionality.)
All that being said, I've never been of the mindset that (outside of tournament play) you need to, or even should know everything your opponent can do. Assuming you are playing for fun and not against a metagamer, I've personally always found it fun to discover things on the battlefield, try to adapt on the fly and come back with a better plan next time. I like to know the broad strokes of the armies but not the nitty gritty details.
So to give a final overall answer, to your specific question, no, I don't think having a tonne of sources to reference adds to the experience, however, yes in terms that I like not knowing everything my opponent can do.
The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Thinking of the rules as tools to help you have fun with a friend instead of as a weapon to use against an opponent helps.
I dont play with people I dont consider my friends. It still takes an absolutely unholy amount of effort to figure out how to play a game as tactically shallow as 40k compared to almost any other wargame system that exists. I've been trying to slowly get a small group up to speed on small games of 9th edition and we have just barely introduced subfaction rules, but I was able to pick up AOS 3rd in like 3 games, starting at full size 2000pt armies. Same deal with Battlegroup, and Titanicus, and Infinity.
When I have a harder time keeping up with the rules for the game that I've literally played for a larger fraction of my life than I've been alive and not playing it than I do keeping up with the rules for a game I'm playing FOR THE FIRST TIME and just jumping in at a full-size game, that's a problem.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
Da Boss wrote: The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
^Part of the reason miniature games are fun are using the rules to generate unexpected arguments and moments of excitement, but I generally like it better in Necromunda when a zany roll might mean one of your eight fighters falls off a ledge into an acid pool and dies versus 40k where a slight miscalculation of your opponent's 7 layers of armywide rules means that his entire army is able to charge yours, wiping 1/3 of your forces off the table and ending the game in less time than it took to carefully pack your 150 models into their custom-cut foam.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
That's a whole lot of words for saying you are salty that marines got stuff earlier than chaos marines, which I understand. But if the chaos marines codex hits next year and you get good rules to assemble your "successor chapter" warband, are black templars and their special rules suddenly not an issue any more? What are we talking about here? The 8th ed chaos codex holds up terribly in 9th and space marines got their toys way earlier, leaving chaos marines at a big disadvantage? Sure, we all know that.
What does GW not being able to errata chaos marines to 2W and maybe giving them a points drop until theit 9th ed codex drop have to do with black templars having special rules and unique units?
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
Alright, for the third time, I never said anything about carving supplements out. I never said “marines get this and chaos doesn’t.” I said marines get this and my faction was uncompensated for it. Compensation. That is my arguing point. I said to take a tiny piece of the space marine main codex, the custom chapter traits, ya know, this tablehttps://storage.googleapis.com/spikeybits-staging-bucket/2020/10/94288f79-successor-chapters-pg-1.jpg And move it to narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This doesn’t even touch supplements that you keep going to...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m not even talking about supplements. You are.
Weird enough aos battletomes are moving toward what i have been hoping for 40k. Been pleasantly surprised with couple odd exceptions and some points are clearly off. But overall LOT less stuff to remember and lot less stuff outside warscrolls to pull surprise.
For example different "chapters" are now basically one rule or command ability(stratagem). For stormhost 6+ fnp near objective or attack back in melee on death on 4+. For orcs stuff like stratagem to charge at the end of enemy charge phase or 1st turn can't be shot from over 12".
Rerolls gone nearly extinct, lot less auras, more of buff 1 unit,
Hoping theme continues and doesn't change midedition. Would be nice be able to play lumineth vs guy who hasn't faced before without having to explain tons of interactions i can do that would be major feel bad tricks if he doesn't know to prepare for it.
macluvin wrote: ... as a chaos space marine player I don’t see a problem with doing away with custom and successor chapters in competitive play, and maintaining that they exist purely for narrative play. Or deleting them altogether. If you want a custom home brew chapter bring a fandex and ask for permission or pick a chapter that most closely resembles your custom chapter’s style. It’s basically what we chaos space marines have to do. Bridge the gap between inner codex balance and bridge the gap between supplements and entire codices...
30 years ago that decision could have been made when the setting and the chapters were not as engrained as they are now. GW could not and will not roll all space marines into one codex, not ever...it would be bad business.
Why not have both? What's to say that chaos marines can not have codex supplements for world eaters, night lords and word bearers with one special unit for each? I'd be much more for that than basically saying: "because my faction doesn't have that right now, marines also should not have it"
I understand chaos players are pissed off right now considering the state of their faction and rightly so, but its still a bad argument.
I never said anything about supplements. I am talking about the custom chapter table. The one that lets you pick and choose two pretty awesome abilities for your chapter trait. Scrap that for competitive. I would concede this point if marks of chaos gave free bonuses and if the list of legion tactics weren’t so god awful. Or if they gave us mechanics to shift elites like chosen or possessed to the troops slot for black legion and word bearers, maybe give night lords raptor troops... something, anything to offset marines having chapter tactics that consist of half the tactic being superior to most chaos space marine legion traits, let alone the other half, or combat doctrines, or access to war gear like heresy era terminators and storm shields, etc. also they got to keep their bike mount hq’s...
So no, this is nowhere near the argument “my faction doesn’t have it so marines should not have it.” I would say that the presence of primaris makes for an awesome foil to chaos innovating with new daemon engines, even if neither are to my particular taste. The issue is that there is a fat list of advantages marines have that chaos has no compensation for, and this was true from 8th editions space marine codex 2.0 to now, and the 9th edition has only widened that gap.
It seems a fairly minor concession that hardly hurts the game to make custom chapter rules a narrative only mechanic. It seems a major boon to the monumental task of trying to maintain some sort of balance. Narrative games aren’t for balance, and neither are the custom chapter traits. Leave them where they belong.
You literally said in your post that you would concede the point if marks of chaos were better or chaos marines got similar free rules. So maybe I misunderstood you, but that sounds exactly like: "marines should not have this because my dudes do not get this or are bad atm"
Hey, just, point of order?
....why is it OK and balanced to give a unique system or bonus like this to one army at a time without giving any kind of compensation to the armies that dont have it?
Does that not seem kind of weird and power-creepy just on the face of it? Like if GW wants to roll out some new system of "Tactical Ploys" or "Command Modules" or whatever that amount to a free power-boost, why are we just cool with everyone else not being given some holdover bonus like, I dont know, "You get an extra 3CP if youre playing against an opponent with this feature and your codex doesnt have one yet."
Yes, and I even said so. But the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
The argument should not be that space marines get cramped into one book, because other factions don't have the same kind of subfaction rules.
You have the accuracy of an imperial storm trooper when it comes to hitting my point...
I said the issue is that space marines have a huge list of advantages that are uncompensated in chaos armies. Compare any equivalent unit from space marine 8th edition 2.0 codex to a chaos space marine equivalent unit and you’ll find that they were paying roughly the same price, but the space marine equivalent would be severely more efficient because it had access to 2 list of 2 awesome abilities (relatively) compared to the chaos space marine legion trait equivalent of 1 mediocre at best special ability, with the alpha legion trait being the best and roughly equivalent to a mid to low tier half of a space marine trait.
To reiterate: this isn’t about not having something. This is about not being compensated.
I even gave an example of being roughly compensated for something space marines have that chaos doesn’t; primaris, and chaos gaining more dinobots. That’s compensation, that is sort of arbitrary because it’s not even the selection of units that I am complaining about. It’s about the amount of buffs and how this literally makes space marines a chaos space marine if it cost 1ppm more and got several extra buffs over a chaos space marine that made their units significantly more efficient.
Again, this is about compensation, not that our codices are different. Any further argument that doesn’t address the concept of compensation for having an objectively worse codex because of extra special rules applied across the army is in bad faith because that is my arguing point.
That's a whole lot of words for saying you are salty that marines got stuff earlier than chaos marines, which I understand. But if the chaos marines codex hits next year and you get good rules to assemble your "successor chapter" warband, are black templars and their special rules suddenly not an issue any more? What are we talking about here? The 8th ed chaos codex holds up terribly in 9th and space marines got their toys way earlier, leaving chaos marines at a big disadvantage? Sure, we all know that.
What does GW not being able to errata chaos marines to 2W and maybe giving them a points drop until theit 9th ed codex drop have to do with black templars having special rules and unique units?
My other point is that the table existed during 8th edition, and still was chaos space marine traits ++. There was a brief moment in time when we were given 11 ppm chaos space marines to the 13 ppm tactical, and that is a form of compensation. However, for a lot of 8th GW had no problem keeping us uncompensated, and before 2w marines hit our compensation was 1ppm which at this scale simply is not enough. Based on previous patterns, my guess is that we will not be adequately compensated for that table and devastation doctrines and a host of other things. It’s also making the game an unholy terror to moderate and balance because of the sheer quantity of wacky rules interactions it introduces. If we do get that sort of customization (incredibly unlikely given the precedent set by GW over the course of 8th and 9th) then awesome. But I am not optimistic about those possibilities. And it only adds to the bloat that has made 9th a mess.
Maybe they will do something cool with the world eaters and EC supplements. It still doesn’t address the chaos space marine codex.
What I am saying is that removing a few of those many layers of rules that the OP was talking about probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing though and scaling back the interactions between combat doctrines, traits and strats isn’t such a bad thing. I don’t even mind playing space marines but crappier, I just want to feel like I have a chance. Compensate the difference between the rules in some meaningful way.
tauist wrote: Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Are both units also 5PL? If so, that's utter madness and just another nail in the coffin against 40K for me. Pray to the Omnissiah such madness never reaches KT21
Yeah, because 1 custodes being able to paste half the factions in the game is so much better.
Considering kill team is one of the only tabletop games out there right now that's balance is WORSE than 40k, I'd be a little bit careful about how many stones get thrown.
Da Boss wrote: The point about discovery is a good one, I think that CAN be fun, but it's generally more fun the less effort the game is to set up and understand, and the less devastating the discovery is to your prospects for an interesting game.
Discovering something that damages one unit but leaves it still maybe able to operate is different to discovering something that obliterates several units and leaves you crippled in your ability to respond, and the outcome of the game a forgone conclusion. Maybe that would also be okay if it happened on turn 5, so you got a close game most of the way and then a dramatic finish. The problem with some GW design is that that can happen on turn 2. This isn't a new problem, I had this issue in 8e WFB and I can see that it remains a problem in AoS and 40K. But it does drain my enjoyment. If I know about the risk then I'm more likely to have a fun, close game than get arbitrarily curbstomped on turn 2, and that leads me to be put off by the idea that I need to learn all of these rules (and particularly that all of the rules, which are broadly similar, have minor variations and different names, making the specifics easy to confuse).
It's an odd design choice to me, but I'm aware that these editions are really popular so maybe I'm way off base in my impressions.
I don't think that you're way off base at all. I had this issue back in... 4th, 5th? I don't actually recall when since I was really casual at the time, but I was playing the OG Necron codex and my opponent had just got the new Blood Angels one, so wherever that puts it in the timeline. Basically, all he put on the table was a gunship, then turn two dropped a bunch of stuff on me, spouting off a mountain of rules that I'd never heard of, wiped out my whole army in one turn.
So yeah, sometimes it can lead to some feel bads, but I think that was more of an issue with metagamer vs casual and not taking that into account than anything else. With a game that has so much stuff to it (regarldess of the exact ammount of that any given person considers bloat) it's not something that will ever go away.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
tauist wrote: Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Are both units also 5PL? If so, that's utter madness and just another nail in the coffin against 40K for me. Pray to the Omnissiah such madness never reaches KT21
Yeah, because 1 custodes being able to paste half the factions in the game is so much better.
Considering kill team is one of the only tabletop games out there right now that's balance is WORSE than 40k, I'd be a little bit careful about how many stones get thrown.
Aside from Custodes wrecking tournaments, I personally think KT21 is very balanced. I've played about a dozen games so far, all with different factions and only one of them was not very close, and that was IMHO an issue with the design of the specific mission not any of the factions themselves.
How much KT21 have you played that you've experienced so much imbalance from?
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
Then don't play with that person again. Yeah it sucks from time to time, but if someone's going to be a dick in a game, there are plenty of other things they could do as well. Don't play with WAAC jerks and that wont' matter. Local communities are only so big, it doesn't take too long to sus out who the fun to play with people are.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
Also, side note: While it's true that you usually won't need to remember every single strat/doctrine/etc, you may not know that until you've spent the time to look into it. Even if 75% of a given book is not worth remembering due to lack of power or synergy or what-have-you, you a a player need to either read it cover to cover and spend enough time thinking on it to realize that OR hear it from someone else (who may or may not be correct in their assessment).
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I recall back in the day that space marines felt very bland and un characterful. Nothing distinguished UM from CF or IF or IH and meanwhile BA and DA and SW a had their own codex and were space marine +1.
I don't think anyone wants to go back to that...
However, There is clearly too many special rules going around right now. The difference between 2 space marines fighting each other should not be this great (in fact it should be practically non existent). Even MF GK got different army traits for themselves now...The bloat is gross.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
If the mistake isn't realized, then it's not realized, no big deal, neither player notices, so no one will have an issue. I don't get why the IF was such a big emphesis?
If it's only a few minutes, it's not that hard to be fair and wind it back for something small. Oh you're actually strength this? I will actually use this defensive stratagem. My point is, decent people that are trying to have fun will work this out and not really be bothered by it. gak happens. A decent player wouldn't supercombo you if (even if they somehow legitimately forgot a really complex interaction that they likely built their army around) they told you five minutes ago that they couldn't supercombo you.
Yes it's easier to keep people honest when you both know the rules, but your example of general movement isn't exactly comparable to specific optional abilities that some faction can (but don't necessarily have to) choose to employ.
A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.
the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP -They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
No it does not enhance my gaming experience.
There is something to be said about pondering potential combos in list-building though, and it does help with engagement when not actually playing in a way that has value. But there is too much of it, to the point where it detracts from the on-table experience.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
People who you don't know. People who might have shoddy memory or just gotten done with a long day. People who might be confusing one rule with one of the dozens of others applicable to their faction/subfaction. People who may be coming from houserules and not remembering in the moment. People who might genuinely have just misunderstood the rules or have missed an FAQ that changed things. People you may have spent some time and effort to schedule a game with (both in getting the game set up and in showing up and playing however many turns before the question comes up) and who you don't want to just dump due to what might be an honest mistake since this will be the one game you get today/this week/until the end of the month/whatever. Yes, even people looking to take advantage of a stranger/acquaintance. There's a lot of reason to not necessarily trust that your opponent remembers everything even outside of malicious behavior, and that's before we account for the complexity/rarity of some of the interactions.
However, in nearly all the cases you list, it wouldn't matter. The comment we took umbrage with is that an opponent would only tell you 50% of what their guys did, but the implication was that they would use that other 50% to their advantage. If it's an honest mistake, or bad memory, or don't know, ect... then it's not going to pop up against you two minutes later when you don't plan your strategy around it. That only happens if someone is intentionally deceitful. All the other cases are simple mistakes that (in general) people won't hold against you.
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, decent players would own up to the mistake if it is realized, and would give you a redo or promise not to use the supercombo since you were playing with incomplete or incorrect information. However, the mistakes happen regardless of whether or not anyone takes or deserves blame for it. If you and I both know the rules for Movement, we're less likely to make any egregious errors since one of us will probably remember the rules well enough go "hang on, are you sure you can ______?". And while it is a lot less likely (based mostly on the decency of the people you play with), there is still a chance for someone to misremember the rule etc in the moment only to realize it later without any malicious intent (ie. they forgot if the unit was S4 or S5 and oh hey I was wrong they do get an extra attack on the charge whoops).
If the mistake isn't realized, then it's not realized, no big deal, neither player notices, so no one will have an issue. I don't get why the IF was such a big emphesis?
If it's only a few minutes, it's not that hard to be fair and wind it back for something small. Oh you're actually strength this? I will actually use this defensive stratagem. My point is, decent people that are trying to have fun will work this out and not really be bothered by it. gak happens. A decent player wouldn't supercombo you if (even if they somehow legitimately forgot a really complex interaction that they likely built their army around) they told you five minutes ago that they couldn't supercombo you.
Yes it's easier to keep people honest when you both know the rules, but your example of general movement isn't exactly comparable to specific optional abilities that some faction can (but don't necessarily have to) choose to employ.
I put emphasis on "if" because we won't necessarily realize there was an error (not in time to rewind, anyways). Say you have a strat that gives you "+1 to wound for one round of CC". You misremember it as "automatic wounds on every hit in CC" because there's another strat in your 'dex that does automatic wounds in a different context. I, not knowing your strats, don't move some crucial units to avoid CC and while I might think that seems a bit strong, I trust you know your codex and go along with it. Unsurprisingly, you nuke the core of my army, and win the game. I end up feeling gotcha'd (you might even end up feeling kinda bad about it as well, depending). Even if we never realize the error (and if we don't realize the error within the next turn or so, it may end up being too late to make a difference), it does negatively affect our experience. Plus, if we do realize the error later, then we get the extra negative experience of feeling like the match was...tainted, I guess - you hadn't really earned your victory.
Obviously, this could happen long before 9th was a glimmer in Marketing's sales projections, but the more complexity gets added to the game, the more likely it is that players will end up making these kinds of mistakes.
Also, we should remember - this is 40k. Depending on army composition, actions taken, etc., this might not be two minutes. My choosing not to move during my turn and you dropping the hammer in your Assault Phase could easily be the better part of an hour apart. You're right, if I've only moved two units and then you remember the actual strat, we can just mulligan the affected units, but it might end up being a completely different game state by the time we realize you goofed.
(Also also, I should probably clarify - my position on this is less "all of us must know all the rules so no slimeball can ever pull a fast one" and more "this level of complexity can cause avoidable negative experiences and I'm not sure it adds enough to the game to balance that out".)
the_scotsman wrote: the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
You say that like it's a new thing, and that we haven't had years and editions full of it. Like all those 8th edition characters that cost around 100pts and could out of the blue kneecap a titan if you threw enough cards at them.
There are players that vocally want it and feel that rules bonuses are what make an army and that is not a new thing (i.e. "Night Lords aren't Night Lords with Infiltrate!" - some CSM player circa 2007).
Does it enhance my personal experience? No. But ultimately GW have decided that their target audience is the rules heavy kind - or at least that they make the most money selling a game with lots of supplementary rules sold separately. Can't please everyone.
Part of me wonders whether GW could possibly leverage Open Play into a slightly less useless form than they currently have it.
