To be honest, I think that I actually like most of things about the 10th Edition. My primary concern is the "It's totally not Power Level!" approach to points costs.
IMHO, GW should:
1. Reinstate points costs for upgrades and especially additional equipment.
2. Revise bodyguard unit and wargear options so that they are more sensible and consistent (and preferably slightly more granular in certain cases).
These should be relatively easy fixes that would significantly improve gaming experience.
Nevertheless, I'm already having fun theorycrafting some army lists. Will need to test them on the field of battle soon.
A lot of their abilities do still activate, although it will probably need an FAQ to see how many times Rites of Battle can be activated each turn (the army has 21 models with the ability, so you probably just won't need any CP, even though you'll get an additional one from Azreal)
Though not some. Some require unit to lead. And rites of war max 1 per battleround. # of captains irrelavant. Same as farseer ability or ork da jump.
Well, it's not like they've never FAQd something to mean the diametric opposite of what the rule actually says before, so maybe down the line the Free CP Conga can be a thing
Well, it's not like they've never FAQd something to mean the diametric opposite of what the rule actually says before, so maybe down the line the Free CP Conga can be a thing
That's possible, but at the moment the RAW is clear and seems to match RAI for once, so i don't see any immediate need for an FAQ for that problem specifically.
Platuan4th wrote: As someone who monetarily supports OPR, shut the feth up.
No, I don't believe I will. I have no vested interest in 'converting' people to any particular other system, I just like to point out that GW will *never* do things any better if they are never given a reason to do so. Accepting a shoddy product like 10th, in which the sheer number of mistakes, inconsistencies, and outright logical failures (Leman Russ sponsons, for example) are indisputable, does not incentivise GW to improve. They are a massively profitable company who easily have the capacity, if not the drive, to do better than this. I mean really now, they consider players so stupid as to be unable to handle basic arithmetic, judging by the 'developer commentary'. Why would you want to continue supporting those who think so little of you?
If you like the models and/or lore of 40k, that's fine and entirely subjective. But there's tons of other games out there in which you could enjoy both without having to settle for mediocrity, for lazy and incompetent design. Grimdark Future happens to be my ruleset of choice, but I couldn't really care less if people read my post and decide they won't play it; I'm just pointing out that it's probably the closest approximation to 40k.
If all you (or anybody) has to say in response to all of that is 'shut up', then so be it - but it doesn't reflect well on the strength of your position.
Well, it's not like they've never FAQd something to mean the diametric opposite of what the rule actually says before, so maybe down the line the Free CP Conga can be a thing
Or not. For once gw has done some balance checks. Imagine eldars with practically every fate dice as 6
SarisKhan wrote: To be honest, I think that I actually like most of things about the 10th Edition. My primary concern is the "It's totally not Power Level!" approach to points costs.
IMHO, GW should:
1. Reinstate points costs for upgrades and especially additional equipment.
2. Revise bodyguard unit and wargear options so that they are more sensible and consistent (and preferably slightly more granular in certain cases).
These should be relatively easy fixes that would significantly improve gaming experience.
Nevertheless, I'm already having fun theorycrafting some army lists. Will need to test them on the field of battle soon.
I mostly agree, but I would be fine with MOST wargear being free (or rather assumed as part of the unit) with only some choices having extra cost.
Using Tactical Marines as an easy example, it should be assumed that the unit WILL have a Heavy weapon, Special weapon and some wargear on the Sgt, si those should be considered free. But certain choices, like a Lascannon or Power fist, should cost at least +5pts above.
But at the very least, GW needs to add back points for individual models between the min and max unit sizes.
That alone would add back some granularity and make it possible to more effectively use Transport capabilities with Characters.
Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
I'm fine with 10th edition, there's like 95 things which are great and 5 things which are less than ideal. Overall a good direction for the game.
I've tried OPR/GDF, it's mid. If I'm going to jump through the hoops needed to play a game that isn't 40k, there's lots of other games I'd rather be playing.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Dear God, "have you hear about this game, its awesome because XYZ and you can use your 40k minis!" Is good. "Stop being such a corporate shill and forking out cash for big cropos you sucker, have some self respect and play XYZ" is definitely toxic.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Dear God, "have you hear about this game, its awesome because XYZ and you can use your 40k minis!" Is good. "Stop being such a corporate shill and forking out cash for big cropos you sucker, have some self respect and play XYZ" is definitely toxic.
No. Go play GDF. You can't tell me what to do.
The irony as well of replying to, of all people Gadzilla, who continually plugs HH, a Games Workshop produced game.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Dear God, "have you hear about this game, its awesome because XYZ and you can use your 40k minis!" Is good. "Stop being such a corporate shill and forking out cash for big cropos you sucker, have some self respect and play XYZ" is definitely toxic.
It's double fun if the alternate game is... Horus Heresy.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Did ya miss the part where I said it was fine to suggest people to try it out, but prefacing it with the game you like is garbage is probably a bad selling point?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Did ya miss the part where I said it was fine to suggest people to try it out, but prefacing it with the game you like is garbage is probably a bad selling point?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Dear God, "have you hear about this game, its awesome because XYZ and you can use your 40k minis!" Is good. "Stop being such a corporate shill and forking out cash for big cropos you sucker, have some self respect and play XYZ" is definitely toxic.
Nah. It's good advice. Especially considering the mess that we're witnessing. Maybe it could have been better worded, but it's still good advice. Especially considering that it isn't a "GW problem", but a "40k problem", as other GW rules writers seem to get the concept.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Did ya miss the part where I said it was fine to suggest people to try it out, but prefacing it with the game you like is garbage is probably a bad selling point?
The truth hurts? Sorry?
Edit: And no one has played 10th edition yet. So, how can it be "the game you like'?
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
It's not what but how.
But ok. I'll go to every opr thread advertize aos, warmachine and infinity and trash opr. Is that good idea for you?
Hopefully you say yes or you publicly admit having double standards.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
Did ya miss the part where I said it was fine to suggest people to try it out, but prefacing it with the game you like is garbage is probably a bad selling point?
Meanwhile, in the 'Other Sci-Fi Games' section of this very forum, where these apparently totally awesome games are at home:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Please, please everyone. Don't offer alternatives to 10th edition 40k. It's, apparently, "toxic". How dare anyone to even suggest that alternative rulesets exist for using your 40k miniatures.
It's not what but how.
But ok. I'll go to every opr thread advertize aos, warmachine and infinity and trash opr. Is that good idea for you?
Hopefully you say yes or you publicly admit having double standards.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Nah. It's good advice. Especially considering the mess that we're witnessing. Maybe it could have been better worded, but it's still good advice. Especially considering that it isn't a "GW problem", but a "40k problem", as other GW rules writers seem to get the concept.
But the wording is the whole issue people are having. If the only thing an individual can say is "40k is trash, GW is trash, if you like 40k you're a shill, you should play X instead", then the message coming across is that the community of X is full of bitter ex-GW game players who will do nothing but complain about how bad GW is.
I considered 9th Age before checking various forums and seeing nothing but AoS/GW rage posts and no actual discussion about how the game was better or even good.
Edit: And no one has played 10th edition yet. So, how can it be "the game you like'?
The points came out yesterday, it's entirely reasonable for people to have played 10th by now.
Rihgu wrote: Arkanaut Company with nothing but pistols is literally the wrong choice every single time. Light Skyhook, skypike, volley pistol, and volleygun are the same cost (because everything is) and is better in every way. There is no trade-off. If you choose the former you're just wrong. There is literally zero reason not to take it, so why is it even an option in the first place?
And again, there are many such units with these sorts of options in Age of Sigmar. The community at-large is perfectly a-okay with this, it's fine, because you're going to be picking the best options any ways. The bad options are for people who are fine with picking bad options.
You could make an aethermatic volley-gun 10 points and a light skyhook 15 points and in 90% of cases people would still pay the points for them because they're vital for the unit's role in-game.
AoS's sidegrades are like when you can pick between a spear or a sword for a unit - an option that's becoming increasingly rare as time goes on as the weapon gets rolled into "spears and swords" with one profile, because people always pick the optimal profile anyways. And even with the minor side-grade differences, there is always an optimal choice. This weapon is 2" range 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound and the other is 1" range, 3+ to hit, and 4+ to wound? Okay, I have easy access to +1 to hit, so spear is always correct. Oh, it's the season where models in base-to-base can fight over each other anyways, the sword is better now. etc etc etc
I sympathize with the people who picked options that were once good and are now bad. That sucks when that happens. But to suggest this new system is impossible to work with is just useless gnashing of teeth. The system works perfectly fine, as long as you work within it. People can make bad choices with their units even within a hyper-modular points system, let's not pretend AoS style/PL style points are uniquely terrible in any way.
There are units like this in 40K now, yes.
And there are others that are not by way of characters or other reasons. I played a game last night and found the flamers to feel a bit softer than they were in 9th, because I didn't have an Infernal Master and VotLW.