Make it clear that things like Subfactions, Purity Bonuses, Stratagems, Relics, etc are intended to be used with Matched Play and the points costs printed in Chapter Approved are intended for Matched Play and Tournament Play. Construct a simplified mission set, and balance the points costs as printed in the codexes explicitly for this stripped down version of play.
How about the opposite? The game cannot be balanced with all these layers of often multiplicative bonuses, they should be relegated to narrative play. GW cannot even stop to consider whether the two flamer Stratagems they are printing in the Salamanders supplement will be used together to create an overpowered combo.
If flamers are halfway decent then Salamanders players will use them without getting a bonus for doing it. People that care enough about competitive to spam grav guns on their Salamanders will probably just switch chapters to the one that has the best success with the overpowered weapon of the week anyway, sometimes that will be Salamanders spamming grav because GW messes up. Iyanden's rules support spamming Guardians in the "all our Guardians died against the Tyranids" Craftworld, worse it cannot even be used to replicate those fights very well because the rules make them more likely to survive, not less.
But I do like finding out which units work best with a given dynasty and which dynasties works best with a given unit. List-building would probably be a lot simpler without it or maybe not, dynasty choice can be pretty restrictive. Luckily for Necrons there is a custom dynasty which works for every unit in case you want to have shooting and melee units working together (the horror /sarcasm).
psipso wrote: I think that nowadays you need be a lawyer to be able to play 40K.
It's not that bad, I certainly couldn't be a lawyer, I have a terrible memory and a constant headache. I think I've had two or three disputes in 50 games, had to look up core rules 20 times and my own Stratagems 40 times. You've always had to be a lawyer to play 40k competitively, reading fanmade tournament packets and errata, doing research on the internet for an endless number of rules GW wrote badly and never FAQd. Playing casually with the understanding that neither player wants to win based on a lack of research on the part of their opponent the game can be very fun.
Tiberias wrote: ...the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
It's not just about jealousy, it's about game balance and keeping the narrative cohesive. I was ahead of the curve in 9th in getting faction secondary objectives and I think releasing them piecemeal was wrong, if Tau don't have faction secondaries, Necrons shouldn't either. Faction secondaries should be released all at once when they are all ready and points and missions can be balanced around them, not one faction (or subfaction) at a time to help sell books and factions. If CA21 had included faction secondaries for the first time in 9th, then it'd actually have been an exciting new release that shook up the game rather than a soulless cash-grab that feels bad every time you get a 9th dex vs a bad 8th dex. A Chaos Space Marine getting beaten 10/10 times by a Tactical Marine is bad for narrative cohesion even if CSM as a faction were strong because they had undercosted Daemon engines or they could swarm the board with cheap Chaos Space Marines (another thing that would look odd narratively speaking).
Tiberias wrote: ...the argument of "my dudes don't get the extra stuff or don't have it yet, therefore space marines should not have it at all" is and will always be a bad one. It's just an argument driven by frustration, jealousy and impatience in the case of factions who did not receive an update in 9th and I can sympathize with that...doesnt make it a good argument though.
The argument should be that other factions should get the same treatment space marines get, maybe to a slightly lesser degree since the IP is built on their shoulders and GW will always give the best toys to their cash cow.
It's not just about jealousy, it's about game balance and keeping the narrative cohesive. I was ahead of the curve in 9th in getting faction secondary objectives and I think releasing them piecemeal was wrong, if Tau don't have faction secondaries, Necrons shouldn't either. Faction secondaries should be released all at once when they are all ready and points and missions can be balanced around them, not one faction (or subfaction) at a time to help sell books and factions. If CA21 had included faction secondaries for the first time in 9th, then it'd actually have been an exciting new release that shook up the game rather than a soulless cash-grab that feels bad every time you get a 9th dex vs a bad 8th dex. A Chaos Space Marine getting beaten 10/10 times by a Tactical Marine is bad for narrative cohesion even if CSM as a faction were strong because they had undercosted Daemon engines or they could swarm the board with cheap Chaos Space Marines (another thing that would look odd narratively speaking).
I agree completely. But my point was exacly that: GW has a terrible release schedule, which creates the problems you just listed, which also leads to frustration, impatience and jealousy among the player base towards the factions who got and update early. Black Templars, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and so on having extra rules or special units is therefore not the real problem here as has been indicated by the OP. These discussions are seldomly truly about game design or balance, but rather frequency and quality of faction support across all available factions.
I'll also say again: wanting space marines to be condensed into one book with no special anything is a perfectly valid position to hold, but it will never happen, not ever. Not after the decades of lore and models and how the chapters are engrained into the setting. It would be bad business. But I'll also say again that I believe that GW should put more resources into xenos factions in addition to the love marines get. The necron release has shown they can do it and I'm not primarily talking about the rules here (no dedicated destroyer cult army rules was a big mistake for example), but quality model support. And I hope they continue to do it next year with eldar and chaos, which is very long overdue.
Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)?
Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)?
Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
See, i don't question your argument, i question it only partially in a specific case.
See f.e. the discussion off the at the time upcoming 7th (or was it 6th) edition chaos marine codex, which granted us wannabee obliterators, dinobots and the warpsmith.
The only Codex the designers at the time talked about as inspiration was 4th, and only that one, which got praised as the be all end all of all chaos dexes.... which anyone remotly familiar with the faction can point out to them was an unmigitated shitshow. There has been nothing impliying that GW has changed in its perception of that factions history and identitiy and indeed it has been the most consistent faction in regards to its history to this date by gw.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
I play with opponents who are both extremely open, and also pretty crafty regarding their rules. In my last game that actually prompted this thread, we were playing Admech vs all wych-cult Drukhari. And we each had little plastic labels denoting stuff like special rules/stat changes. At one point, the game board had:
-1-2 tokens next to every Drukhari unit saying things like "S+1" "A+1" etc for Combat Drugs
-A token next to my score sheet showing this turn's bonus combat drug
-tokens for the warlord traits I'd given to my HQs -tokens for the relics I'd given to my HQs -3 tokens for the 3 Power from Pain army-wide rules in effect, plus 1 for Blade Artists
-a token next to each admech unit showing whether it was from Ryza or a custom forgeworld that reduced I think your strength and toughness if you were near them
-2 tokens for the skitarii doctrine and the admech canticle currently active
-a token for the special relic hiding in one of my opponent's squads
-a token for the techpriest upgrade power thingy that adds Moar Auras to Aura Man (two-sided, so he could flip it over from red side to blue side when Aura 1 changed to Aura 2)
it was, frankly, an utter and complete nightmare, and all this for a game that really actually only lasted about 2.5 turns, eveyrthing on my side was basically wiped out by my turn 3. I made an average of 1 decision with each of my units, since turn 1 I had transports, turn 2 I hopped out from transports, and then by turn 3 I had next to nothing left. Just an absolute trainwreck of a "Wargame" experience, it was like getting together to do competitive by-hand tax filing.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)?
Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
See, i don't question your argument, i question it only partially in a specific case.
See f.e. the discussion off the at the time upcoming 7th (or was it 6th) edition chaos marine codex, which granted us wannabee obliterators, dinobots and the warpsmith.
The only Codex the designers at the time talked about as inspiration was 4th, and only that one, which got praised as the be all end all of all chaos dexes.... which anyone remotly familiar with the faction can point out to them was an unmigitated shitshow. There has been nothing impliying that GW has changed in its perception of that factions history and identitiy and indeed it has been the most consistent faction in regards to its history to this date by gw.
I can't argue with that, but I'm still hopeful for a decent Chaos Space Marine codex. The leaks have been true to the letter so far as evidenced by all the black templar stuff, so there is a decent chance we'll truly get a sizeable chaos release in 2022 with a dedicated world eaters codex supplement....that's never happened before and if it turns out to be really true, then GW has shown some willingness to go in a space marine-esque direction with chaos marines as far as supplements and sub-faction rules are concerned. Screw all the discussion about rule bloat...I want to see codex supplements for world eaters, emperors children and night lords with at least one special unit for each like red butchers for world eaters. I wanna see a dedicated traitor guard or "lost and the damned" codex. I believe all these things are doable if GW sees the potential of these factions to grow the IP and make them money.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
In some ways the 3.5 -> 4e chaos transition is strongly related to OPs question.
Does it enhance your game experience to have a 3.5 like system where any given unit can skew considerable distances in performance for reasons such as their shoulder pad icon, compared to 4e* where stuff like limits on raptors and obliterators were not locked out behind the colour of your paint but equally your blue painted raptors were no better than your red or green painted raptors.
(*4e of course took it further with actual units and wargear being culled above and beyond the freebies and wombo-combo potential)
I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
Tiberias wrote: What is this constant babble about burden of knowledge? Just ask your opponent what his unit does before you decide to send your nobz in or not.
Uhm, they will probably only tell you 50% of it's capabilities when it's a pick-up game with strangers.
What is that even supposed to mean? If I ask the person I'm playing with a straight up queation like: "what special rules does that unit have right now if it charges me?" and they answer along the lines of "well, it might be better now in combat, but you'll never know exactly unless you try...muhahaha" I'd immediately pack my things and leave. What the hell kind of people are you playing with?
I play with opponents who are both extremely open, and also pretty crafty regarding their rules. In my last game that actually prompted this thread, we were playing Admech vs all wych-cult Drukhari. And we each had little plastic labels denoting stuff like special rules/stat changes. At one point, the game board had:
-1-2 tokens next to every Drukhari unit saying things like "S+1" "A+1" etc for Combat Drugs
-A token next to my score sheet showing this turn's bonus combat drug
-tokens for the warlord traits I'd given to my HQs -tokens for the relics I'd given to my HQs -3 tokens for the 3 Power from Pain army-wide rules in effect, plus 1 for Blade Artists
-a token next to each admech unit showing whether it was from Ryza or a custom forgeworld that reduced I think your strength and toughness if you were near them
-2 tokens for the skitarii doctrine and the admech canticle currently active
-a token for the special relic hiding in one of my opponent's squads
-a token for the techpriest upgrade power thingy that adds Moar Auras to Aura Man (two-sided, so he could flip it over from red side to blue side when Aura 1 changed to Aura 2)
it was, frankly, an utter and complete nightmare, and all this for a game that really actually only lasted about 2.5 turns, eveyrthing on my side was basically wiped out by my turn 3. I made an average of 1 decision with each of my units, since turn 1 I had transports, turn 2 I hopped out from transports, and then by turn 3 I had next to nothing left. Just an absolute trainwreck of a "Wargame" experience, it was like getting together to do competitive by-hand tax filing.
Well in this particular post it seems to me that your main issue was that the game was really lopsided and offered you with little decisions because all your units were dead after a turn. But the lethality of the game does not necessarily have something to do with dedicated special rules that makes units feel distinct.
I've said in multiple threads that I think the extreme proliferation of high AP weapons across all factions and especially for shooting weapons was a big mistake on GWs part. I still believe that going for a fixed to hit value like 3+ instead of a comparative WS/BS was a mistake and that greatly increasing the strength of both melee and shooting weapons, while at the same time effectively capping toughness at 8 was a big mistake also. But in my opinion these are general systemic flaws of 40k that started to accumulate since 8th edition and it does not necessarily have anything to do with how many factions get special rules or lots of subfaction rules. (Though let me be clear that 8th and 9th did a lot of good things and previous editions also had big systemic issues)
I also fully agree that you have to keep track of a lot of stuff in 9th during a game, but I welcome these things more than a "streamlined" ruleset where generic melee unit of faction X fights generic melee unit of faction Y and there are no special rules to distinguish them. The overall 40k unit profile system is too basic to offer enough distinction between units and (in parts at least) represent their lore on the table. This started in 8th with the removal of WS/BS and initative and all the multitudes of special rules and sub faction rules is in part a reaction to that.
And you HAVE to represent the lore of a faction on the tabletop at least in some part. The factions and units have to feel distinct from each other in some way, especially with the multitude of available factions in 40k. If 40k had a statblock that went from 1-20 or at least 1-15, you could differentiate the different factions and units a lot better on their datasheet, but the way the game is written and designed now you kinda have to use a multitude of special rules to represent uniqueness, because the unit profile is too limiting. Edit: a D10 system would also help in that matter, but that is never going to happen realisticly.
A.T. wrote: I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
I remember Gav Thrope being completely bamboozled by a simple ice cream metaphor.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded.
Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
In some ways the 3.5 -> 4e chaos transition is strongly related to OPs question.
Does it enhance your game experience to have a 3.5 like system where any given unit can skew considerable distances in performance for reasons such as their shoulder pad icon, compared to 4e* where stuff like limits on raptors and obliterators were not locked out behind the colour of your paint but equally your blue painted raptors were no better than your red or green painted raptors.
(*4e of course took it further with actual units and wargear being culled above and beyond the freebies and wombo-combo potential)
I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
You'll be hard pressed to find a CSM player who played with the 3.5 Codex who thought that the 4th edition codex was better in any way. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I've never met one.
I think it's certainly strange for GW to champion the idea of unit dataslates that include all the rules for a given unit (who has time to look up USRs?), only to then add layer after layer of invisible bonuses.
Similarly, it's vitally important that each unit's wargear be restricted to what is actually in the kit, yet there's no comparable requirement regarding Warlord Traits, Relics, Masteries, Cryptek Arkana, Combat Drugs, Psychic Powers, Adaptive physiology etc, etc.
As for whether it improves my experience, no but it's something I can live with. At least with (invisible) static bonuses I have a chance to learn what a given unit does. What pushes it over the edge for me is the optional bonuses, primarily in the form of stratagems. They're an awful mechanic that should have been the very first thing 9th removed from the game.
I play with opponents who are both extremely open, and also pretty crafty regarding their rules. In my last game that actually prompted this thread, we were playing Admech vs all wych-cult Drukhari. And we each had little plastic labels denoting stuff like special rules/stat changes. At one point, the game board had:
-1-2 tokens next to every Drukhari unit saying things like "S+1" "A+1" etc for Combat Drugs
-A token next to my score sheet showing this turn's bonus combat drug
-tokens for the warlord traits I'd given to my HQs -tokens for the relics I'd given to my HQs -3 tokens for the 3 Power from Pain army-wide rules in effect, plus 1 for Blade Artists
-a token next to each admech unit showing whether it was from Ryza or a custom forgeworld that reduced I think your strength and toughness if you were near them
-2 tokens for the skitarii doctrine and the admech canticle currently active
-a token for the special relic hiding in one of my opponent's squads
-a token for the techpriest upgrade power thingy that adds Moar Auras to Aura Man (two-sided, so he could flip it over from red side to blue side when Aura 1 changed to Aura 2)
it was, frankly, an utter and complete nightmare, and all this for a game that really actually only lasted about 2.5 turns, eveyrthing on my side was basically wiped out by my turn 3. I made an average of 1 decision with each of my units, since turn 1 I had transports, turn 2 I hopped out from transports, and then by turn 3 I had next to nothing left. Just an absolute trainwreck of a "Wargame" experience, it was like getting together to do competitive by-hand tax filing.
You represent a lot of things with tokens that don't change over the course of the game.
Not everyone likes writing/ typing up unit cards; if you're a crusade player, you pretty much have to in order to track agendas and other quest tallies (ie. Redemption and Sainthood for sisters, etc). I've created spreadsheet templates to replace GW's Crusade cards, and I include all rules text for order and warlord traits and relics and other things that don't change throughout the course of the game on those cards. It works pretty well because I save the spreadsheet on the computer and track battle honours and scars, and just print before every game. During a game, I can pass around my cards as needed, which is way faster than flipping through a dex- even one that's been tabbed or bookmarked.
Note: I often condense rules text to simplify the process.
Strat cards are good too- I make my own so I can colour code them.
As for the "One decision per unit" part of the post, this feels... inaccurate? If every unit you had moved in your first turn, that's one decision right there. If they shot at anything, you're already up to two per unit. If any unit used a strat, that's three. If you suffered any casualties, which specific models you removed was four. And that's your first turn. It also sounds like you chose not to put anything in reserve, which is something that could have helped a bit in the mid-end game.
Now you can argue that some of those decisions were so obvious that you aren't counting them as decisions. I get that. If you had said that, I wouldn't be typing this. Sorry to fall down on semantics, but I find clarity assists with civility- people are more likely to react to hyperbole with hyperbole, and that escalates to a dumpster fire every time.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded. Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
The most recent travesty of that is the completly unnecessary and careless attitude of GW torwards R&H / LatD.
Why? Did anyone expect necrons to get such an extensive model release (again, not talking about the rules for necrons...those were lackluster in certain aspects like destroyer cults)? Past tendencies are in no way a safe or reliable indicator for the quality of future releases. But if we are playing that game, let me offer a counter prediction: considering GWs willingness to go back on it's roots with black templars regarding the rules and the models, which are very closely modeled after 3rd edition artworks, there is a clear possibility that GW is going to do the same with Chaos Space Marines. I'm not claiming my prediction to be true at all, but it's as valid as yours.
See, i don't question your argument, i question it only partially in a specific case.
See f.e. the discussion off the at the time upcoming 7th (or was it 6th) edition chaos marine codex, which granted us wannabee obliterators, dinobots and the warpsmith. The only Codex the designers at the time talked about as inspiration was 4th, and only that one, which got praised as the be all end all of all chaos dexes.... which anyone remotly familiar with the faction can point out to them was an unmigitated shitshow. There has been nothing impliying that GW has changed in its perception of that factions history and identitiy and indeed it has been the most consistent faction in regards to its history to this date by gw.
I can't argue with that, but I'm still hopeful for a decent Chaos Space Marine codex. The leaks have been true to the letter so far as evidenced by all the black templar stuff, so there is a decent chance we'll truly get a sizeable chaos release in 2022 with a dedicated world eaters codex supplement....that's never happened before and if it turns out to be really true, then GW has shown some willingness to go in a space marine-esque direction with chaos marines as far as supplements and sub-faction rules are concerned. Screw all the discussion about rule bloat...I want to see codex supplements for world eaters, emperors children and night lords with at least one special unit for each like red butchers for world eaters. I wanna see a dedicated traitor guard or "lost and the damned" codex. I believe all these things are doable if GW sees the potential of these factions to grow the IP and make them money.
Oh i hope so, and i also anticipate the leaks which so far have been accurate that they atleast give LatD/R&H a second (actually 3rd) and hopefully final good establishment as a faction.... alas i can see gw fething up and just vomiting them into the csm codex without thought or care.