Rubric Marines w/ Warpflamers also can't benefit from Ensorcelled Infusion which chains with he detachment rule nor can they benefit from Sustained or Lethal instead. So in this scenario is seems appropriate for the cost to be equal. Yet at the same time Ahriman with +1 to wound on weapons that auto-hit and an overwatch that can affect the movement phase can be quite useful so there is choice to be had. You won't likely take multiple units -- unless you want to lean into using Cabal points for extra overwatch.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Nah. It's good advice. Especially considering the mess that we're witnessing. Maybe it could have been better worded, but it's still good advice. Especially considering that it isn't a "GW problem", but a "40k problem", as other GW rules writers seem to get the concept.
But the wording is the whole issue people are having. If the only thing an individual can say is "40k is trash, GW is trash, if you like 40k you're a shill, you should play X instead", then the message coming across is that the community of X is full of bitter ex-GW game players who will do nothing but complain about how bad GW is.
I considered 9th Age before checking various forums and seeing nothing but AoS/GW rage posts and no actual discussion about how the game was better or even good.
Edit: And no one has played 10th edition yet. So, how can it be "the game you like'?
The points came out yesterday, it's entirely reasonable for people to have played 10th by now.
Cool. Has anyone? Serious question.
And if the "tone" of the statement is the problem, then we're just splitting hairs. Welcome to the internet, I guess.
Well I've put together lists for my three armies now, and whilst at first I was concerned by the fixed unit sizes and lack of wargear costs, I think it might actually work just fine. I tend to go for min or max unit sizes with the best options anyway. I'll be playing a few games before I come to any final conclusions though.
It is a shame you can't have a psychic Chaos Knight other than an Abominant now, and it's also a shame the Stormraven doesn't have the assault ramp rule like the Land Raider. Still, I actually quite like the consolidation of Nemesis Force Weapons for GK. It means you can model what you want without it affecting the rules - I've always thought swords look cooler than hammers...
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm fine with 10th edition, there's like 95 things which are great
I challenge you to name them.
He can only name 50, or 100, as anything in between isn't allowed.
There are plenty of good things about the edition and even switching to powerlevel would have been...really annoying but not totally gamebreaking.
EXCEPT these goddam morons, presented with a points system for TODDLERS, managed to create the WORST factional balance 40k has seen outside 7th edition.
8th edition indexes had normal points and was FAR, FAR better balanced than this gak.
Eldar are busted out the arse (especially annoying because their faction ability is just the Sisters of Battle faction ability +100) Marines are EVEN STRONGER.
A couple of factions have hyper efficient spam builds that should do okay (nids, necrons, a few others)
and then some factions are in the absolute dumpster. Admech are probably the worse full army, relative to the field, in the history of 40k. DG are basically unplayable. Sisters of Battle can't create an 2000pt list that isn't completely dumpstered by a SINGLE wraithknight.
chaos0xomega wrote: I'm fine with 10th edition, there's like 95 things which are great
I challenge you to name them.
He can only name 50, or 100, as anything in between isn't allowed.
There are plenty of good things about the edition and even switching to powerlevel would have been...really annoying but not totally gamebreaking.
EXCEPT these goddam morons, presented with a points system for TODDLERS, managed to create the WORST factional balance 40k has seen outside 7th edition.
it is simply just the inconsistency that is a problem, and this being just the indices means some armies will use those rules till 11th
points for units only works fine as long as upgrades costs points and sidegrades are free
weapons being merged into 1 profile to make it easier in game and take out modelling problems is fine as long as it is for everyone
cutting down units or merge them is fine, as long as everyone has a similar amount of units to chose from
for now the big question is, will the fix for the poor armies happen before codex creep gets in, or not
It is possible to enjoy a thing that is objectively bad by the metrics used to evaluate a thing.
By all film analysis metrics, The Room is utter garbage. Character motivations make no sense, scenes which do nothing to advance the plot are repeated all over the place, the dialogue is awful, the performances are almost entirely terrible etc.
Yet it is still great fun to watch if you enjoy bad movies and like to riff on them with friends. That doesn't change the fact that The Room is a terrible movie.
GW makes awful games. Their rules are unwieldly and frequently do not even work as they are written, balance is frequently as accurate as a shotgun blast at a target half a kilometre away by a drunk child with astigmatism. That doesn't mean you cannot enjoy them, but it also doesn't mean that you won't have more fun with a better game.
Like, would anyone enjoy the game less if there were actual wargear choices with upsides and downsides? Where, from a game theory perspective, you would not be an idiot for not replacing your Commissars bolt pistol with a plasma pistol as there was an actual meaningful choice in there between the two weapons?
To use an example from my own army, the Tau. It costs the same amount of points for 3 crisis suits each with 1 Burst Cannon as it does for 3 Crisis suits who each have 3 Burst Cannons, +2 Wounds, and a 4+ invulnerable save. That is literally triple the firepower and a huge boost to their toughness (+50% wounds on each suit, plus the invulnerable). Any system which considers those two units equivalent in value is fundamentally broken at the very core of the basis of that assessment.
There is a big difference between saying "If you think the new edition is dreadful stop playing current 40k and play other games" and saying ""40k is trash, GW is trash, if you like 40k you're a shill, you should play X instead".
"Things will never improve if you let GW get away with treating you like an idiot" is sound advice and I already follow it, I have found every edition from 8th dreadful and I haven't played them or bought the bland codex that have become the norm. Oh, and for those who think they don't treat us like idiots let's compare the units that were cut out of 40k because it was very hard to balance them and the "very" hard work they have made with the datasheets and the points. These unit were clearly not cut to kneecap the department that has been making the 40k studio look bad for years, there is no space for office politics in GW.
And I will be happy when I get my copy of Leviathan next week, I only want the miniatures, the only thing still worth something in 40k for me apart from some scraps of lore, and expected nothing from the rules. I doubt I'm the only one with that attitude.
A problem I see with the current approach to points is: How much can you actually trust GW to keep the current loadouts legal?
We see it right now with Vanguard Veterans where a pair of lightning claws (iirc) is not a possible loadout anymore. Sucks to be you if you have your models like this, even though there are enough bits in the box to do it.
Who here has enough faith in GW to go out and buy, build and paint 30 Death Company Marines now with Jump packs, Power fists and Inferno pistols?
If you want to stick to WYSIWYG, I see it as a deeply problematic development. Even if this stays legal for the whole edition, it might already change again in ~3 years and then you are stuck with a lot of useless plastic.
For years GW have shown that they'll happily delete entire units.
Hell, as they've shown with Corsairs and R&H, they're happy to just delete entire armies on a whim.
Something something Forgeworld something something.
I get it, for those affected it might not make a difference. But "something from FW got discontinued" and "a current kit that GW is still producing with all the bits coming in the box and the loadout was legal for the past ~20 years" is a difference.
Having never played a game of pre-8th, I can't speak for their efficacy, but the older FW stuff always struck me as an expansion of the game rather than another game in of itself. Elysians seem particularly well-thought-out from their designer's commentary in Taros. I'd like for things to go back to that, and maybe they will, but the creative staff behind stuff like Corsairs and Krieg are either shifted or long gone.
For years GW have shown that they'll happily delete entire units.
Hell, as they've shown with Corsairs and R&H, they're happy to just delete entire armies on a whim.
Something something Forgeworld something something.
I get it, for those affected it might not make a difference. But "something from FW got discontinued" and "a current kit that GW is still producing with all the bits coming in the box and the loadout was legal for the past ~20 years" is a difference.
Something something you forgot that R&H were a thing in a campagin from mainline gw and that there virtually is no difference between gw and fw because it is ALL gw.
And this mindset of yours is preciscly why gw gets away with the things gw does.
Forgeworld is owned by GW, but not admitting that there is a difference between how units from FW have been handled not just by GW itself, but by the community as well, is disingenuous.
It sucks for you to have bought into an army that was discontinued right the edition after, I get it. But blaming me for anything is barking at the wrong tree.
I stopped buying once and playing even twice, when GW did something I didn't like. Try to let your anger out somewhere else or shut it.
a_typical_hero wrote: Forgeworld is owned by GW, but not admitting that there is a difference between how units from FW have been handled not just by GW itself, but by the community as well, is disingenuous.
It sucks for you to have bought into an army that was discontinued right the edition after, I get it. But blaming me for anything is barking at the wrong tree.
I stopped buying once and playing even twice, when GW did something I didn't like. Try to let your anger out somewhere else or shut it.
Read rule 1 .
You excuse the companies behaviour with an artificial differentiation.
Ironicaly differentiating fw from gw since 8th is not accurate even in a sub-divisional unit-rules-level especially since we know that the gw rules division has taken over 40k rules for FW models since 8th aswell.
So again Same company Same Division even, but sure go ahead , but don't expect to not get your behaviour called out on.