A.T. wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded. Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
In some ways the 3.5 -> 4e chaos transition is strongly related to OPs question.
Does it enhance your game experience to have a 3.5 like system where any given unit can skew considerable distances in performance for reasons such as their shoulder pad icon, compared to 4e* where stuff like limits on raptors and obliterators were not locked out behind the colour of your paint but equally your blue painted raptors were no better than your red or green painted raptors.
(*4e of course took it further with actual units and wargear being culled above and beyond the freebies and wombo-combo potential)
I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
See H.B.M.C
H.B.M.C. wrote:
A.T. wrote: I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
I remember Gav Thrope being completely bamboozled by a simple ice cream metaphor.
The last person that should be let remotly near to a CSM or Chaos codex in general is gav.
The cookie cuttering has indeed at the time become worse, because everyone and their mom knew thanks to the culling that DP + Wings + slaanesh, min csm and tripple tripplet obliterators were broken AF. Indeed arguably worse than 3.5, at the cost of any and all faction identity or subfaction identity , making many players either just stop playing chaos or being drawn to what works on the table instead of "their" intended faction / subfaction. In essence it was counterproductive.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your hopes for chaos are unfounded. Since 4th edition GW has crippled and watered down chaos identity for what it is supposed to be, taking away any and all tools necessary to represent the far flung slew of chaos in any shape and form
In some ways the 3.5 -> 4e chaos transition is strongly related to OPs question.
Does it enhance your game experience to have a 3.5 like system where any given unit can skew considerable distances in performance for reasons such as their shoulder pad icon, compared to 4e* where stuff like limits on raptors and obliterators were not locked out behind the colour of your paint but equally your blue painted raptors were no better than your red or green painted raptors.
(*4e of course took it further with actual units and wargear being culled above and beyond the freebies and wombo-combo potential)
I remember Gav Thorpe writing something to the effect of 'players defined the identity of their army by it's bonuses', so you'd never get an Iron Warrior raptor list for example. The more bonuses and combos you handed out the tighter the players would squeeze into the cookie cutter.
You'll be hard pressed to find a CSM player who played with the 3.5 Codex who thought that the 4th edition codex was better in any way. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I've never met one.
Aye this.
3.5 had serious balance issues, not gonna talk that down, but 4th brought even worse excesses with that AND baseline took all faction identity and subfaction identity behind the shed.
PenitentJake wrote: If you had said that, I wouldn't be typing this. Sorry to fall down on semantics, but I find clarity assists with civility- people are more likely to react to hyperbole with hyperbole, and that escalates to a dumpster fire every time.
You're typing it because whenever someone relates a negative game experience to you, you have a tendency to try and blame the negative experience on them, rather than accepting that the game has faults that can lead to a negative experience.
I feel like there are three questions being asked. Anyone feel free to correct me if not.
I really don't mind the layers of rules for Black Templars, especially considering that there are usually limiting factors to their organizational layout if the new books keeps foot step with the codex of the older editions. They are, for example, not allowed to use psykers and the selections of useable units in the old codex tended to be smaller than the larger Chapters. Personally I don't mind the rule complexity of 40k currently, but to be fair I get to play on average one game a week with fun, interesting, and good players so I usually gets heads up and experience with the varied stuff going on out there.
I like sub-factions, but they tend to be badly managed.as their power levels have always been rather varied. For casual games they are wonderful additions as you are not trying to crush your opponent and just wanting to have fun. For competitive gaming they are a /ignore thing unless you go to one of those rare "fluffy competitive" scenes of which none are where I live. In an ideal world all sub-factions would be equally balanced.
Are there too many Space Marine Chapters? I would say yes in this case, but truth be told this has always been a Space Marine game and at this point I'll just admit it. It hurts because my first army is Craftworlds, but Space Marines have always been the de facto faction. Hell, when I bought one of the early Epic 40k boxes it was just called Space Marine and all the little side games - like Space Crusade and Space Hulk - Space Marines have been the center of attention. Also, with rumors of a Horus Heresy box set I think it is just denial to ignore that the sci-fi setting is pretty much just Space Marines at this point. Even Forgeworld is mostly Space Marines at this moment. This is one of the reasons why AoS gladdens my heart as it really hasn't fallen prey to the Space Marine formula with Stormcast. If anything, with the releases of so many Stormcast chambers, Stormcast is mostly just for collectors who have the time and money to upgrade their army each and every edition iteration.
-3 tokens for the 3 Power from Pain army-wide rules in effect, plus 1 for Blade Artists
I have never tracked these things with tokens with the 8th edition and above. You had to do it with pain tokens with 5th edition as each unit had to track their kill counter, effectively making previous edition more token heavy for drukhari than this one.
I play with opponents who are both extremely open, and also pretty crafty regarding their rules. In my last game that actually prompted this thread, we were playing Admech vs all wych-cult Drukhari. And we each had little plastic labels denoting stuff like special rules/stat changes. At one point, the game board had:
-1-2 tokens next to every Drukhari unit saying things like "S+1" "A+1" etc for Combat Drugs
-A token next to my score sheet showing this turn's bonus combat drug
-tokens for the warlord traits I'd given to my HQs -tokens for the relics I'd given to my HQs -3 tokens for the 3 Power from Pain army-wide rules in effect, plus 1 for Blade Artists
-a token next to each admech unit showing whether it was from Ryza or a custom forgeworld that reduced I think your strength and toughness if you were near them
-2 tokens for the skitarii doctrine and the admech canticle currently active
-a token for the special relic hiding in one of my opponent's squads
-a token for the techpriest upgrade power thingy that adds Moar Auras to Aura Man (two-sided, so he could flip it over from red side to blue side when Aura 1 changed to Aura 2)
it was, frankly, an utter and complete nightmare, and all this for a game that really actually only lasted about 2.5 turns, eveyrthing on my side was basically wiped out by my turn 3. I made an average of 1 decision with each of my units, since turn 1 I had transports, turn 2 I hopped out from transports, and then by turn 3 I had next to nothing left. Just an absolute trainwreck of a "Wargame" experience, it was like getting together to do competitive by-hand tax filing.
You represent a lot of things with tokens that don't change over the course of the game.
Not everyone likes writing/ typing up unit cards; if you're a crusade player, you pretty much have to in order to track agendas and other quest tallies (ie. Redemption and Sainthood for sisters, etc). I've created spreadsheet templates to replace GW's Crusade cards, and I include all rules text for order and warlord traits and relics and other things that don't change throughout the course of the game on those cards. It works pretty well because I save the spreadsheet on the computer and track battle honours and scars, and just print before every game. During a game, I can pass around my cards as needed, which is way faster than flipping through a dex- even one that's been tabbed or bookmarked.
Note: I often condense rules text to simplify the process.
Strat cards are good too- I make my own so I can colour code them.
As for the "One decision per unit" part of the post, this feels... inaccurate? If every unit you had moved in your first turn, that's one decision right there. If they shot at anything, you're already up to two per unit. If any unit used a strat, that's three. If you suffered any casualties, which specific models you removed was four. And that's your first turn. It also sounds like you chose not to put anything in reserve, which is something that could have helped a bit in the mid-end game.
Now you can argue that some of those decisions were so obvious that you aren't counting them as decisions. I get that. If you had said that, I wouldn't be typing this. Sorry to fall down on semantics, but I find clarity assists with civility- people are more likely to react to hyperbole with hyperbole, and that escalates to a dumpster fire every time.
Ok, but, counterpoint here:
1) if I'm moving a transport, I'm making a decision with that transport, and not with the unit inside
2) I did have things in reserve, they tpically made one decision (where to place them down on the board and then what to target)
Generally, I dont see 'where to move' and 'what to target' as two separate decision points, particularly when I can go play...any other wargame, and have many many instances of models getting to act for 3, 4, 5 turns over the course of the game and basically self-evidently generating a more interesting and compelling narrative for me as a player.
Comparing 40k to say, Battlegroup in terms of 'things that can happen with a unit'
Battlegroup: I move my Motorized Infantry in their trucks to capture an objective with 2 small buildings. my opponent uses an ambush fire order with a tank to destroy 1 truck, causing 2 casualties to one of the infantry squads and leaving them pinned by the road, while the rest disembark and head into buildings. The next turn, HE fire and machine gun fire from enemy tanks kills 5 members out of 3 squads and pins 2/3 of them. I could use the officer in the unit to automatically rally one of the squads, but instead I use him to spot for artillery to target the tanks, and hope that the infantry squads can rally on their own - one does, but the one in the road and the other in the building fail. The rallied infantry squad opens fire on a german infantry squad a moderate distance away in another building, causing 1 casualty. The artillery knocks out one tank and pins another. The remaining tanks reposition away from the spotter round, and try to spot the officers out of the soviet infantry unit - the last one succeeds and kills them, but they dont fire on the rest of the infantry. On my turn again all my infantry rally, and the squad in the road is now unpinned, so it moves into some trees to gain cover and fires on the same german squad, pinning it. The infantry in the buildings go on ambush, anticipating the germans trying to move mobile infantry up to take their position.
etc, etc. My units take damage, but they continue to act, and make decisions based on the flow of the game, throughout the entire game.
In the average game of 40k, any given unit in my army does this:
-move up the board to get into position for optimal firing, shoot one time, then die in the following opponent's turn. Most units have either Deep Strike, or long range, or high movement enough to make that first part basically trivial on the tiny board 40k is fought on.
in any given game, the number of units I have in a 2000pts army that meaningfully act in 2 or more turns generally hovers around "2-3". And I blame a lot of that on the endless stackup of layers upon layers of overwhelmingly offensive as opposed to defensive special rules.
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
To expand on the nitpick, Iron Hands successors are a thing and can take all of the bonuses listed other than the BT vow mechanic (which is non-cumulative with shock assault so only really grants early access to a doctrine).
Dedicating all available rules to buffing one dimension of your army then complaining that it is better than the unbuffed version is pretty strawmanish.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You'll be hard pressed to find a CSM player who played with the 3.5 Codex who thought that the 4th edition codex was better in any way.
I don't think there can be any argument that 3.5 had far more scope for customisation.
In the spirit of the thread though, if 4e had all the same options with non of the bonuses would it still have been recieved as poorly? How much of the 3.5 iron hands was being able to represent the servo arm kitbashed onto a model and how much was it about getting 30% more heavy firepower for example
Go back to the original post here: are black templars defined by their ability to inflict 135 points of damage rather than 18 in close combat? Is it enough to have all the thematic options available if they aren't outright better at using them, and how much of that 'doing it better' is seen as an armys character.
Not Online!!! wrote: 3.5 had serious balance issues, not gonna talk that down, but 4th brought even worse excesses
Odd you would single out a list of triple oblits given they were cheaper, tougher, and elite rather than heavy in 3rd.
Nurglitch wrote: How many years ago was the 4th edition CSM Codex released?
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
To expand on the nitpick, Iron Hands successors are a thing and can take all of the bonuses listed other than the BT vow mechanic (which is non-cumulative with shock assault so only really grants early access to a doctrine).
Dedicating all available rules to buffing one dimension of your army then complaining that it is better than the unbuffed version is pretty strawmanish.
I'm primarily complaining that the quantity of available rules I can use to buff one dimension of my army is enough to increase the combat power of that dimension SEVEN TIMES compared to the unbuffed version.
You know, especially considering that none of those availabe buffs have anything to do with the game situation, board state, miniature, etc and this is supposed to be a miniature game.
Other miniature games: Your unit's power starts at 1. If you attack an enemy in optimal range, your power is 2. If you attack an enemy in an optimal position, i.e. from behind, your power is 3.
40k: your unit's power starts at 1. If you declare that the unit is from an extra-fighty group, your power is 2. If you give your unit the trait "Super-stabby" your power is 3. If you use at-will ability "Its clobberin' time" your power is 4, and if you use at-will ability 'hit 'em again' your power is multiplied to 8.
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
To expand on the nitpick, Iron Hands successors are a thing and can take all of the bonuses listed other than the BT vow mechanic (which is non-cumulative with shock assault so only really grants early access to a doctrine).
Dedicating all available rules to buffing one dimension of your army then complaining that it is better than the unbuffed version is pretty strawmanish.
It's not a strawman, the question is whether those rules should be available in the first place. OP should have picked Imperial Fists Assault Marines vs Blood Angels Assault Marines and Imperial Fists Predators vs Blood Angels Predators, successor rules aren't really relevant and further discussion is only derailing the thread.
The question becomes "can Imperial Fists Assault Marines and Blood Angels Predators do the job they're meant to do?" If the answer is no then you could achieve the same thing by simply banning or restricting units that aren't viable, no need to give units more rules that players have to remember.
I really like Stratagems, I think they are a great way to give players more choice over how their army performs. Chapter Tactics are too simple and regimented to represent armies in 40k. Combat Doctrines are a relic of 8th when soup awarded CP instead of taking them away. Super Doctrines were needed because otherwise, everyone would just sit in Devastator doctrine all the time even if they were playing White Scars. I don't have a problem with relics, WL traits or combat drugs.
I don't think anyone is against the idea of a sybfaction having individual flavour, represented as unique rules, buffs or things it can do. The problem is that the scale of such "flavour" is way off, bordering on the ridiculous. Not only is there a problem with how much buffs you can stack, there are also inane things such as "shoot/fight twice" to make those buff stacks absolutely demented.
PenitentJake wrote: If you had said that, I wouldn't be typing this. Sorry to fall down on semantics, but I find clarity assists with civility- people are more likely to react to hyperbole with hyperbole, and that escalates to a dumpster fire every time.
You're typing it because whenever someone relates a negative game experience to you, you have a tendency to try and blame the negative experience on them, rather than accepting that the game has faults that can lead to a negative experience.
I do admit that the game has faults; I've criticized GW extensively for edition churn (even though the current is my favourite); I have criticized them for their failure to FAQCSM into a playable state, for not updating CWE range, for not putting out enough new models for DE, for the Cursed City Debacle, for their high prices; I've criticized them for releasing campaign books while codices still remain to be printed; I FREQUENTLY criticizing them for giving Space Marines 2-3 x as many kits as any other faction.
I do tend to post more positive than negative- that's certainly true. And when I do post negative, it tends to also include some positivity- as a teacher and a lifelong youth recreation and mentorship specialist, the compliment sandwich concept has become an important component of my personality. You'll notice that in the piece you quoted, I actually acknowledge that my issue is semantics and apologize for it, and while I do suggest some things to Scotsman based on his post (ie. using unit cards rather tokens to indicate unchanging special rules associated with a given unit), I am not "Blaming" anyone for anything. If you see something intended as helpful suggestion which may improve someone's experience as blame, there isn't really much I can do to address that.
My most frequent responses involve reminding people who make suggestions for changes to the entire game that these changes may be most appropriate for Matched play, rather than the game as a whole. There was a really cool suggestion earlier in this thread about moving some of the bespoke layers of rules to narrative only; I'd totally support that, because I genuinely like those layers of bespoke rules, but I also play narrative exclusively.
I think that you might see some elements of the game as problematic that I genuinely enjoy. You might have a hard time believing that anyone likes those elements of the game because you dislike them so much. I get that. Sometimes it's really hard for me to look at suggestions from people who prioritize balance over all else and see the good in those suggestions because balance is a low priority for me. You may also find it difficult to believe that balance could be a low priority for anyone- I get that too.
If you tell me that you aren't enjoying the game, and I know that I enjoy it, and I suggest that you might try some of the things that I do with the game in the hope that this will improve your experience, is that blaming you, or making a friendly suggestion?
I can see how on a bad day, you might interpret it as blame- you want to voice your concerns about the game, and you either aren't interested in exploring potential solutions, or you think the best solution is one in which the game changes, not one in which you chose to play the game differently. This means that no matter how well intentioned my suggestions may be, you're not going to see them in a good light, because you don't want solutions like these. Again, I get that- I don't reply to you as often as I once did, because I know my types of suggestions typically don't appeal to you.
Where Scotsman is concerned though, he and I are aligned in a lot of our attitudes and opinions, and some of my suggestions might work for him. I remember in the 60 pages or so of threads discussing the DE dex, Scotsman often took the words right out of my mouth with almost every one of his posts. I've noticed that his level of satisfaction with the state of the game has dipped since then; he's at a place where the imbalance with DE and AdMech VS other 9th factions is starting to chip away- and I don't disagree with that either.
So let me ask you a question directly: Given Scotsman's post and summary of the game experience, do you objectively believe that with any of his units that survived three turns only made one decision in all three of those turns? And again, keep in mind here that choosing to do what appears to be the tactically best option available is still, by definition, making a choice (as is choosing to do nothing at all).
Because that is specifically what you are quoting and replying about. If some of my other posts have come across feeling like me blaming players, I sincerely apologize- it was never my intent to do that.
Edit: Rereading this post, there's something else I should mention. In life, not just forums, one of the things I've learned is that you can judge and discuss people's ACTIONS, but it is another thing entirely to speculate about their MOTIVES. It's often hard to separate the two, especially one there is emotional attachment to the discussion. But the truth is that people seldom do ANYTHING for just one reason, and people's motivations are as unique as their psychological footprint.
Now I'm not arrogant enough to say that I've NEVER posted anything on a forum that questioned someone's motivations- you could probably go back and find one or two examples of places where it happened. The point is that I try to avoid it, because assumptions about people's motives have complicated my life in the past; sometimes a person will do something that they see as a romantic gesture, and I'll screw it all up by assuming a motive that wasn't there, rather than just thinking about the action itself.
Maybe you yourself are also aware of the pitfalls of assuming people's motivations, and your response was just a slip up, like I am sure I have from time to time. But clearly, your post does make assumptions about my motivations- again, not claiming it's a habit for you, just that this is clearly what you are doing in this singular instance. It feels pretty arrogant to me when I say "I did this because..." and you immediately say "No you didn't, you did it because..." - it feels like you think you know me and my own mind better than I do, and trust me, you don't.
I thought the whole purpose of the anecdote given by the Scotsman was to highlight the sheer number of special rules that are optional buffs that can vary both from paint scheme to paint scheme and the wide spectrum of special rules that can vary within the same paint scheme. And furthermore how they really add very little depth to the game while inexplicably multiplying unit power, and my addition to this is how impossible it makes the game to accurately balance.