This thread needs to calm down. Okay its a new edition, it creates drama, excitement and endless gnashing of teeth whenever a new iteration comes out. However, everyone can and will discuss it within the rules of this site. Be polite, dont spam and stay on topic. If you cannot manage that then do not post or find your ability to post here removed.
Eldar won quite comfortably in end, but a lot of that was due to opponent only skimming rules and not playing to his strengths.
Couple of my own thoughts..
Don’t care about the points issues too much, I play casually and have been doing Crusade a lot anyway. There are some exceptions of course
The game was fun, a lot of nuances. Definitely different.
It’s not simpler, at all. That was a BSGW tagline.
Fire Prism needs a points increase
Fate dice should not be eligible for devastating wound weapons
Grey Knight 2+ saves are quite a big deal in reduced AP environment.
You run out of CPs fast!!
Overall, I had fun first time round. Will see if it continues
bullyboy wrote: Fate dice should not be eligible for devastating wound weapons
I was thinking that they should not count as a natural 6 if done through a farseer. So the ones you roll at the start could do, but it stops them getting quite so many.
bullyboy wrote: Fate dice should not be eligible for devastating wound weapons
I was thinking that they should not count as a natural 6 if done through a farseer. So the ones you roll at the start could do, but it stops them getting quite so many.
It's technically already supported by the existing rules. Critical hits or wounds require an unmodified roll, so all they need to do is add a line to clarify that whenever a fate dice is used it's considered a modified roll. Those results of six can then still be used to score an atuomatic hit or wound without triggering a disproportionate number of knock-on effects.
bullyboy wrote: Fate dice should not be eligible for devastating wound weapons
I was thinking that they should not count as a natural 6 if done through a farseer. So the ones you roll at the start could do, but it stops them getting quite so many.
It's technically already supported by the existing rules. Critical hits or wounds require an unmodified roll, so all they need to do is add a line to clarify that whenever a fate dice is used it's considered a modified roll. Those results of six can then still be used to score an atuomatic hit or wound without triggering a disproportionate number of knock-on effects.
Unfortunately for this idea, it isn't supported at all. The Rules :More Rules document has entries for 'treated as' dice rolls and states that rules take affect as if that value had been rolled. (it also has entries for 'counts as' and 'considered as,' which point to 'treated as')
Strands of fate uses 'counts as,' and reinforces that it works in its own text, so clearly they considered this and deliberately decided to do it. Its not an unintentional oops that slipped through (unlike all the close combat weapons that units can lose access to)
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.
Second game the BA player swapped out the JPDC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.
We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.
Second game the BA player swapped out the JPDC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.
We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.
Honestly, I think DC marines are being charged for their options, and assault marines are being charged for their ability to do mortal wounds outside the Fight sequence. It may well still be too much, but that's actually pretty big.
I suspect the problem with your first game is Desolation Marines. They're just unreasonable, and the solution isn't points. They just shouldn't have a two part gun. The solution is deleting the castellan launcher and just making the gun an alt fire weapon with superfrag and superkrak as the two options. That's honestly enough for a whole unit of 'more better' missile launchers.
I suppose what happened was they split the factions between authors to update from 9th to 10th.
The lazy dev just looked at the basic points per model and said okay, a unit of 10 costs that much x10. Creating a unit where any previously expensive upgrades are free.
The diligent dev looked at what the most expensive loadout for a unit was and set that for its base cost, so you're always paying for all the upgrades.
We've seen the same sort of thing where factions somehow fall into different tiers of design quality every single time a bunch of factions are made at once (Apocalypse, Warcry, Heresy...)
Played Eldar v Space Wolves twice yesterday. Decided to try some of the big offenders to see how big of a deal they are.
Wraithknight with a Farseer is bonkers. People are going to need indirect fire to get rid of the Farseer so the Eldar player can't farm 6s from their dice pool. I also think Fate dice will eventually be changed to "Modified dice" so it can't proc devastating wounds or that you can only use one Fate Dice per phase. In one turn a single wraithknight was throwing out 25 mortal wounds because I used Fate Dice. So basically the Wraithknight will kill everything it takes interest in. Almost feel like I am back in 6th.
Avatar is a power house, but can be played around. I actually think he is at the sweet spot of being correct. If he charges he sets the pace and kills. he can be whittled down by ranged fire.
Support weapons aren't as egregious as Wraithknights, and their very short range means the opponent can attempt to take it out before getting into range. When they hit they deal damage, but since they don't have an invuln, only toughness 6 and 4+ save they can be taken out.
Tried Autarch Wayleaper. He was "alright", but I also gave him the box version setup. He is nice to have, but I ended up switching him out.
Farseer is super nice and nobody should ever leave their home without one.
Eldrad was alright as well. His extra 3 Strands of Fate dice is super good, and his Doom is also nice, but overall I feel like I need to relearn him. I'd say he is appropriately costed and that it is the farseer turning dice to 6s that enables his abilities. Can't really imagine many Eldar lists without him though.
Solitaire. He is a beast and with Fate Dice he can survive like champ. he can be a very nice harasser and point capper. He did go into a large SW Terminator blob and survived 2 rounds of slapping before leaving combat with 1 wound. Since he only has 3 wounds I'd say that he is a pure glass cannon that gets killed if he fails a single save.
Dark Reapers. I took 2 x 5 Dark Reapers with Tempest gun. These were my work horses in doing the mission and dealing some damage. They do suffer from Indirect, but their range and damage at 75 points is super nice. Plus their hit can't be modified(unless you want to) so they are always hitting on 3s. I honestly kind of loved them and I feel like people are dismissing them too easily.
Fire Prism is in a nice place. They are easily killed with focused fire(and especially with oath of moment) so I am not sure if they really need a point adjustment. It wouldn't be a big point change I imagine.
I've been reading the rules around fate dice. I think the argument could be made that a farseer's 6 is a modified dice. The original roll counts as the unmodified roll, but the farseer is stated as changing the dice roll. I can see the counter argument, but both positions seem to have validity.
The wording of Strands of Fate calls out that:
"The dice that is being substituted is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Fate dice is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes)."
Branching Fates would come into play before this point in the sequence, so I don't think it messes with this being explicitly and unmodified dice roll - especially when "unmodified dice roll" is defined as "what you got on the dice before modifiers".
Dysartes wrote: The wording of Strands of Fate calls out that:
"The dice that is being substituted is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Fate dice is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes)."
Branching Fates would come into play before this point in the sequence, so I don't think it messes with this being explicitly and unmodified dice roll - especially when "unmodified dice roll" is defined as "what you got on the dice before modifiers".
Isn't that literally the exact same problem the 9th edition Votann had with their judgement token stuff before the revision? I.e. these abilities are way too powerful and we know it from precedence? Would make sense to revise them in the exact same way, i.e. it still is a six and an auto-hit, but does not proc other abilities.
Dysartes wrote: The wording of Strands of Fate calls out that:
"The dice that is being substituted is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Fate dice is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes)."
Branching Fates would come into play before this point in the sequence, so I don't think it messes with this being explicitly and unmodified dice roll - especially when "unmodified dice roll" is defined as "what you got on the dice before modifiers".
Isn't that literally the exact same problem the 9th edition Votann had with their judgement token stuff before the revision? I.e. these abilities are way too powerful and we know it from precedence? Would make sense to revise them in the exact same way, i.e. it still is a six and an auto-hit, but does not proc other abilities.
Yeah give it a month of so and they will probably do the first balance pass so some of the worst offenders might get looked at now that people are playing it.
Also sadly shows how little they actually learn form edition to edition...
lord_blackfang wrote: The diligent dev looked at what the most expensive loadout for a unit was and set that for its base cost, so you're always paying for all the upgrades.
No, that's still lazy. Just a different kind of lazy.
Mr Morden wrote: Also sadly shows how little they actually learn form edition to edition...
Like I've been saying since the 10th Ed reveals started: They don't iterate. They attempt to reinvent the wheel every time, learning nothing from what came before.
lord_blackfang wrote: I suppose what happened was they split the factions between authors to update from 9th to 10th.
The lazy dev just looked at the basic points per model and said okay, a unit of 10 costs that much x10. Creating a unit where any previously expensive upgrades are free.
The diligent dev looked at what the most expensive loadout for a unit was and set that for its base cost, so you're always paying for all the upgrades.
This is implausible because for example the Astra Militarium Index has both "lazy dev points" like the Infantry Squad and "diligent dev points" like the Leman Russ.
Mr Morden wrote: Also sadly shows how little they actually learn form edition to edition...
Like I've been saying since the 10th Ed reveals started: They don't iterate. They attempt to reinvent the wheel every time, learning nothing from what came before.
My bet is that the churn of developers is high. Means that there is no "tribal" knowledge to go back on.
"But they have Phil Kelly, Cruddace, and Stu!"
They are probably more managers now than active developers on the lower end of rules.
My bet is that the churn of developers is high. Means that there is no "tribal" knowledge to go back on.