I May be wrong but I feel like everyone is taking the wrong point away from the Scotsman.
macluvin wrote: I thought the whole purpose of the anecdote given by the Scotsman was to highlight the sheer number of special rules that are optional buffs that can vary both from paint scheme to paint scheme and the wide spectrum of special rules that can vary within the same paint scheme. And furthermore how they really add very little depth to the game while inexplicably multiplying unit power, and my addition to this is how impossible it makes the game to accurately balance.
It's that some players want this skew, the idea that the paint scheme has to come with special rules. That - for example - you can't have a 'real' white scars list unless they are better on bikes than the non-white scars.
Though I would note that while the scale of power between the two examples in the original post is huge I don't think it is all a 'paint to win' thing. A lot of this is modern 40ks weird bonus stacking system where a 100pt unit can become a 500pt unit if you stack cards on it, and the paint bonuses are really just a few more power-up cards stacked on top in many cases.
Classic 3.5 Iron warriors. 9x T5 obliterators as elites, a basilisk, and still three heavy support slots unused.
4e oblits were moved to heavy support.
People ragged on the Gav Thorpe quote earlier in the thread but it really does ring true.
If you give Blood Angels +1 to Assault Marines, "everybody" who wants to play Assault Marines is going to play Blood Angels, and "everybody" who wants to play Blood Angels is going to play Assault Marines. Unless, of course, Raven Guard get +2 to Assault Marines. Then the Blood Angels players will play Assault Marines but wonder why Raven Guard are better at their thing than they are...
Armies auto-Flanderize themselves.
To that end, I don't like all of these "hidden" bonuses based on paint scheme or whatever. If you really want Blood Angels to have really good Assault Marines, I think it's ultimately better to give them a unique unit that is *not* Assault Marines but are close enough, to represent the uniqueness of Blood Angel Assault Marines. We could call them Death Company or Sanguinary Guard or something. That way, people would know, looking at the unit, "oh, these are going to be choppier than the average Assault Marine! These are Death Company Assault Marines!"
Stratagems are nice for representing Fog of War type stuff and throwing a little uncertainty into things, but not as 40k implements them. Adeptus Titanicus I think handles it very well, where sure you can super boost your unit/drop an orbital strike/activate your trap card... once per game, in a way decided before the game starts.
As it currently stands, the only reason you *wouldn't* use many of the stratagems is because you don't have the CP to do so.
PenitentJake wrote: If you had said that, I wouldn't be typing this. Sorry to fall down on semantics, but I find clarity assists with civility- people are more likely to react to hyperbole with hyperbole, and that escalates to a dumpster fire every time.
You're typing it because whenever someone relates a negative game experience to you, you have a tendency to try and blame the negative experience on them, rather than accepting that the game has faults that can lead to a negative experience.
So let me ask you a question directly: Given Scotsman's post and summary of the game experience, do you objectively believe that with any of his units that survived three turns only made one decision in all three of those turns? And again, keep in mind here that choosing to do what appears to be the tactically best option available is still, by definition, making a choice (as is choosing to do nothing at all).
Funnily enough Scotsman's response to you is about the same as I would say in response to this.
A decision space doesn't mean I can move 5" or 6" then fire at X or Y then I'm done. If you want to argue semantics then yes, they're decisions, but if you want to be pedantic then choosing to roll your red dice over your blue dice is also a decision. Does it change the way the game plays out in any way? Probably not. The decisions in 40k are obvious to the point where it's actually probably better to call them foregone conclusions, especially given how much redundancy the game allows for with dice rolls via strats and rerolls.
Also writing a list (and deciding whether things should be deep striking/transports/whatever) isn't the decision making people are referring to either because when you put the models on the board THAT is (or should be) the game and where decision making should matter the most.
So yes, I objectively think he only made one decision in the game because I've done it myself when I play transport heavy lists when I use SoB transports loaded with DCA, Flagellants and Dominions. When you put the transport on the table you know it'll move turn 1, poop out it's contents turn 2 and then on turn 3 you have to hope whatever you delivered did what you wanted it to do and isn't dead. No one takes a transport decides "I'm going to keep this rhino as far away from my opponent as possible for some 4D chess tactical reason".
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
Balance was off before this, it's a lack of good testing.
macluvin wrote: I thought the whole purpose of the anecdote given by the Scotsman was to highlight the sheer number of special rules that are optional buffs that can vary both from paint scheme to paint scheme and the wide spectrum of special rules that can vary within the same paint scheme. And furthermore how they really add very little depth to the game while inexplicably multiplying unit power, and my addition to this is how impossible it makes the game to accurately balance.
I May be wrong but I feel like everyone is taking the wrong point away from the Scotsman.
^This.
The main problems I have with the current state of 40k as a whole are twofold and related.
1) unless you play 40k very, very continuously, the sheer quantity of rules present in the more recent codex releases results in some incredibly bewildering stackups of potential rules given the scale and scope of the game.
consider that in codex adeptus mechanicus, a basic HQ unit very regularly:
-grants a targeted buff to one unit
-grants a passive aura via a warlord trait
-makes a shooting attack with a special ranged weapon
-allows a stratagem to be used for reduced cost
-grants a passive aura via a purchased power
-swaps that second passive aura for a third passive aura by performing an action in the game
All that on a what, 100pt model? Out of your 2000pts army?
And also
2) as opposed to other miniatures games, where the state of the board, the sight lines you have to your target, your range, and the terrain are the primary modifiers in the damage your unit can deal and how hard they are to kill from their base stats, in 40k, so much of that has been shifted to abilities that you simply get to bake in to your army list before the game even starts. Obscuring Terrain is effectively the only thing that prevents me from being able to play 9th edition as a card game with the names of my units written on them and those units relative position (this unit is in front of this unit) written out.
vict0988 wrote: Or because you plan on using the CP you do have later, for other purposes, but people that hate Stratagems always forget that part.
It's a valid and indeed important point to take into account.
Recently someone was complaining about a Mordian Tank Commander getting loads of buffs and I countered that they had used about 5 or 6 CP in a single turn on a single unit which was a waste and a tactical error. In a Strike Force sized game that's half your pool gone and in an Incursion it's the entire pot. It's all well and good to throw every single buffing Strategem onto a unit in a vacuum but nobody plays in one and there are built in limitations to curtail these wombo-combos.
jaredb wrote: The Black Templar are already a successor chapter, I don't think you can be a successor to them.
To expand on the nitpick, Iron Hands successors are a thing and can take all of the bonuses listed other than the BT vow mechanic (which is non-cumulative with shock assault so only really grants early access to a doctrine).
Dedicating all available rules to buffing one dimension of your army then complaining that it is better than the unbuffed version is pretty strawmanish.
I'm primarily complaining that the quantity of available rules I can use to buff one dimension of my army is enough to increase the combat power of that dimension SEVEN TIMES compared to the unbuffed version.
You know, especially considering that none of those availabe buffs have anything to do with the game situation, board state, miniature, etc and this is supposed to be a miniature game.
Other miniature games: Your unit's power starts at 1. If you attack an enemy in optimal range, your power is 2. If you attack an enemy in an optimal position, i.e. from behind, your power is 3.
40k: your unit's power starts at 1. If you declare that the unit is from an extra-fighty group, your power is 2. If you give your unit the trait "Super-stabby" your power is 3. If you use at-will ability "Its clobberin' time" your power is 4, and if you use at-will ability 'hit 'em again' your power is multiplied to 8.
Its a problem with any beer and pretzels game with additional rules content. Each new layer of rules adds more opportunities for force multipliers, and they're available for people looking for extreme cheese or people just doing what they think sounds cool.
Unfortunately, some armies have many layers of unfortunate combinations, and some are stuck in beer and pretzels land.
Sometimes we get a 'we didn't think people would use the rule like that' response from GW, other times, its apparently intended and fine, no matter what the consequences are (and fight/shoot twice should be _really obvious_ force multipliers)
Going by the responses to your scenario, many people _want_ the layers of extra cheese, regardless of a healthy game state.
As a general rule of thumb, people love their army having a bunch of interlocking buffs that hugely increase the effectiveness of their units, and they dislike when the opponent's army has the same thing.
Do I personally think layered special rules have gone way too far in 40k at this point? Yes. Do I personally think it's silly that you can buff a unit up to be 3x as effective as it is on its base datasheet through layering buffs the right way? Yes. Do I personally think it mostly just presents a lot of opportunities for trap choices and gotcha moments? Yes. But it seems to be what's wanted. As this thread mostly shows.
Voss wrote: ...Its a problem with any beer and pretzels game with additional rules content. Each new layer of rules adds more opportunities for force multipliers, and they're available for people looking for extreme cheese or people just doing what they think sounds cool.
Unfortunately, some armies have many layers of unfortunate combinations, and some are stuck in beer and pretzels land...
Which, to me, is the core of the problem. 40k is too expensive, too complicated, and takes too long to play casually, but if you do decide to play more seriously once you dig through all the bloat you find there are very few optimal choices at every stage of list-building or gameplay. By trying to be all things to all people 40k is busy compromising all the things it did well and destroying its own niche. As minis games go it's not fast, simple, inexpensive, straightforward, deep, or difficult. It has a breadth of factions, but there are often factions that don't work or sub-factions that are just strictly worse than taking a different faction, so it doesn't actually have breadth of factions. There are a lot of units, but most of them are terrible. Lots of the minis look cool, but it's a toss-up whether the ones you like are going to be playable or not. The only thing about 40k as a game that's in any way better than any other minis game is the quantity of people that play, because we as a community (yes, this is a gross oversimplification) are apparently willing to forgive the fact that the game's handicapped by trying to be something we like and something we don't like at the same time because some of the models are cool, or because we used to like it and hope it'll get better, or because we've never played anything else and assume that every other game is just as scatterbrained and awkward to play as 40k.
Rihgu wrote: People ragged on the Gav Thorpe quote earlier in the thread but it really does ring true.
If you give Blood Angels +1 to Assault Marines, "everybody" who wants to play Assault Marines is going to play Blood Angels, and "everybody" who wants to play Blood Angels is going to play Assault Marines. Unless, of course, Raven Guard get +2 to Assault Marines. Then the Blood Angels players will play Assault Marines but wonder why Raven Guard are better at their thing than they are...
Armies auto-Flanderize themselves.
100% this. As a Tyranid player it feels very wrong for a race that is supposed to be like the Borg, continuously adapting to each new thread, getting railroaded into basically a single force archetype for each hive fleet. If you want to have both fast melee critters and slow gunline critters in the same list you're usually going to have to pick one or the other to optimize for, which heavily constrains listbuilding and then railroads the tactics on the tabletop.
Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my experience with Warmachine, where building an effective force meant throwing the fluff and any notion of buy-what-you-like out the window, because if you didn't pick useful combos and synergies then you didn't have a functional army.
Rihgu wrote: People ragged on the Gav Thorpe quote earlier in the thread but it really does ring true.
If you give Blood Angels +1 to Assault Marines, "everybody" who wants to play Assault Marines is going to play Blood Angels, and "everybody" who wants to play Blood Angels is going to play Assault Marines. Unless, of course, Raven Guard get +2 to Assault Marines. Then the Blood Angels players will play Assault Marines but wonder why Raven Guard are better at their thing than they are...
Armies auto-Flanderize themselves.
100% this. As a Tyranid player it feels very wrong for a race that is supposed to be like the Borg, continuously adapting to each new thread, getting railroaded into basically a single force archetype for each hive fleet. And if you want to have both fast melee critters and slow gunline critters in the same list you're usually going to have to pick one or the other to optimize for.
Frankly, it reminds me a lot of my experience with Warmachine, where building an effective force meant throwing the fluff and any notion of buy-what-you-like out the window, because if you didn't pick useful combos and synergies then you didn't have a functional army.
In an ideal universe you wouldn't write your faction buffs in the form of "+1 to (unit)". 30k has eighteen Legions using the same core list. Each Legion's Legion Tactics rule is composed of 2-4 elements, in addition to the "regroup at normal LD regardless of casualties" common to everyone. Zero of those 50-ish special rules refer to a specific datasheet, and about six of those even refer to a unit type. There are people who will argue that you should only take (unit X) in (Legion Y) for some buff-stacking reason, sure, but from a purely mechanical standpoint every Legion's rules do something for every unit in their army (except vehicles, which don't have Legion Tactics and thus get almost no Legion-specific buffs at all, they have to stand on their own merits), and there is no unit that is only buffed by one Legion.
Rihgu wrote: As it currently stands, the only reason you *wouldn't* use many of the stratagems is because you don't have the CP to do so.
Or because you plan on using the CP you do have later, for other purposes, but people that hate Stratagems always forget that part.
Is that not "not having enough CP to do so"? If I have 3 CP, and want to spend 5... do I "have enough"?
Yes, you do. You are making a choice about where you think the CP are best spent, that choice is not being made for you and by pretending that someone else is making that choice you are being unfair to the Stratagem mechanic.
It's like saying "The only reason you *wouldn't* use every unit in your codex is because you don't have the pts to do so". Okay, but you still have a choice of which units to include in your army, maybe you netlist, maybe you include the units you like thematically or aesthetically or you formulate a tactical approach to winning missions and build a list around that. It'd be silly to say that you don't have any options in list building because you'd rather use your points on Raptors than Havocs, you are using the choice you do have to take Raptors instead of Havocs.
Gert wrote: ...there are built in limitations to curtail these wombo-combos.
The problem with wombo-combos is the cost increases linearly while the effect increases multiplicatively. If multiplying 4 mortal wounds worth of damage by 1,25 is worth 1CP, then multiplying 4 mortal wounds by 1,25*1,25*1,25*1,25 is worth more than 4CP assuming no other complications.
Yeah, 40k has really gone down a rabbithole here, and it's not a good one to go down. But at this point undoing it would be undoing basically two editions worth of changes, so I don't see how it can possibly happen short of a hard reset with an edition change.
Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.
In general I'd like to see 90% of stratagems go away too. All these useless "give something +1 to hit" crap could just go away, and all the "give this one unit an ability it used to have on its datasheet" can just, well, go back to its datasheet. Instead, each faction should get say, 4 really interesting, game-changing stratagems that can be used on almost everything in their army, with subfactions giving you an additional 1. Maybe even change the way you use stratagems away from CP and just make them all once-per battle things, one per turn. Non-codex compliant chapters could instead lose 1 of the 4 normal strats and have one additional chapter-specific one, so it becomes 3 and 2.
Transhuman could be one of the Space Marine ones, for example, and activating it would give the entire army (except vehicles) the ability to never be wounded except on a 4+, and a 5+++ vs mortals for the battle round. So for that battle round, your army just isn't going anywhere. But it only works once, and you have to choose it at the beginning of the battle round. Suddenly, this becomes an interesting choice for both you and your opponent to play around, not just a "slap it on whatever if you have the CP." You could even let the player going second choose their stratagem for the round after the player going first chooses theirs, and you suddenly have a very compelling reason for going second that doesn't rely on asymmetric scoring rules. It also naturally "punishes" soup in that your faction is determined by your warlord, and units outside that faction don't benefit from your stratagems. So you can still take allies, and they still work fine, and they don't stop your main faction units from benefitting from stratagems...but the allies themselves lose out on a big part of the game, so you'll only take them if you really want to. Now you don't need purity bonuses any more either, it's all worked into the fundamental system.
I really think you could reduce the number of rules in 40k by 80% or more while actually adding tactical and strategic depth. They're that bloated right now.
...Are we really, REALLY still definining 40k 9th edition as a "Beer and Pretzels" game system?
Isnt the point of "Beer and Pretzels" to be able to play the game casually, as in, not every single week keeping up with every single rule and tracking every single release up to the minute?
for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.
I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional.
If you want to play 40k and you start out by buying a codex, you get the bloat flung at you full force right at the start.Two new players who try to play 40k are going to end up in a situation of having to deal with
-a terrain system with 15 odd keywords, a few of which are GAME CHANGINGLY IMPORTANT and like 12 of which almost never matter
-a bewildering system of bonkers packed datasheets even for some basic troop units with upwards of a dozen different options available (death guard plague marines anyone?)
-subfactions, custom subfactions, the convoluted detahcment based army-building system, stratagems relics warlord traits doctrines army rules purchaseable traits....
Open Play is a dismal failure as a "Casual" or "Entry Mode" of the game. The datasheets you get from the instructional kits literally do not give you the information you need to know to make the units function in a game. The simplified core rules just...do not tell you how basic systems like 'terrain' or 'army list building' function, and the core level of lethality present in the system makes trying to play using only power level HILARIOUSLY imbalanced if you dont know what youre doing. If one newbie starts out with Deathwatch and one newbie starts out with Sisters of Battle and they try to play a game with power level just like throwing the kits together in some way that looks cool to them, the Deathwatch vets built with combi-plasmas and frag cannons and thunder hammers are going to absolutely obliterate the sisters of battle built with 1 flamer and 1 heavy bolter and a power sword superior.
You simply cannot play a 'casual' or 'quick start' version of 40k like you can if you pick up a starter box of Infinity or even a more sprawling complicated game like Necromunda. it needs its own dedicated wholly separate game (Kill Team) to hook people in.
AnomanderRake wrote: In an ideal universe you wouldn't write your faction buffs in the form of "+1 to (unit)". 30k has eighteen Legions using the same core list. Each Legion's Legion Tactics rule is composed of 2-4 elements, in addition to the "regroup at normal LD regardless of casualties" common to everyone. Zero of those 50-ish special rules refer to a specific datasheet, and about six of those even refer to a unit type. There are people who will argue that you should only take (unit X) in (Legion Y) for some buff-stacking reason, sure, but from a purely mechanical standpoint every Legion's rules do something for every unit in their army (except vehicles, which don't have Legion Tactics and thus get almost no Legion-specific buffs at all, they have to stand on their own merits), and there is no unit that is only buffed by one Legion.
I play HH too, and the way the Legion traits are written there don't seem too different from how it works for many factions in 40K. It's the other things that make the difference.
Like, take Kraken. I get to fall back and charge, and roll 3D6-pick-highest for Advancing. In theory, that applies to my whole army. In practice, it's worthless on Exocrines or Hive Guard, and if I want to play those models as a significant part of my army I'll opt for Kronos instead.
Yeah, technically the World Eaters getting re-rolls of 1 to wound in melee affects all their infantry, but in practice your heavy weapons squads aren't going to be using it and that buff pushes you more towards taking Assault Marines and the like.
The things that feel different for me about HH's buffs are that they're mostly for infantry and not vehicles, like you noted, but there also aren't the additional layers of subfaction-specific stratagems, WLTs, and relics to further cookie-cutter the armies into well-trod archetypes. You've got your Legion, and you can optionally lean into a specific playstyle through Rites of War (which come with advantages but, importantly, also disadvantages), but that's it. For the most part it's that shallowness that avoids the kind of buff-stacking that leads to oppressive wombo-combos in 9th. Scotsman's example in the OP wouldn't be a problem if it was just 'Black Templars can re-roll 1s to hit and that's it'.
For what it's worth, I really like how HH handles the Legions. A couple mild army-wide rules plus a few unique units and then optional Rites does a fantastic job at making the Legions feel distinct without needing to turn each one into a unique army list or outright forcing you to play a certain way.
One of the reasons I don't like unmodded total war warhammer that much is beacuse everything dies so fast, I have no time to reposition troops, attack from the rear with my cavalry, etc..
The same happens in 40k. I always like when my units struggle, fight back, things become tense, you have time to reposition, attack, retreat, attack from other flank, etc....
That back and forth is totally lacking in 40k or aos. In MESBG or BloodBowl tought, the gameplay is much more engaging.
Lethality should go down, and the basic rules expanded to allow for more interactivity between units outside shooting eachother.
I have to say that MESBG also does factions and subfactions great. One army wide rule for your army and legendary legions for more specialized forces.
And thats it. You can play a Gondor force half a dozen ways, and your basic gondorian soldier is basically the same unit than some others like easterlings.
I believe subfactions can "incentive" you into a play style but never to compensate for lack of power.
If my meele marines are usefull by themselves, I can slot them in any balanced army. If they suck and are only good with blood angels, that a problem.
That means the BA buffs they receive to meele cannot be extremely powerfull. Just flavorfoul, enough to feel "rewarded" and take across the fluff sentiment of the army you are playing.
Thats why I play DA. For me they are the perfect marines gameplaywise alongside ultramarines but better. You can literally play them in all styles, meele, gunline, movile, horde, elite, and all are flavorfull and have rule support. And I would still play them if all their special rules were the special character (that I don't use) and a "DA units can reroll leadership tests to rally and avoid being pinned" or something like that. Maybe alternative lists for heavy ravenwinng/deathwing.
I took a break at the beginning of 8th, so my last recollection of playing 40k was the index era, when there was only a couple stratagems. That actually was a streamlined beer and pretzels game.
Played my first game of ninth the other day and holy. fething. cow. It was a lot to take in. I played solid from 5th-7th and found almost none of my previous experience translated. It took a ton of concentration and memorization just to stay on track (all to do with strategems and interacting buffs).
For the record, I was also literally drinking beer and eating pretzels. The beer did not help.
I have played beer and pretzel games and this, while still an enjoyable experience I must say, was certainly not that.
for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.
Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.
Open Play is a dismal failure as a "Casual" or "Entry Mode" of the game. The datasheets you get from the instructional kits literally do not give you the information you need to know to make the units function in a game.
Agree that the rules in the box SUUUCCCKK. Using those, however, is not a defining characteristic of open play.
The simplified core rules just...do not tell you how basic systems like 'terrain' or 'army list building' function
Totally agree here too- terrain rules SHOULD be part of the streamlined core rules. Maybe even just a simplified version that includes Obscuring, Light, and Heavy and leaves out all those nit-picky options that are seldom used.
the core level of lethality present in the system makes trying to play using only power level HILARIOUSLY imbalanced if you dont know what youre doing.
Possibly true- I don't know, I've never played an army that wasn't battleforged. In theory, it feels like it would drastically reduce lethality because it would severely curtail the use of strats. You'd be limited to one per turn and you'd have to pick from the BRB. It IS certainly true that many weapon profiles provide enough lethality on their own, but I'm not sure how deadly they actually would be without bespoke strats buffing the units. Might be worth a try if you can talk anyone into playing that way.
If one newbie starts out with Deathwatch and one newbie starts out with Sisters of Battle and they try to play a game with power level just like throwing the kits together in some way that looks cool to them, the Deathwatch vets built with combi-plasmas and frag cannons and thunder hammers are going to absolutely obliterate the sisters of battle built with 1 flamer and 1 heavy bolter and a power sword superior.
Maybe- again, never tried it. But DW vets are 9PL for 5 and Battle Sisters are 7PL for 10, so the sisters player is getting more 2x the bodies (albeit, 1W bodies).
You simply cannot play a 'casual' or 'quick start' version of 40k like you can if you pick up a starter box of Infinity or even a more sprawling complicated game like Necromunda. it needs its own dedicated wholly separate game (Kill Team) to hook people in.
Non-battle forged 25PL games are pretty quick start. Not sure if you've played one of those- I haven't cuz I ALWAYS Battleforge, but even when you do, a 25PL game is pretty simple.
the_scotsman wrote: ...Are we really, REALLY still definining 40k 9th edition as a "Beer and Pretzels" game system?
Nope. We're defining 40k as a beer and pretzels game. 9th is a mess because its still hugging that concept while trying to pretend it isn't also demanding ultra-mega-system mastery at the same time.
And to make it worse, I honestly can't tell if the designers are doing the latter intentionally, or its happening due to their lax approach to building rules like a Jenga tower.
I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional
If you want to play 40k and you start out by buying a codex, you get the bloat flung at you full force right at the start.Two new players who try to play 40k are going to end up in a situation of having to deal with
-a terrain system with 15 odd keywords, a few of which are GAME CHANGINGLY IMPORTANT and like 12 of which almost never matter
-a bewildering system of bonkers packed datasheets even for some basic troop units with upwards of a dozen different options available (death guard plague marines anyone?)
-subfactions, custom subfactions, the convoluted detahcment based army-building system, stratagems relics warlord traits doctrines army rules purchaseable traits....
Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine. A Ravening Hordes or Index book would have been fine.
The codex churn, as always, is the part that's not fine.
Galas wrote: I have to say I agree with the_scotsman here
One of the reasons I don't like unmodded total war warhammer that much is beacuse everything dies so fast, I have no time to reposition troops, attack from the rear with my cavalry, etc..
The same happens in 40k. I always like when my units struggle, fight back, things become tense, you have time to reposition, attack, retreat, attack from other flank, etc....
That back and forth is totally lacking in 40k or aos. In MESBG or BloodBowl tought, the gameplay is much more engaging.
Lethality should go down, and the basic rules expanded to allow for more interactivity between units outside shooting eachother.
I have to say that MESBG also does factions and subfactions great. One army wide rule for your army and legendary legions for more specialized forces.
And thats it. You can play a Gondor force half a dozen ways, and your basic gondorian soldier is basically the same unit than some others like easterlings.
I believe subfactions can "incentive" you into a play style but never to compensate for lack of power.
If my meele marines are usefull by themselves, I can slot them in any balanced army. If they suck and are only good with blood angels, that a problem.
That means the BA buffs they receive to meele cannot be extremely powerfull. Just flavorfoul, enough to feel "rewarded" and take across the fluff sentiment of the army you are playing.
Thats why I play DA. For me they are the perfect marines gameplaywise alongside ultramarines but better. You can literally play them in all styles, meele, gunline, movile, horde, elite, and all are flavorfull and have rule support. And I would still play them if all their special rules were the special character (that I don't use) and a "DA units can reroll leadership tests to rally and avoid being pinned" or something like that. Maybe alternative lists for heavy ravenwinng/deathwing.
i've only played a half-dozen odd games of AOS 3.0, and I can't lump it and 40k together tbh - the lethality in sigmar appears to be way, way less. Every game i've played has had decent amounts of stuff still on the table at the end of BR5.
Just compare a unit people sometimes complain about being OP in AOS to...anything in 40k, the new, super-long-range high elf archer unit.
145pts for a 10-man unit that shoots 1 shot at 30", 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, mortal wound instead of normal wound on 6s to wound.
That's a microscopic amount of damage compared to even a mediocre 40k 9th unit - say, primaris space marines. Because in sigmar you at least pay a teeny tiny bit for range - a lot of artillery pieces pop off one single shot.
I'll have to disagree there. I don't want to bash AoS, but I played it extensively in 1.0 and 2.0 and lets say that the game has always been much more wildly imbalanced than 40k.
Facing the true broken combos and units in AoS feels as opresive as facing the worst days of iron hands inmortal dreadnoughts spams.
Most armies outright cannot win agaisnt most armies because the tactical depth of AoS is even less than 40k. You don't have nearly any interaction with terrain, is facing the combo of your opponent with your combo, and if your combo is khorne minotaurs watch as they run from 5 in 5 because the sad lumineth lady looked at them the wrong way.
Or just be obliterated by Teclis. Or a shooting phase of a optimized tzeentch or kharadron army. At least in 40k I have scenery to take cover.
In 40k you can "play to draw" or from the losing end. In AoS you cannot.
Elf Archer scenario is lacking some important context. Ignores LoS can easily bump the mortals to 5+ ( to hit, much stronger than wound) and all shooting in the game essentially has "Sniper"
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
Let's examine a situation: You have an infantry unit. Let's say, a unit of Ork Nobz. And you want to know how concerned you need to be about an enemy unit, a minimum-sized squad of Assault Intercessors if you put your Nobz out in charge range.
Let's say that your opponent is playing Iron Hands, and it's turn 2.
That unit charges you, and they make 16 S4 AP-1 D1 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 5s, saving on 5s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 2.4 - they kill one nob on average, and might wound a second, and morale is not a factor.
Now let's say you're playing against Black Templars, a successor chapter of course because your opponent is competitively minded, Born Heroes and Hungry for Battle, and theyve chosen the "Accept Any Challenge" vow. That unit then makes 16 S4 Ap-2 D1 attacks, hitting on 2s and 6s to hit cause 2 auto-wounds, wounding on 5s, saving on 6s, dealing 1 damage for an average of 7.5 damage - killing 3-4 nobs, with a decent chance to cause the remaining member/members of the squad to flee during the morale phase.
If they choose, then, the Black Templars player might at the end of the phase choose to use the stratagem Honor the Chapter for 2cp, allowing those Assault Intercessors to fight a second time, allowing them to cause 15 wounds, killing 7.5 W2 ork models.
the distinction between this unit causing 18pts of damage, versus causing 135pts of damage, all comes down to you the opponent recalling the following rules distinctions, none of which are present on the model or, since it is a successor chapter, in the paint scheme of the model:
-6s cause an extra hit
-+1 to hit on the charge
-The unit is always in the assault doctrine if in engagement range
-The assault doctrine causes their melee attacks to have an additional AP -They are from a successor chapter of the Black Templars, so their assault doctrine also causes 6s to wound automatically
-This particular unit has a special stratagem enabling them to fight again for 2cp
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
I've been able to get back to playing a few new games from 9th over the summer and into the fall and I have to say, the game is a lot better if you just flat out do not play with CP or strats. Me and a few buddies have been doing just that and we really enjoy it. Mind you that's only part of what you are mentioning, but it does seem absolutely insane the amount of things you have to remember/keep track of, even though these last two editions have technically been so watered down and dull. Most things are just +x/-x. I almost miss the old rules system with stuff like Zealot, Crack shot, evergreen keyword abilities.
Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.
Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.
I really like the current subfactions concept, it adds variety and I'm a fan of changing my list every few games. But I play orks, not Goffs, Freebooterz or Deathskulls, my army isn't painted with the exact colour scheme of an existing klan and I feel free to switch klans if I like to. I wouldn't want to change that.
Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.
Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.
That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.
Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.
My preferred D&D is 1e. Always has been, always will be. 5e & PF? I like both equally & they're tied for 2nd place.
Meanwhile, 40k-wise.... I like both 3e/4e & 8th/9th about equally.
My D&D preferences have nothing to do with my 40k preferences.
the_scotsman wrote: for gods sake, just lets take a minute and compare that to what people generally consider to be the rough equivalent of 40k in the rpg realm - dnd 5e.
Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.
This is absolutely true for me. 5th is alright, but bland. Pathfinder / 3.5 are peak D&D imho.
the_scotsman wrote: I can teach a new player who has never touched DND before how to get by playing a game of DND in about 1 hour, 30 minutes if I dont have to make them a character sheet. I can get them rolling attack rolls, makng save rolls and making ability checks in a very very quick span of time, and the expansion content literally doesn't matter at all because you start out at level 1 where none of that meaningfully exists anyway, and all of it is optional.
My experience with several different P&P groups over the years is, that even after playing the game for several sessions, some folks are still ALWAYS asking how to calculate their attack and damage. Every.Single.Round. Or look through their spells, which haven't changed for the past 4 sessions. Or ask if they can use an Athletics check when Acrobatics is called and vice versa.
Your comparison isn't fair, as you teach a D&D player how to roll dice (or how to add proficiency to whatever they want to do in 5th..) while the 40k player is supposed to go through character creation first.
If you just put a squad of Marines on the field against a squad of whatever and have them move, shoot, charge&fight, you will explain like 80% of the core mechanics and people should be able to grasp that within 90 minutes as well.
On the other side, you can overwhelm a new player just as easily with "here are 30 races and sub-races, 14 + multiple sub-classes each, a feth-ton of feats and hundreds of spells, this is how cover & concealment works, here are combat maneuvers".
D&D used to have (dunno if it is still existing) a superb beginner adventure with toned down rules and pre-created characters. I found that very useful to get people hooked and somewhat familiar with the core systems.
40k got that in theory with the small missions in the starter boxes, but I haven't seen, read or played one of them, so can't comment.
Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.
Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.
That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.
Having different units to make distinctions between subfactions = massive new wave of releases for everyone or splitting already existing rosters; these are the only ways to have different units for different subfactions (intended as chapter equivalents). The former is never gonna happen, the latter would make lots of collections illegal or extremely hard to play.
Ideally I'd get rid of everything except base army rules - no subfaction bonuses of any sort, no purity bonus, nothing. Then very carefully lay out a system where the distinctions between sub-factions are (1) not mechanical in nature, to avoid multiplicative bonuses, and (2) are done more by having different units and a very select list of different relics, warlord traits, and stratagems.
Point (2) would only work for new releases and those units that are already subfaction locked like Wulfen or Thunderwolves, which have always been available to Space Wolves and Space Wolves only. You can't lock already existing generic units from armies like tau, necrons, orks, etc... to specific klan, dynasties, etc... without destroying lots of people's collection, which now could be illegal.
That isn't even close to what he said. I don't even know how you would arrive at that conclusion.
Having different units to make distinctions between subfactions = massive new wave of releases for everyone or splitting already existing rosters; these are the only ways to have different units for different subfactions (intended as chapter equivalents). The former is never gonna happen, the latter would make lots of collections illegal or extremely hard to play.
He didn't say anything about having completely new units or banning factions from taking existing ones. He said factions have different units, which I interpret to mean Blood Angels get more access and use of Assault Marines, Space Wolves get more melee termies, Dark Angels get more bikes etc. Incentives to build sub-factions in a thematic way such as in the case of Blood Angels moving units with jump packs to Troops or jump pack units get ObSec or they don't use detachment slots or something.
Classic 3.5 Iron warriors. 9x T5 obliterators as elites, a basilisk, and still three heavy support slots unused.
4e oblits were moved to heavy support.
i know, they still were overall better though due to more weapons, and having support in the form of double slannesh wing lash princes.
a_typical_hero wrote: My experience with several different P&P groups over the years is, that even after playing the game for several sessions, some folks are still ALWAYS asking how to calculate their attack and damage. Every.Single.Round. Or look through their spells, which haven't changed for the past 4 sessions. Or ask if they can use an Athletics check when Acrobatics is called and vice versa.
This has been my experience of D&D. "This is the intro scenario, it should take maybe one or two sessions". 20ish hours later...
Equally though - I think its true of 40k.
Some people struggle with the basic mechanic of "I'm a BS3+ guy with a bolter shooting a T3 5+ save guy".
The fact there may then be 10+ "special rules" to impact that interaction (covering those effecting both models and say terrain) is arguably far too much minutiae. Its unclear its adding depth or scope for the people who do understand the game as opposed to needless processing - and its an obvious barrier to those who don't.
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
There are many threads on this if you have a scroll through the forums. Design wise it is to introduce a bigger tactical layer into the game. You either like it, or you don't. In my experience people who play a range of wargames don't like it and expect those types of mechanics in other styles of games. However the majority do like it and enjoy the challenge of figuring it all out.
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
Design wise it is to introduce a bigger tactical layer into the game.
However the majority do like it and enjoy the challenge of figuring it all out.
Case and point: I play 5th because my GM and the other players like it. I freakin hate it compared to 3.5. I keep looking for feats and prestige classes and paragon classes and it just seems dull and empty. We still have "fun" but almost every session I miss something I used to be able to do. I wonder about people's preferred edition with D&D too; I suspect people who like 9th would probably prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder to 5th, while those who don't like 9th probably prefer D&D 5th.
I think that there are definitely aspects of 5th that older editions could learn from (e.g. being able to split your move in between attacks just makes things feel a lot smoother) but otherwise I agree with you.
Though, I do think some of 5e's flaws come uncomfortably close to 9th's flaws - namely that a lot of classes, bosses and such that should feel different end up feeling pretty similar because of a lack of meaningful variety. Not unlike 9th, a lot of mechanics in 5th are constantly reused or rehashed.
That said (and rather amusingly) monsters in 5e seem to have almost the opposite problem to units in 9th edition 40k - they have too few rules. A lot of 'boss' type monsters in particular seem to suffer from this. In Pathfinder/3.5 a lot of monsters have a plethora of combat abilities to utilise, yet in 5e those same monsters tend to be little more than sacks of hp with all those abilities boiled down to just attacking each turn.
(Not that any of this refutes Scotsman's point, just saying I can very much empathise with your position regarding D&D 5e.)
Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.
I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.
If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.
Classic 3.5 Iron warriors. 9x T5 obliterators as elites, a basilisk, and still three heavy support slots unused.
4e oblits were moved to heavy support.
i know, they still were overall better though due to more weapons, and having support in the form of double slannesh wing lash princes.
Well, no they would not. As the Lash Prince was the 4e codex. 3x3 Oblit IW army was 3.5 codex.
Voss wrote: Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.
I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.
If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.
Not Online!!! wrote: i know, they still were overall better though due to more weapons, and having support in the form of double slannesh wing lash princes.
I suppose it depended on what they were facing. Parking lots and heavy artillery were not good to them and with the slot change chaos couldn't 'stack the deck' anymore with gunlines.