Which if true, would still be insane. If you're hiring a supposedly professional games designer, they should be intimately acquainted with the NINE previous attempts are your ruleset.
How else are they going to punish units for the sins of prior editions if they don’t study the past? Those giant pendulum swings of the neft bat don’t happen all by themselves!
Mr Morden wrote: Also sadly shows how little they actually learn form edition to edition...
Like I've been saying since the 10th Ed reveals started: They don't iterate. They attempt to reinvent the wheel every time, learning nothing from what came before.
My bet is that the churn of developers is high. Means that there is no "tribal" knowledge to go back on.
"But they have Phil Kelly, Cruddace, and Stu!"
They are probably more managers now than active developers on the lower end of rules.
Does Phil Kelly even do rules anymore? I though he moved across to the lore team a while ago.
My bet is that the churn of developers is high. Means that there is no "tribal" knowledge to go back on.
Which if true, would still be insane. If you're hiring a supposedly professional games designer, they should be intimately acquainted with the NINE previous attempts are your ruleset.
That depends entirely on pay. If you are hiring fresh people because you don't want to pay proper wages you get what you pay for. We are also talking about a large ruleset where there is no sunsetting so people can easily be blindsided by rules interaction. Especially if the developers are fresh people.
I mean, GW is famously cheap when it comes to paying for stuff. I mean, there were developers who applied for the mobile app project and refused immediately when they were shown the wages. Don't expect that kind of company to attract high end talent for long.
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Annoyingly, Vanguard vets can't take both shields and plasma pistols, its an either or swap for the bolt pistol. Not that Vanguard are that good value now anyway tbh.
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.
Second game the BA player swapped out the JPDC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.
We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.
Honestly, I think DC marines are being charged for their options, and assault marines are being charged for their ability to do mortal wounds outside the Fight sequence. It may well still be too much, but that's actually pretty big.
I suspect the problem with your first game is Desolation Marines. They're just unreasonable, and the solution isn't points. They just shouldn't have a two part gun. The solution is deleting the castellan launcher and just making the gun an alt fire weapon with superfrag and superkrak as the two options. That's honestly enough for a whole unit of 'more better' missile launchers.
The 10 Sanguinary Guard that were destroyed in a single volley were 430 points. Then, add in Dante (which got shot afterwards in our game).
DC with Jump Packs were expensive (don't recall exactly) and had all the upgrades.
The two squads and two characters were @ 1000 points out of a 2000 point army.
Oath of the Moment plays a significant factor against expensive units like this. Desolation Marines did a lot of work both games but target selection for their indirect fire was less efficient facing an MSU/transport list.
After some tweaks, the BA army looked like a Primaris version of 3rd and/or 5th edition BA Rhino/Razorback rush supported by Predator tanks. What was old is new again I suppose
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.
Second game the BA player swapped out the JPDC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.
We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.
Honestly, I think DC marines are being charged for their options, and assault marines are being charged for their ability to do mortal wounds outside the Fight sequence. It may well still be too much, but that's actually pretty big.
I suspect the problem with your first game is Desolation Marines. They're just unreasonable, and the solution isn't points. They just shouldn't have a two part gun. The solution is deleting the castellan launcher and just making the gun an alt fire weapon with superfrag and superkrak as the two options. That's honestly enough for a whole unit of 'more better' missile launchers.
The 10 Sanguinary Guard that were destroyed in a single volley were 430 points. Then, add in Dante (which got shot afterwards in our game).
DC with Jump Packs were expensive (don't recall exactly) and had all the upgrades.
The two squads and two characters were @ 1000 points out of a 2000 point army.
Oath of the Moment plays a significant factor against expensive units like this. Desolation Marines did a lot of work both games but target selection for their indirect fire was less efficient facing an MSU/transport list.
After some tweaks, the BA army looked like a Primaris version of 3rd and/or 5th edition BA Rhino/Razorback rush supported by Predator tanks. What was old is new again I suppose
Whole squads armed with [Blast] weapons seem like they're problematic in this edition anyway - their sheer weight of fire is already on the high side, and if you manage to glom rerolls on them, or added abilities (Barbgaunts) they can get dominating very fast.
bullyboy wrote: Played a 1k game today, my Eldar cs Grey Knights.
...
It’s not simpler, at all. That was a BSGW tagline.
...
Overall, I had fun first time round. Will see if it continues
I assumed that might be the case. I think the 'simplicity' comes from just needing the datasheets for the units you field, plus about 4 pages of detachment rules that include a few strats. The rules are all to hand now rather than hunting through 20 pages of codex. Of course the disadvantage is that the units themselves have more unique rules (weapon profiles etc.), so is it harder to remember your opponent's rules?