It's funny to think that using a psychic power to clump models before shooting at them was one of the more memorable 'wombo combos' of the era. No double shooting, +1 to rolls, mortal wounds and exploding dice to keep track of. No increase in the actual damage they could inflict or types of target they could threaten
You always had a good idea of the odds of an action, the worst-case outcomes, and whether a unit rolling up on you was geared for the job or not. That said you also had time to consider the odds rather than having the seemingly every unit shoot or jump clear across the board as their first action.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You'll be hard pressed to find a CSM player who played with the 3.5 Codex who thought that the 4th edition codex was better in any way.
I don't think there can be any argument that 3.5 had far more scope for customisation.
In the spirit of the thread though, if 4e had all the same options with non of the bonuses would it still have been recieved as poorly? How much of the 3.5 iron hands was being able to represent the servo arm kitbashed onto a model and how much was it about getting 30% more heavy firepower for example
Go back to the original post here: are black templars defined by their ability to inflict 135 points of damage rather than 18 in close combat? Is it enough to have all the thematic options available if they aren't outright better at using them, and how much of that 'doing it better' is seen as an armys character.
Yes, I think the 4th edition CSM codex would have been better received if it had retained the options without the "bonuses". I can't speak for everyone, but it doesn't bother me that other Legions can have more than one unit of Raptors now.
What 3.5 got right was this: every Veteran Ability, every Daemonic Gift, and every Mark costed points. We can quibble over whether or not they were priced correctly, or if there should have been more limitations on how many of each and in what combinations you could stack them on your units, but they still had a price. Which is the problem with faction buffs like the OP is talking about: they don't. Making such things free destroys balance. Faction traits should cost points, as should Warlord traits and relics.
Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.
Gadzilla666 wrote: You'll be hard pressed to find a CSM player who played with the 3.5 Codex who thought that the 4th edition codex was better in any way.
I don't think there can be any argument that 3.5 had far more scope for customisation.
In the spirit of the thread though, if 4e had all the same options with non of the bonuses would it still have been recieved as poorly? How much of the 3.5 iron hands was being able to represent the servo arm kitbashed onto a model and how much was it about getting 30% more heavy firepower for example
Go back to the original post here: are black templars defined by their ability to inflict 135 points of damage rather than 18 in close combat? Is it enough to have all the thematic options available if they aren't outright better at using them, and how much of that 'doing it better' is seen as an armys character.
Yes, I think the 4th edition CSM codex would have been better received if it had retained the options without the "bonuses". I can't speak for everyone, but it doesn't bother me that other Legions can have more than one unit of Raptors now.
What 3.5 got right was this: every Veteran Ability, every Daemonic Gift, and every Mark costed points. We can quibble over whether or not they were priced correctly, or if there should have been more limitations on how many of each and in what combinations you could stack them on your units, but they still had a price. Which is the problem with faction buffs like the OP is talking about: they don't. Making such things free destroys balance. Faction traits should cost points, as should Warlord traits and relics.
^100% The fact that everything had a price is what made Chaos 3.5 workable. Yes you could build some crazy stuff, but you paid through the nose for it, and thus there were vulnerabilities introduced into armies simply because one started running out of points.
Gert wrote: Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.
Yeah, I definitely don't want to see Relics removed from the game.
However, I think we badly need to go back to paying for relics with points. As it stands currently, every relic costs the same number of points and there's an arbitrary limit on how many you can take in your army. So whereas before you could stick a cheap relic on a character for a bit of fun, flavour or whatever, now there's no such thing as a cheap relic because they all cost the same number of points. Moreover, because of the arbitrary limit, taking what used to be 5pt pistols or 10pt minor artefacts now prevent you from taking other, much stronger artefacts on other characters.
I think this goes back to GW wanting to remove points altogether at the start of 8th and then changing their minds at the last minute (hence why every unit had a power level on its dataslate, whilst point costs were hastily jammed together into a table at the very end of each book). Since power levels don't allow for artefacts, they had to use CPs instead.
My thoughts on the matter:
While the codex profited from enthusiastic people writing it, my regular opponent (Dark Angels/Imps) sighed everytime when he had to face my NL. Reason was disparity between his codices and the Chaos codex.
The root of the problem was and still is that codices are NOT written by the same person AND released in one big book which includes EVERY faction. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the approach which GW takes doesn't contribute to a homogenic ruleset. More annoying is the fact that this will never change as codex sales are as much important to GW as SM sales.
Solution:
People either create custom rules in their own small communities or take 40K down the 9th Age path.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...What 3.5 got right was this: every Veteran Ability, every Daemonic Gift, and every Mark costed points. We can quibble over whether or not they were priced correctly, or if there should have been more limitations on how many of each and in what combinations you could stack them on your units, but they still had a price. Which is the problem with faction buffs like the OP is talking about: they don't. Making such things free destroys balance. Faction traits should cost points, as should Warlord traits and relics.
Why get hung up on points? You can make relics etc have a cost without increasing the ppm of a unit, and given GW's track record with correcting points costs, I'd rather we expanded into other means of making relics etc be a trade-off rather than just free bonuses.
Insectum7 wrote: ^100% The fact that everything had a price is what made Chaos 3.5 workable. Yes you could build some crazy stuff, but you paid through the nose for it, and thus there were vulnerabilities introduced into armies simply because one started running out of points.
Aside from the guards close order drill I think chaos 3.5 was the only one that did have out and out 'free' bonuses in the form of legion skills and free champions, and I guess the blastmasters would be considered a sidegrade.
For whatever reason GW in late 3e and early 4e were very fond on the 'choose your trade-offs' system where players could gain bonuses by not taking the stuff they weren't taking anyway - the 'cost' of Iron Warriors siege bonuses and extra slots was that they couldn't take daemons, marks, or bikes.
Similarly the cost for taking elite dreadnoughts in a marine army might be to not take the allies you didn't have, or the psyker you weren't using. But at least you had to then pay for everything after unlocking it.
The worst of the formations in 6th and 7th did the same, stuff like - bonus: aspect warriors are stronger, penalty: must take aspect warriors...
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
GW abandoned points for bonuses long time ago. Now it's supposed to be balanced by other side getting free bonuses as well.
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
There are many threads on this if you have a scroll through the forums. Design wise it is to introduce a bigger tactical layer into the game. You either like it, or you don't. In my experience people who play a range of wargames don't like it and expect those types of mechanics in other styles of games. However the majority do like it and enjoy the challenge of figuring it all out.
Except it doesn't. Broken combos and layers and layers of rules have zero connection to anything eve REMOTELY related to tactics.
If you want tactical game card game style rule combo buffs is last thing you want
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...What 3.5 got right was this: every Veteran Ability, every Daemonic Gift, and every Mark costed points. We can quibble over whether or not they were priced correctly, or if there should have been more limitations on how many of each and in what combinations you could stack them on your units, but they still had a price. Which is the problem with faction buffs like the OP is talking about: they don't. Making such things free destroys balance. Faction traits should cost points, as should Warlord traits and relics.
Why get hung up on points? You can make relics etc have a cost without increasing the ppm of a unit, and given GW's track record with correcting points costs, I'd rather we expanded into other means of making relics etc be a trade-off rather than just free bonuses.
If you have points on relic then ppm changes. If you don't change ppm of unit then relic isn't costing.
This 1 CP for relic isn't actual cost. At least not sensible one. It's same for eveyr unit.
You have points, CP, slots. Slots and CP's aren't good way to balance it. Well neither is points since they aren¨t even meant to be balance but it's closest thing you can do for quick way to get something that's not completely off the wall broken quickly. Or at least would if you had game dev whose goal would be to get good game rather than marketing tool.
Voss wrote: Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.
I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.
If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
GW abandoned points for bonuses long time ago. Now it's supposed to be balanced by other side getting free bonuses as well.
Have fun when bonuses invariably don't match.
But I was told balance was great this edition. Are you saying an ork rerolling 1s isn't the same as a space marine rerolling 1s?
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
GW abandoned points for bonuses long time ago. Now it's supposed to be balanced by other side getting free bonuses as well.
Have fun when bonuses invariably don't match.
But I was told balance was great this edition. Are you saying an ork rerolling 1s isn't the same as a space marine rerolling 1s?
Actually no. RR1s is a 7/6 improvement no matter what the target number is.
Not saying 9th is well-balanced or anything, but RR1s has consistent value.
Sim-Life wrote: But I was told balance was great this edition. Are you saying an ork rerolling 1s isn't the same as a space marine rerolling 1s?
Orks get a +1 to hit, including the character that gives the aura. Compared to a Space Marine character, who gives reroll 1s to stuff around him, but not himself.
Almost as if the distinction is there because Orks rerolling 1s would not be the same as a Marine.
JNAProductions wrote: Actually no. RR1s is a 7/6 improvement no matter what the target number is.
Not saying 9th is well-balanced or anything, but RR1s has consistent value.
There is a bit more to it like available units to buff, their weapon loadout and so on. Technically speaking, you are right of course.
waefre_1 wrote: I'd rather we expanded into other means of making relics etc be a trade-off rather than just free bonuses.
Could you give some examples of how you imagine this working?
* Internal trade-offs within the rules for a given relic/faction bonus/etc (You can do a Scout move, but you have -1 Sv) * Locking out other options (You can choose the +1-to-hit Relic, but you can't then buy the +1-to-Wound wargear or use the RR1s strat on the bearer) * Messing with objectives/scoring (Your unit gets to re-roll Morale, but they don't count when determining if you control an objective) * Preventing or forcing certain actions (Your beatstick HQ gets +2 A on the charge, but always has to charge the nearest enemy unit) * Listbuilding restrictions (Your tank gets +1 T but you can only spend one slot on that datasheet, or you can give your squad +2 heavy weapon choices but they become Elite instead of Troops) * Requiring other units to get the bonus (Your big beastie gets an aura that only works on wee beasties, or your tank can fire at more than one profile if you take two other tanks and keep them nearby)
Now, I'm not a game designer, so these could probably use some work (assuming I'm not missing some crucial flaw that kills them as an option entirely), and I'm sure an actual game dev could come up with a lot more and better choices here. Also, I'm not going to claim that points are a bad way to balance things or that non-point balancing is perfect - my point ( ) is that they are one way to balance things, and they're not always the best (or even a good) way and we should be open to other options that might be a better fit.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...What 3.5 got right was this: every Veteran Ability, every Daemonic Gift, and every Mark costed points. We can quibble over whether or not they were priced correctly, or if there should have been more limitations on how many of each and in what combinations you could stack them on your units, but they still had a price. Which is the problem with faction buffs like the OP is talking about: they don't. Making such things free destroys balance. Faction traits should cost points, as should Warlord traits and relics.
Why get hung up on points? You can make relics etc have a cost without increasing the ppm of a unit, and given GW's track record with correcting points costs, I'd rather we expanded into other means of making relics etc be a trade-off rather than just free bonuses.
If you have points on relic then ppm changes. If you don't change ppm of unit then relic isn't costing.
This 1 CP for relic isn't actual cost. At least not sensible one. It's same for eveyr unit.
You have points, CP, slots. Slots and CP's aren't good way to balance it. Well neither is points since they aren¨t even meant to be balance but it's closest thing you can do for quick way to get something that's not completely off the wall broken quickly. Or at least would if you had game dev whose goal would be to get good game rather than marketing tool.
I disagree - the relic costing a CP means it has a cost: the cost is 1 CP. You're not wrong that slots and CPs have their own flaws when it comes to using them to balance something (same as points), but I'd rather we not simply throw them out entirely and insist that all balancing must be done via points. And while I agree that some things should probably be costed on a sliding scale based on what's buying it (it isn't unfair to expect a Heavy 1 special weapon to cost less on a BS5+ unit as opposed to a BS3+ unit), I don't think that we should make that the norm. It's OK for some things to cost the same regardless of who takes it or what it is, that's a call to be made based on the circumstances.
Relics don't need to be perfectly balanced. If that's the one game mechanic that isn't balanced then it's not going to break the world, at most it's 40 free points for something like the original Ironstone compared to the other relics SM had at the time. It isn't great when there are relics which are auto-includes, but as long as every relic at least serves its purpose (so no 8th edition Necron poop flamer Relic), I think it's fine. Compared to the impact of chapter tactics on a whole army, how that radically changes the value of units and dictates army lists, relics are a total non-issue. It is a bit of an issue if every army has 3 relics because it has a negative impact on play experience to remember too many things, on the other hand if 1/10 people REALLY loves their relics and wants 3 then I think that's okay.
tneva82 wrote: In game of alpha striking you rarely want to save CP. Cripple opponent first, win the game. 40k in nutshell.
That's a question of overall lethality, Stratagems don't have to make the game more lethal, but even if they do, they actually help the beta strike more than the alpha strike. If both players have 2k pts and 0 Stratagems then you might do 400 points of damage going first and 320 points of damage going second, with Stratagems it's 500 and 420 because Stratagems buff individual units rather than the whole army generally. There are plenty of units that don't need Stratagems to deal a lot of damage, like Demolisher Tank Commanders that can kill a Demolisher Tank Commander in a turn's worth of shooting. I am not sure whether I would rather have Stratagems in their current incarnation or no Stratagems at all, but I still think a version of Stratagems could be a really neat mechanic that fits into the kind of game I'd like 40k to be.
Fair games of 40k can be had in 9th edition where niche Stratagems that might help offence a little aren't worth using whenever possible, where you have to judge whether it is important enough to deal extra damage to overpay for mediocre Stratagems. I think it's a stats problem primarily in 9th edition codexes and not a Stratagem problem.
JNAProductions wrote: Actually no. RR1s is a 7/6 improvement no matter what the target number is.
Insectum7 wrote: ^100% The fact that everything had a price is what made Chaos 3.5 workable. Yes you could build some crazy stuff, but you paid through the nose for it, and thus there were vulnerabilities introduced into armies simply because one started running out of points.
Aside from the guards close order drill I think chaos 3.5 was the only one that did have out and out 'free' bonuses in the form of legion skills and free champions, and I guess the blastmasters would be considered a sidegrade.
For whatever reason GW in late 3e and early 4e were very fond on the 'choose your trade-offs' system where players could gain bonuses by not taking the stuff they weren't taking anyway - the 'cost' of Iron Warriors siege bonuses and extra slots was that they couldn't take daemons, marks, or bikes.
Similarly the cost for taking elite dreadnoughts in a marine army might be to not take the allies you didn't have, or the psyker you weren't using. But at least you had to then pay for everything after unlocking it.
The worst of the formations in 6th and 7th did the same, stuff like - bonus: aspect warriors are stronger, penalty: must take aspect warriors...
Ahh, ok. Yes that's true there were upgrades in many of those books at an "opportunity cost" that may or may not have been felt depending on player disposition. However, most of those 'free' upgrades did little to effect unit lethality, iirc, and I'd peg that as the major difference between 3-4th and 7th+.
I remember using Chapter 'deviation' rules to unlock Elite Devastators, for example. But then there was an additional +3 points per model to actually take them. In the Chaos 3.5, Iron Warriors got to take more Obliterators, but I don't recall them being better Obliterators. You could just take more of them and that was it iirc.
Off the top of my head the only 'free upgrades' that were significant to models might have been the god-legion rules (world eaters, deathguard etc.) And iirc those were significantly more restrictive lists as a cost. Then there was the free champion upgrade for squads with a sacred number, but that's such a minor boost I cant see how it would offend anybody.
The current paradigm is far more prone to stacking free bonuses on top of one another to get shocking amounts of offensive power. It's much different imo.
waefre_1 wrote: I'd rather we expanded into other means of making relics etc be a trade-off rather than just free bonuses.
Could you give some examples of how you imagine this working?
Give them a points cost.
He specifically said he wanted to move away from points, so I'm guessing this isn't the answer.
It may not be the desired answer, but it would certainly work. Points were assigned to AdMech Holy Orders and Necron Cryptek Arkana and similar because they're just straight up buffs. So why not do the same for relics? Lets toss warlord traits in the mix too.
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
You are more right than you realise, because many of those extra rules you mentioned appear to have no points cost. This is one of the reasons why there are so many mispointed (up or down) units on the release of each new codex.
GW abandoned points for bonuses long time ago. Now it's supposed to be balanced by other side getting free bonuses as well.
Have fun when bonuses invariably don't match.
But I was told balance was great this edition. Are you saying an ork rerolling 1s isn't the same as a space marine rerolling 1s?
Actually no. RR1s is a 7/6 improvement no matter what the target number is.
Not saying 9th is well-balanced or anything, but RR1s has consistent value.
There is a difference between multiplying a 3+ to hit roll Lascannon fired by a space marine devastator and a 4+ lascannon fired by a guardsman by 7/6, and that disparity grows multiplicatively by mathematical definition once you start adding things like command rerolls that both sides may have access to, and access to abilities like ignoring cover bonuses from traits and what not. The factor you multiply by 7/6 is constant but what you found is the derivative for the value we are discussing, in calculus terms. You found the rate of change, not how much it is changed.
Insectum7 wrote: In the Chaos 3.5, Iron Warriors got to take more Obliterators, but I don't recall them being better Obliterators. You could just take more of them and that was it iirc.
In context it was probably the single largest 'freebie' of 3rd and 4th ed. An extra heavy support slot, or three if you consider the old oblits mis-slotted.
Probably seems crazy to anyone who hadn't played the old editions that such a small thing would have been such a big advantage, particularly at higher points levels.
Insectum7 wrote: In the Chaos 3.5, Iron Warriors got to take more Obliterators, but I don't recall them being better Obliterators. You could just take more of them and that was it iirc.
In context it was probably the single largest 'freebie' of 3rd and 4th ed. An extra heavy support slot, or three if you consider the old oblits mis-slotted.
Probably seems crazy to anyone who hadn't played the old editions that such a small thing would have been such a big advantage, particularly at higher points levels.
Sure, and I wouldn't say that the IW builds weren't irritating or maybe imbalanced, but I think it says a lot that out of all the options available in that book, the 'dreaded op build' that came out of it is basically a result of FOC manipulation, rather than individual unit buffs or lethality multipliers, etc etc. You could do lots of other stuff with that book, but it was generally balanced out with points or by heavy tradeoffs.
vict0988 wrote:Relics don't need to be perfectly balanced.
Maybe, in the grand scheme of things, that's not a horrendous issue for balance, but it does suck from an army-building perspective to have one or two good options and a bunch of crap that only the most casual of narrative players will use.
At least if they're tied to a points cost you have a reason to take the bad relic over the better alternatives.
Overall I agree that Relics don't need to be perfectly balanced but some sense of balance would be nice, both in codex and cross codex. If I look at the Necron, Ork, SoB, codexes there are plenty of decent options, even my last edition World Eaters have some fun things to take. Then I look at the Eldar relic list and they are badly balanced in their own codex, let alone cross codex.
To the original question, I think abilities that reflect a factions purpose, in this case the Black Templars ability to slaughter enemies in melee, is a gameplay enhancer. I don't think the current execution is the way to go though, since there are simply too many layers and layers of rules, I would rather a unit have more of its value on the datasheet and less on the rules interactions surrounding it.
Voss wrote: Terrible terrain 'system' aside, almost all of this is codex bloat. The core rules are fine.
I keep hearing this and it always makes me scratch my head. The whole reason why codices are so bloated is because the core rules are utterly anaemic and about as dull as you can possibly get. They're what I'd expect for the demo rules of a 1st edition indie-game - not the full rules for the 9th edition of a wargame made by the largest wargaming company on the planet.
If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.
This. We need USRs back.
I mean fine as in 'functional.' USRs would be welcome. 'Flavor' is almost always subfaction X is SOOO much better at <unit> that there's no point in taking that unit in other subfactions.
Or some variety of flavor that doesn't need representation on the tabletop (wolfs are savage, romans are great organizers, monks are secretive)
The relic system is pretty lopsided. On one hand you get a relic that gives you a 2+ armour save, a 4+ invul save and a 5+ FNP save. On the other hand, here's a bolt pistol that does D3. Great.
vipoid wrote: If the core rules actually had even an inch of depth to them to begin with then you wouldn't need to outsource every ounce of rules and flavour to individual codices.
This. We need USRs back.
Completely agree. And I think vipoid summarised the "core rules vs Codex rules" issue perfectly in that one line.
I really don't see how a data sheet having the short hand term for a rule that let's them advance and fire without penalty and a data sheet having the full text "can advance and fire without penalty" changes anything.
Rihgu wrote: I really don't see how a data sheet having the short hand term for a rule that let's them advance and fire without penalty and a data sheet having the full text "can advance and fire without penalty" changes anything.
USRs wouldn't add any depth to the core rules...
Not this bad take again. Let's go...
A, USRs would be defined at the start of an edition, so that certain rules have a standard set of wording and implementation. This wording could allow for wildcards for values, if you want some options for variation (like a Feel No Pain X+, where X is the value you have to roll to make the FNP save).
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs, for example. I'd suggest 1-2 pages of them, unless you need to use diagrams to explain something in more detail. Assuming they can achieve that, you then reprint the full USR page(s) in each Codex as an appendix.
C, Assuming GW stick with the datasheet format the next time they reboot the game, if space on the datasheet permits then you print the full rules text of the USR there. No-one that I've seen advocating for USRs has ever said that can't happen. The point here is to reduce the number of rules which are very similar but not quite the same to be standardised instead, as well as allowing players to refer to the USR name as a shorthand when discussing units/factions.
Personally, I'd like to see this come into effect alongside a better use of keywords for weapons - having BOLT as a keyword, for example, would allow the Bolter Discipline to be written in a much more elegant fashion, as well as future-proofing it.
vict0988 wrote:Relics don't need to be perfectly balanced.
Maybe, in the grand scheme of things, that's not a horrendous issue for balance, but it does suck from an army-building perspective to have one or two good options and a bunch of crap that only the most casual of narrative players will use.
At least if they're tied to a points cost you have a reason to take the bad relic over the better alternatives.
If a relic is worth 11 points more than another relic then one of them needs a rule change IMO, if they're within 10 points of each other then you can pick the worse relic without feeling too bad about it because even if the power sword relic is superior to the power axe relic you're still getting a solid worthwhile buff when taking the power axe relic and it'll hopefully be better in some circumstances, like a souped up pistol would be better than a souped up armour if you're not getting attacked. Having relics where the main draw is "heck it's cheap might as well take it" I don't like, then they're not really relics anymore.
I don't think it adds anything to the experience. At first in 8th I thought the subtle buff from strats was alright but I called it that GW would ride that horse well past dead and most battles would become stratagem 2 electricboogaloo.
Now that we are in it ? No, I think the units complexity should be in their core rules not spread and sprinkled through out a million splat books filled with relics, strats, traits and free candy from the back of a creepy van.
Not only is it annoying, but way too heavy on those " Gotcha ! " moments that are so rife in other kinds of games. It isn't deep or immersive or nuanced, it's just a pain in the rear end. It's bloated, exhausting and annoying. This is just my opinion but really units are just about as bogged down with strats traits relics and auras as they were from their own rules back in 7th at this point.
GW got greedy, they dug too deep and released the Balrog of super bloat back onto us once more. They should have known better but all they could taste was that sweet nerd money.
GW got greedy, they dug too deep and released the Balrog of super bloat back onto us once more. They should have known better but all they could taste was that sweet nerd money.
I'm not sure this holds true. We would have gotten new codizes with a new edition anyway, regardless wether Stratagems would be a thing.
Online and offline the splat books don't seem to be very popular.
Dysartes wrote: B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.
A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior
It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.
Gert wrote: Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.
Yeah, I definitely don't want to see Relics removed from the game.
However, I think we badly need to go back to paying for relics with points. As it stands currently, every relic costs the same number of points and there's an arbitrary limit on how many you can take in your army. So whereas before you could stick a cheap relic on a character for a bit of fun, flavour or whatever, now there's no such thing as a cheap relic because they all cost the same number of points. Moreover, because of the arbitrary limit, taking what used to be 5pt pistols or 10pt minor artefacts now prevent you from taking other, much stronger artefacts on other characters.
I think this goes back to GW wanting to remove points altogether at the start of 8th and then changing their minds at the last minute (hence why every unit had a power level on its dataslate, whilst point costs were hastily jammed together into a table at the very end of each book). Since power levels don't allow for artefacts, they had to use CPs instead.
Everything in this game has to have a point value in my opinion. This goes for relics, warlord traits, as well as psychic powers. Mostly because none of those things are created equal.
Gert wrote: Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.
Yeah, I definitely don't want to see Relics removed from the game.
However, I think we badly need to go back to paying for relics with points. As it stands currently, every relic costs the same number of points and there's an arbitrary limit on how many you can take in your army. So whereas before you could stick a cheap relic on a character for a bit of fun, flavour or whatever, now there's no such thing as a cheap relic because they all cost the same number of points. Moreover, because of the arbitrary limit, taking what used to be 5pt pistols or 10pt minor artefacts now prevent you from taking other, much stronger artefacts on other characters.
I think this goes back to GW wanting to remove points altogether at the start of 8th and then changing their minds at the last minute (hence why every unit had a power level on its dataslate, whilst point costs were hastily jammed together into a table at the very end of each book). Since power levels don't allow for artefacts, they had to use CPs instead.
Everything in this game has to have a point value in my opinion. This goes for relics, warlord traits, as well as psychic powers. Mostly because none of those things are created equal.
I certainly wouldn't object to all those things each having costs.
The sad thing is, GW have even shown that they're capable of this. Even notwithstanding older editions, Necrons have Cryptek Arkana - which are effectively artefacts, except you pay for them with points rather than CP. Similarly, SoB have a selection of Master upgrades for characters that are also payed for with points.
I see no reason whatsoever why this system couldn't be extended to Warlord Traits, Artefacts and Psychic Powers.
I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Wouldn't that just add a massive level of "feels bad man" to that aspect of the game? "So glad I rolled the 'better in HTH combat' Warlord trait for my shooting army!""Oh good, like Librarian got the power that has no place in my army!". I don't think players want to roll on random tables to determine whether or not their units will play a role in the battle this game.
vipoid wrote: The sad thing is, GW have even shown that they're capable of this. Even notwithstanding older editions, Necrons have Cryptek Arkana - which are effectively artefacts, except you pay for them with points rather than CP. Similarly, SoB have a selection of Master upgrades for characters that are also payed for with points.
BTs are about to get relics they can give squad leaders. In fact, a lot of recent books have added points-based character upgrades. TS and GKs did it in their books.
Gert wrote: I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Psychic Powers yes, Warlord Traits should just be taken out entirely.
@H.B.M.C
Meh, I played CSM and Daemons in 6th/7th so Random was the norm. I enjoyed the Warp Storm and Boon tables and rolling a shooting trait for my Khorne Lord was just funny. Different mindsets like different things though and I do see where you're coming from.
@Sim-Life
Nah, Warlord traits are fun, especially for Deathwatch.
Dysartes wrote: B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.
A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior
It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.
I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.
Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.
Dysartes wrote: B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.
A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior
It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.
I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.
Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.
Agree. All these USR should be on the unit card. Isn't a BoN classified as monstrous infantry like ogres in 9th Age? Ah, and one more thing:
List those abilities in alphabetical order. Yes, it's nitpicky but also much cleaner.
Dysartes wrote: B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.
A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior
It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.
I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.
Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.
Agree. All these USR should be on the unit card. Isn't a BoN classified as monstrous infantry like ogres in 9th Age? Ah, and one more thing:
List those abilities in alphabetical order. Yes, it's nitpicky but also much cleaner.
Are the unit entries for 9th even in alphabetical order?
If you want to look up USRs of a unit without hassle in a rulebook it is better to turn pages in just one direction when you go from top to bottom. Honestly not a revolutionary concept.
Rihgu wrote: I really don't see how a data sheet having the short hand term for a rule that let's them advance and fire without penalty and a data sheet having the full text "can advance and fire without penalty" changes anything.
USRs wouldn't add any depth to the core rules...
Not this bad take again. Let's go...
A, USRs would be defined at the start of an edition, so that certain rules have a standard set of wording and implementation. This wording could allow for wildcards for values, if you want some options for variation (like a Feel No Pain X+, where X is the value you have to roll to make the FNP save).
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs, for example. I'd suggest 1-2 pages of them, unless you need to use diagrams to explain something in more detail. Assuming they can achieve that, you then reprint the full USR page(s) in each Codex as an appendix.
C, Assuming GW stick with the datasheet format the next time they reboot the game, if space on the datasheet permits then you print the full rules text of the USR there. No-one that I've seen advocating for USRs has ever said that can't happen. The point here is to reduce the number of rules which are very similar but not quite the same to be standardised instead, as well as allowing players to refer to the USR name as a shorthand when discussing units/factions.
Personally, I'd like to see this come into effect alongside a better use of keywords for weapons - having BOLT as a keyword, for example, would allow the Bolter Discipline to be written in a much more elegant fashion, as well as future-proofing it.
To be clear, I 100% think that a proper implementation of USRs is beneficial for all of the reasons you posted.
I just do not think that that having the rules text printed in the rulebook as opposed to the data sheets (or ideally in both places!) is really "adding depth to the core game".
"Depth" in core rules would be like, "when a unit is being shot at, they can go to ground, becoming pinned but gaining +1 to saves". A USR might be printed in the core rulebook but it's not a "core rule" in that you need to grant that USR to a unit, in a codex, in order for that rule to have any impact.
At the end of the day, "Heavy Weapons Platform (see p 97, core rulebook)" and "This unit suffers no penalty for moving and firing a Heavy Weapon" are no different from each other.
These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.
These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.
If i wanted samey-samey, I'd play chess.
I think it's a matter of degree.
I'm fine with Black Templars or White Scars being better at assault than Iron Hands or Imperial Fists. But should they be more than twice as good, when paying the same points costs? I don't think so.
Look at Orks, for example. Bad Moons get an extra 6" of range and another point of AP on 6s to-wound with ranged attacks. That's a nice little buff-but the only time it's gonna double damage is if you're shooting at a 2+ armor model who you only wound on 6s. It can happen (Land Raiders or Knights with a certain Relic, and basic shootas) but it's not something you'll see with any regularity, and moreover, while it is twice as effective... Needing over 100 shots to take a wound off is worse than needing over 50, but neither is ANY good.
Dysartes wrote: I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.
It was more something I noticed with page layout, lots of empty space. I wound up moving non-rules (daemon, nurgle) to a keyword system instead.
These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.
Gert wrote: I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Before we go back to randomly rolling for these, I would rather not use them at all.
In the current iteration some traits and powers are just too situational to be useful for any character and army.
While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?
Sim-Life wrote: While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?
Local Sisters players are actually rolling. Unless you absolutely need that 5+ deny against 1k Sons or GK.
the_scotsman wrote: A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.
As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.
...Does this enhance your gaming experience?
If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?
It does enhance my gaming experience as it adds more variety to the 40K tabletop ecosystem. I like that a unit of Black Templars Assault Intercessors acts differently than a unit of Dark Angels Assault Intercessors unit. I like that Deathwing Terminators perform differently than Black Templars ones.
Does it add to my "mental load?" Sure - I guess, but I find it manageable and the payoff in variety (for me and my opponent) is worth it. I know my list and choose what mental load to take on with my choices. I understand that some are really worried about "gotchas." If an enemy unit that I ignore turns out to be quite killy due to its sub-faction and Strats then I guess at worst I have learned something. A Squad of Sisters with Storm Bolters taught my Deathwing Knights about Blessed Bolts...Now I know!
I also understand that some folks might not like this. You can always choose to play a toned-down list. You can ask to play Open Play without Stratagem, doctrines, faction abilities etc. It can make playing in a tourney tough if you are a new player, but I think this would be true regardless.
I do not miss USRs, but I note that they have taken more of a middle-road in 9th Ed. Language is tighter/more similar between similar rules and they have Faction-wide Special Rules.
I enjoy Stratagems, but I do think that the "fight twice/shoot twice/inflict Mortal Wounds on a X" flavours of Stratagems could go. They have a warping effect on balance due to how they scale (or don't!).
I respect, though, that many Dakka posters will have differing tastes from me. Its all good. Perhaps the design wheel will turn and it will be me complaining (or just walking away).
Gert wrote: I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Before we go back to randomly rolling for these, I would rather not use them at all.
Agree. And I spent most of 6th/7th taking a named character partially just to not deal with random warlord traits. Either pick them or get rid of them. . . Preferably get rid of them.
You can even have "Character Upgrade points" to be different from "unit" points and give proper points to Relics/Warlord Traits/etc... that take points from that specific pool so people doesn't need to take less units.
Like if you play 1500 you have 150 CUP if you play 2000 you have 200 , etc...
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?
You are adding to the BRB. You don't need USRs in the BRB if you have Special Rules in Codexes, datasheets. I find it fun when people (including Youtube Batrepers) complain that the game is getting more complex due to the special rules/Stratagems etc when there is an Open Play portion where you can just play with the Core Rules.
As for language, in my post you quoted I mentioned they have been keeping certain language the same. So you get some de factoUSRs in terms of effect on the tabletop without having a section of URS in the BRB.
Could they take it another step back in 10th by adding a small selection of USRs that they intend to leave unmodified for each Codex (or else they are not Universal)? Sure. I just don't think that there is really confusion over the Codex and Datasheet special rules. Does the game come to halt when I say "My Deathwing will Teleport Strike here and my Inceptors will Death from Above over there."
There can be confusion/gotcha moments around Stratagems.
I think the problem is that instead of feel no pain (x) we have disgustingly resilient, the flesh is weak, power from pain, and heaven knows how many other things that often do the exact same thing, and by rules as written means that each was at one point technically a different roll from a different rule thtpat made the game play incredibly clunky, which you simply did not deal with in 7th because every army pulled the majority of their special rules from a standardized list in the brb. This tends to be a problem with the majority of rules and the place for armies to demonstrate unique rules that were not represented in the brb was the codex.
These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
So... how do you feel about the army-wide 5+ invulnerable save (and transhuman on 1-2) that Templars can just have now? Does it make the Iron Hand's 'different strengths' feel relevant?
----
And just internally to the supplement, it certainly kicks the pants of some of the other BT options. I'd definitely take '+3 to move once per game on the first turn IF the enemy has psykers and reroll 1s to wound psykers' instead, over army wide defensive buffs. Those are certainly equivalent.
Yeah, sure you betcha.
Sim-Life wrote: While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?
I always roll for my exalted greater demons (Lord of change and Keeper of secrets). The options are good enough that even getting a dud one isnt the end of the world
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?
Standardized langue across rules would be a massive improvement. But cross referencing 5-10 special rules for each datasheet can be a pain. I already hate to do it with the armywide special rules, and it took me really a long time to memorize all the SW special rules that aren't full described under units' datasheets.
I really like choosing WL traits, it tickles the nugget of me that wants some narrative a little and it tickles the part of me that doesn't want the trash WL trait a great deal. I think I'm ambivalent about random WL traits vs no WL traits. Buying WL traits and relics means that it's just basically just another wargear piece, you cannot spam it, but that's the only thing that sets it apart. It being a separate mechanic following different rules makes it special I think. Besides, you cannot accurately point relics for every character unless you give each character a single relic choice, it'd be too much of a hassle. Keeping them all around 1CP of value and then adjusting the magnitude of their effects or giving them downsides to balance them is best I think.
Sim-Life wrote: While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?
Yeah, I love mine, I think it's an excellent mechanic for units that are meant to be out of control. It's a bit much if you have more than 3 units with it though, especially if you also have bonus upgrades like extra relics, WL traits, etc.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
Everyone I've played with calls it deep strike and I call it deep strike when I teach newbies, it's not confusing. I think that's a justification for changing the name to deep strike, not a justification to leave things as they are because if you did call the rule by its name and you did read out the rule instead of just saying it's a reinforcement thing 9", then it'd be confusing and annoying. It's like the 4th edition CSM codex, it was barebones and the developer expected players to create their own homebrew to make it fun to play with, we shouldn't have to come up with our own terms for the mechanics in the game or write homebrew to play a codex, it's messy and unprofessional.
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?
Standardized langue across rules would be a massive improvement. But cross referencing 5-10 special rules for each datasheet can be a pain. I already hate to do it with the armywide special rules, and it took me really a long time to memorize all the SW special rules that aren't full described under units' datasheets.
Ah. The secret there is not to have bloat. 5-10 special rules per datasheet is insanity. 0-2 is much more reasonable and makes for significantly better game design.
That isn't a USR problem at all, just the writers mustering some self-control rather than 'kitchen-sinking' every single unit.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
I think his point is that 0-2 special rules isn't enough for characters, I don't know if he's misunderstood your point or deliberately misinterpreting it to strengthen his point.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.
Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't see that many. Just the Retinue rule encapsulated under "character"
Most units only had a few, some had none. Others had quite a lot.
Almost all 4e daemon units had 5-6 rules by default. Factions like wolves and DE started at 3. Scout-style units adding 3-4 on average, Terminators added about half a dozen. It was a mixed bag.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.
Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.
I think we need to discern between army-wide special rules vs. Unit rules. If a whole army has a few, no biggie. But once units themselves start stacking multiples on top of that obviously it gets stupid-complicated quickly.
Example: I take six units, each with 2 of their own bespoke special rules, and that makes 12 on top of 2-3 army-wide rules.
I'm looking at characters like Ghazghkull and Makari and they both have 5 (6 if we consider Waaagh! which we still don't know why it was listed in every datasheet). Snikrot has 7, the Deffkilla Watrike and the Warboss on Squigosaur, which aren't even named characters, has 6 and 5.
Non characters units can have several special rules as well: Kommandos have 5, all the buggies have 5 or even 6. So do Deffkoptas.
The new Kill/Hunta Rig has 6, so do a couple of the planes. The other planes have 5.
Two is the amount standard troops has.
Let's not even talk about SW: characters typically have 6, while troops have 3. But one of those rules (Angels of Death) is actually 4 special rules. So even a standard troop squad has 6 special rules to remember and a character has 9. Spread among two books and at least 3 different places: unit's datasheet, special rules for SW in the SW supplement and special rules for SM in the SM codex.
Bloat is already insane, and referencing already a huge pain.
Yes? I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm saying they should stop having so many special rules and go back to basics (like older editions).
So instead of 5+, like your examples, they should set most of the special rules bloat on fire and go back to 0-2 special rules being normal. On baseline units, 0 is perfectly acceptable, there isn't any reason to have any.
You talk about going back to older editions but your 0-2 limit indicates that you're severely underestimating how many special rules units tended to have in past editions.
Past is unspecific. Do you mean 2nd or 6th? The former was very low on USRs and the latter had a lot.
I think we need to discern between army-wide special rules vs. Unit rules. If a whole army has a few, no biggie. But once units themselves start stacking multiples on top of that obviously it gets stupid-complicated quickly.
Example: I take six units, each with 2 of their own bespoke special rules, and that makes 12 on top of 2-3 army-wide rules.
I think another issue to consider is the way phases work in 40k, where you are effectively acting with each unit several times over a turn.
Where as something like warmachine you are usually focused on a single unit with at most a few support units at a time. Enabling more to be done on a unit as the design space can be more focused.
Infinity is also similar, you are often focusing in on a single unit with responding units being a more Co Op burden of thought.
40k also has a lot of dice rolling, which for me personally is just so tiring mentally.
Even if it’s basic math, it’s just a lot of rolling for often lucky a avg result and taking a lot from any push and pull the dice should have for excitement.
Often each roll having a bunch of new things have to be aware of.
40k also has a lot of dice rolling, which for me personally is just so tiring mentally.
Even if it’s basic math, it’s just a lot of rolling for often lucky a avg result and taking a lot from any push and pull the dice should have for excitement.
Often each roll having a bunch of new things have to be aware of.
Yeah, volume of dice and abilities that turn the game into the game of averages or even the game of "full house!" are something that ruin the whole experience. IMHO that's the biggest disappointment of 9th edition of 40k, I would prefer a more random game with less dice rolling and close to no way to alter the result of the dice.
They make the game more dense when you are getting started. They also lock the factions in. Going "bespoke" allows the designers to tailor the rules to each unit/faction.
With 9th they've gone back towards USRs somewhat with faction-specific rules that all units can access with the keyword. I think it is a good compromise. They have also kept certain language the same.
Has anybody actually been confused by the unit/faction special rules? I ask my opponent at the start of the game: "Do you have anything that can come in from Reserve?" He can then say "Yes - they have to outside 9" from you." When we see GSC in 9th maybe they will have a different mechanic - the designers can make one since each Codex stands alone.
I only play factions for which I have the Codex, so having to look in my Codex for rules is not a problem.
What about a rule being listed in the rulebook AND your Codex makes the game harder, or less accessible?
What about having standardized language across rules makes the game harder, or less accessible?
I fear you are giving GW some crazy ideas. With your approach they can actually start making updated Rulebooks every year to update the USR listings. Quite genius actually, being able to charge yearly for a new rulebook(and a yearly mission book so money all around). That's almost guaranteed money every year and us, the customers, will be poorer for it. However, we will pay it smiling as usual.
H.B.M.C. wrote: More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:
So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?
As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.
H.B.M.C. wrote: More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:
So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?
As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.
I play IG and it won't enhance my experience at all because I don't play Cadians.
And always fails on a 1-2 literally doubles how durable they are against Strength 6+
H.B.M.C. wrote: More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:
So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?
As I am not an Imperial Guard player I can't say it enhances my game experience. It might enhance my friend's experience who actually plays IG, although to be fair the new Transhuman ability should be dubbed "Subhuman" as always fails on 1-2 isn't really Transhuman in the slightest.
I play IG and it won't enhance my experience at all because I don't play Cadians.
And always fails on a 1-2 literally doubles how durable they are against Strength 6+
Well, Cadians(or IG) ain't doing so well so doubling their durability against Craftworld weapons isn't really the end of the world. That is before we take into account that this costs CP and only affects a single squad per phase. Does hurt Death Guard more, but again DG haven't had a lot of trouble with IG as of late.
I would have, however, liked that this stratagem was IG sub-faction agnostic. I think the only thing I can agree on is that a lot of codex sub-faction specific stratagems are just a hassle. They can either go overboard(like old Agents of Vect before the nerf) or just not do anything meaningful. So I am all in support of stratagems being agnostic to their respective codex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.
I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.
What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?
If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.
I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.
What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?
If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.
Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a game and don't know it's us.
I just tend to aim high strength weapon at stuff that really requires high strength stuff like tanks and monsters. Infantry Guardsmen usually just get Poxwalkers in their face along with some Blight Lord Stormbolters. To be fair the only Battlecannon equivalent in my army are Plagueburst Crawlers and I really suck when rolling random shot weapons. The big gun is lucky I can do 2 shots per turn.
Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.
My 25 PLDW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.
If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.
But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.
(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
I mean, if you are aiming Battlecannons at S3 Cadians then I do believe you are playing yourself.
I do agree though that the stratagem should be sub-faction agnostic.
What else would you aim your battlecannon at in an IG infantry army?
If you NEVER fire your battlecannon-cannon class weapons at T3 infantry on principle, I hope I get to play you sometime in the future. It'll be a unique experience to have my infantry not get hoovered up in droves.
Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a game and don't know it's us.
I just tend to aim high strength weapon at stuff that really requires high strength stuff like tanks and monsters. Infantry Guardsmen usually just get Poxwalkers in their face along with some Blight Lord Stormbolters. To be fair the only Battlecannon equivalent in my army are Plagueburst Crawlers and I really suck when rolling random shot weapons. The big gun is lucky I can do 2 shots per turn.
Remember against most Guard it's 3 shots minimum and against Cadian conscripts it's 6 shots flat.
Furthermore, there aren't tanks or monsters in an all infantry guard army, that's the point. Guard have to lean into Skew to compete currently, given the age of their codex.
Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.
My 25 PLDW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.
If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.
But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.
(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)
I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.
Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun.
I disagree. Core rules with more than a mm of depth make the game fun at any (reasonable) size. You don't need special rules to make games engaging, you can do it with just as easily with basic rules that create engaging gameplay.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.
Unit special rules are one of the things that enable small scale games (25-50PL) to still be fun. Lots of folks advocate for fewer special unit rules, and I get that: not here to invalidate anyone's POV. In a 2k or 3k game, I can definitely see the advantage of fewer unit specific special rules.
My 25 PLDW army is twelve infantry models- a Beleaguered Watch Captain and a 5 Man Proteus team, and an Inquisitor who brings him a fresh-faced 5 man Fortis team. What's cool is that playing those 12 models still feels like I'm playing an army; I have options and tactics, and the missions support my small force. Without the complexity, this force would feel trivial, and games of this size would probably be dull.
If that army is successful enough in its Crusade that it escalates to 2k or even 3k? Yeah, it might feel a bit overwhelming. But I play escalation style, so it will take years to get that far, which should give me all the time I need to get a grip on it.
But again, I can totally see the point being made if your preferred style of play is just to play stand-alone 2K matched games that hit the table ready made rather than growing over time.
(Please note my tone and diction: I am not telling anyone who has a bad experience that they are playing wrong. :-) - merely saying that it works for me, and acknowledging that this might be because of the way I choose to play.)
TBHid be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.
narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.
then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments, and Open Play rules with most of the stuff stripped out so that people who play the game occasionally can actually wrap their head around it without having to get an advanced degree.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.
Twice as many rolls (which fall within the appropriate S range) will fail, which gives the appearance of being twice as durable.
Equally, only 80% of rolls which previously succeeded will succeed, which is why you have the view they have only improved in durability by 25%.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It doubles their durability against anything Str 6+, even ignoring the save bonus (so battlecannons, multilasers, manticores, etc).
So really it's a buff to Cadians that nerfs Imperial Guard (noice).
It doesn't double anything other than the amount of failed wound rolls you get. Normally you wound 5/6 instead you wound 4/6, to get from 4/6 to 5/6 you need to multiply by 1,25. Cadians are 25% more durable against S6+ weapons when using this Stratagem, the absolute horror.
Twice as many rolls (which fall within the appropriate S range) will fail, which gives the appearance of being twice as durable.
Equally, only 80% of rolls which previously succeeded will succeed, which is why you have the view they have only improved in durability by 25%.
Neither view is wrong, amusingly.
I'd say it's more accurate to say they're 25% more durable. It doubles the rate of failure, but to actually double durability, it'd have to halve the rate of success, which it doesn't do.
H.B.M.C. wrote: More rules on top of rules on top of rules on top of rules. Now even Guard have Transhuman and All Is Dust:
So, like the OP said: Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?
GW picking a single subfaction and giving it - and only it - a pile of extra artefacts, warlord traits, stratagems etc. most certainly does not enhance my game experience.
And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.
Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:
They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.
But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.
TBHid be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.
I feel like layer stripping does exist?
Open play isn't meant to be battle-forged (though it can be if you want). And as I've mentioned numerous times, when you don't battleforge, almost EVERYTHING that folks complain about is gone. You lose all the detachment rules, and your CP is whacked down so far that strat use is virtually non-existent. I'm pretty sure that bespoke strats are for battleforged armies too. I don't have the BRB to hand ATM, so I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the way its written. If so, open play uses only BRB strats, and you're looking at what, 3 CP + 1 per turn?
None of the Crusade upgrades apply to matched or Open games, though GW does provide a simple mechanic that attempts to make a matched play army usable against a Crusade army- the matched player ends up with extra CP to balance (cough, cough) the advantages the Crusade army will have acquired over time. I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice- I suspect it doesn't work well if at all. But it is there.
I suppose it's true that there isn't anything in matched (except secondaries) which is explicitly specific to Matched alone, since battleforging is the norm for Crusade and it can be used in Open at the player's discretion. Certainly, the interminable points updates and the agonizing over every point for every pistol or minor piece of wargear isn't stressed as heavily in Open and Crusade, which are both meant to be used with PL... Though again, many folks who hate the "bloat and complication" of 9th actually like the points minutiae enough that they port it over to the other two ways to play.
Even terrain rules are essentially written as optional add-ons.
narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.
Agreed. It's why narrative is my fave. It's why I'm also reluctant to support changes to the game as a whole if they are written in such away that they impact Crusade- which is something that changes to core rules would do.
then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments.
I wouldn't object to this, as it wouldn't really affect my experience.
Insectum7 wrote: I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.
There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.
I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.
I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.
I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.
And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.
Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.
No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.
Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:
They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.
But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.
That's also a good point.
IMO Transhuman Physiology makes little enough sense for Space Marines (if it's based on their physiology then why is it a Stratagem? ), and having the equivalent for basic guardsmen is just absurd.
Also, whilst I liked the idea initially, I'm becoming less and less enamoured with the whole sub faction thing. It initially seemed pretty cool to have different builds with different themes. However, with so many traits locked behind subfaction gates, plus the uneven treatment of different subfactions, its increasingly started to feel like more doors are being closed than opened with this route.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And the worst part is they could have done anything with the Guard.
Like I said to a certain persistent and clueless individual in another thread:
They could have done anything with a Guard update, focusing in on Guard army structure, heirarchy, types of commanders, order systems, platoon structure, the attached groups that aid the Guard (Ecclesiarchy, Commissariat, Enginseers, sanctioned Psykers, etc.), and so on.
But no: They just made a strat that makes some Guardsmen magically tougher.
I suspect the changes were this minimal because they are coming from a campaign book and not a codex.
I suspect that when the dex drops, it probably will contain changes comparable to the ones you are suggesting. Having said that, I concede that it does look like they've made some pretty big changes to Nids... so I suppose they could have gone further than they did with guard despite the fact that this is just a campaign book.
I also don't think they've shown us ALL of the guard content from the book, so there might be more in there than we think... Though of course, there's also a chance that there isn't.
I also don't think they've shown us ALL of the guard content from the book, so there might be more in there than we think... Though of course, there's also a chance that there isn't.
There’s plenty more to see in Rising Tide, including a new suite of Crusade rules for Astra Militarum armies, so stay tuned as we take a deeper look into War Zone Octarius later this week.
Yes, there is more.
The long and short of it is that this is the content we would see in a dedicated Cadian supplement...and them sneaking some stuff(the Crusade rules for example) that we would likely see in the codex for people to get to start using it.
TBHid be 100% fine with GW actually putting some teeth behind '3 ways to play' and giving us some layer-stripping for different types of play.
I feel like layer stripping does exist?
Open play isn't meant to be battle-forged (though it can be if you want). And as I've mentioned numerous times, when you don't battleforge, almost EVERYTHING that folks complain about is gone. You lose all the detachment rules, and your CP is whacked down so far that strat use is virtually non-existent. I'm pretty sure that bespoke strats are for battleforged armies too. I don't have the BRB to hand ATM, so I could be wrong about that, but I think that's the way its written. If so, open play uses only BRB strats, and you're looking at what, 3 CP + 1 per turn?
None of the Crusade upgrades apply to matched or Open games, though GW does provide a simple mechanic that attempts to make a matched play army usable against a Crusade army- the matched player ends up with extra CP to balance (cough, cough) the advantages the Crusade army will have acquired over time. I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice- I suspect it doesn't work well if at all. But it is there.
I suppose it's true that there isn't anything in matched (except secondaries) which is explicitly specific to Matched alone, since battleforging is the norm for Crusade and it can be used in Open at the player's discretion. Certainly, the interminable points updates and the agonizing over every point for every pistol or minor piece of wargear isn't stressed as heavily in Open and Crusade, which are both meant to be used with PL... Though again, many folks who hate the "bloat and complication" of 9th actually like the points minutiae enough that they port it over to the other two ways to play.
Even terrain rules are essentially written as optional add-ons.
narrative play is the PERFECT arena for every unit to have fifteen billion different rules, where players are explicitly not playing to beat each other has hard as possible but instead doing what makes for the most interesting, best story.
Agreed. It's why narrative is my fave. It's why I'm also reluctant to support changes to the game as a whole if they are written in such away that they impact Crusade- which is something that changes to core rules would do.
then you can have Matched Play rules with a finely honed, trimmed down stratagem and available special rule list for people who want to play Tournaments.
I wouldn't object to this, as it wouldn't really affect my experience.
Insectum7 wrote: I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.
There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.
I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.
Spoiler:
I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.
I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.
And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.
Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.
No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.
Exalted, Jake. I am WHOLLY with Insectum on this, opinion wise, but I appreciate this post.
Insectum7 wrote: I would think the game would be better if the core rules held enough in them to make small-model-count games still be playable and interesting, rather than leaning into special rules. Meaningful grenade rules, suppression, crossfire, overwatch and morale options could give you more tactical choices as a player without relying on special rules to generate interest.
There was a thread here a while back about games vs. simulations, and people got into all sorts of debate about what types of rules were suitable for board games vs. wargames and simulations. It was a pretty good thread; it helped me to realize that I don't personally like "wargames and simulations" as much as I like big ole sand boxes that contain limitless options and combinations.
I absolutely see the validity of what you are proposing. I get why so many people on Dakka prefer this approach. I just don't prefer it myself.
I hated pinning. I hated facings on vehicles- more for the limitations that they imposed upon my ability to fire than for for my opponent's ability to overcome my armour. I utterly LOATHED move or shoot weapons. I hated scatter. And I think I mentioned how the phenomenon of the one shot kill frustrated me in the old AV rules; many players who preferred that style say their vehicles felt more survivable than under the current rules; for me personally, I felt the opposite- sure there were certain weapons in my opponent's army that couldn't hurt my vehicles, by ANY weapon that could hurt me had a decent chance to wipe me out in a single shot... Which always felt worse to me than being chipped away at by three dozen lasguns or bolters.
I liked the lore and models enough that I played the game pretty faithfully from 1989-2010. I was also comforted by the fact my opponents had to deal with the same bad-feel moments as I did, which made it okay.
And that's really it right there: all armies felt too much alike, because they all used the same generalized rules. Wanna win? Pin your opponent, catch'em in a cross fire, scare 'em til they try to flee and then wipe 'em all out if you run faster. Doesn't matter whether you're a Sister, a Marine, a guardsman or an alien. You're models look different, but they all play exactly the same so it's merely a matter of cosmetics. Like we're playing chess, but your pieces are from a different set that mine so they look different and have a different story, but that's about it.
Again, I understand the point of view of the forum majority who like that style better- you're not wrong. We just want different things.
No need to shout me down; I'm acknowledging in advance that points of view to the contrary are just as valid as mine.
Thanks for taking the time!
The thing is, I can understand a lot of the points you raise about pinning, vehicle AV, etc. and I agree that there were parts of those mechanics that were definitely less than ideal. I still would like to believe that there's a game to be made that would satisfy both of our sensibilities.
As for armies feeling "samey". I'm not totally sure I understand that one, but I think that might depend on which armies you played with/against. For example, I played Necrons back then in addition to my SM. Necrons felt wildly different to me with their limited choices, Phase Out rules and teleportation mechanics. Much more different than they are today, imo.
)
) is that they are one way to balance things, and they're not always the best (or even a good) way and we should be open to other options that might be a better fit.
), and having the equivalent for basic guardsmen is just absurd.