Dysartes wrote: The wording of Strands of Fate calls out that:
"The dice that is being substituted is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Fate dice is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes)."
Branching Fates would come into play before this point in the sequence, so I don't think it messes with this being explicitly and unmodified dice roll - especially when "unmodified dice roll" is defined as "what you got on the dice before modifiers".
Isn't that literally the exact same problem the 9th edition Votann had with their judgement token stuff before the revision? I.e. these abilities are way too powerful and we know it from precedence? Would make sense to revise them in the exact same way, i.e. it still is a six and an auto-hit, but does not proc other abilities.
Yeah give it a month of so and they will probably do the first balance pass so some of the worst offenders might get looked at now that people are playing it.
Also sadly shows how little they actually learn from edition to edition...
There are 5 instances of Devastating Wounds with a Damage Characteristic above 3 in the Aeldari Index. Wraithcannons at D6 over three units, D-Cannon on the Support Battery at D6+2, and the Wraithknights Heavy wraithcannon at 2d6. Fix those interactions and I think the problem is handled.
It could be done by boosting the cost of those units or that of the Farseer as a guaranteed 6 is never unwelcome.
A better solution would be to pull back on Strands of Fate a bit by not allowing a unit to use it more than once per phase. As it currently stands, you can turn too many Hits into multiple d6s of Mortal Wounds via Devastating Wounds.
Dysartes wrote: The wording of Strands of Fate calls out that:
"The dice that is being substituted is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Fate dice is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes)."
Branching Fates would come into play before this point in the sequence, so I don't think it messes with this being explicitly and unmodified dice roll - especially when "unmodified dice roll" is defined as "what you got on the dice before modifiers".
Isn't that literally the exact same problem the 9th edition Votann had with their judgement token stuff before the revision? I.e. these abilities are way too powerful and we know it from precedence? Would make sense to revise them in the exact same way, i.e. it still is a six and an auto-hit, but does not proc other abilities.
Yeah give it a month of so and they will probably do the first balance pass so some of the worst offenders might get looked at now that people are playing it.
Also sadly shows how little they actually learn from edition to edition...
There are 5 instances of Devastating Wounds with a Damage Characteristic above 3 in the Aeldari Index. Wraithcannons at D6 over three units, D-Cannon on the Support Battery at D6+2, and the Wraithknights Heavy wraithcannon at 2d6. Fix those interactions and I think the problem is handled.
It could be done by boosting the cost of those units or that of the Farseer as a guaranteed 6 is never unwelcome.
A better solution would be to pull back on Strands of Fate a bit by not allowing a unit to use it more than once per phase. As it currently stands, you can turn too many Hits into multiple d6s of Mortal Wounds via Devastating Wounds.
Fixing the units by making them more expensive could work, but that has its own problems, mostly due to scaling with games at different sizes. You'd need to cost them aggressively (i.e. close to their actual value), but if the unit is good enough that still means it's a must-take in larger games and a never-take in smaller ones where the cost is prohibitive. And must-takes are often a sign of bad design. In my opinion, it would be wiser to fix the Strands of Fate ability, as that definitively solves the problem, is robust to scaling, and is also automatically future-proofed in the sense that the next combo that tries to break it can't come around if it is actually fixed at root level.
As an aside, Devastating Wounds seems to be the most problematic mechanic of this edition, so far most of the theorycrafted exploits we have seen seem to revolve around it. It seems to be just too strong, as it effectively skips two-and-a-half layers of defence at once, especially if you can game it with Anti-something by some means.
I do think devastating wounds is the problem child, but the biggest problems are interaction with [Anti] and dice substitution.
I don't think GW will give it up entirely, but if its changed to only on a natural 6 and doesn't trigger off [Anti], its a lot less oppressive. Happily there's some precedent for this already in the day 2 nerf to the Death Watch Hellfire Rounds stratagem.
The biggest problem is some armies are dependent on MW for their 'all-comers' toolbox (especially anti-armor), and Devastating Wounds is the primary (and in some cases, only) mechanism.
Only a new edition can inspire THIS much salt from Dakka. Seriously guys, it is still just a game. Man dollies on a table going 'pew! pew!' at each other. We can (and will) still have a lot of fun if we can focus on having it and put criticism in the background for a few hours.
The Anti and Devastating Wounds combo is a feature not a bug. Look at the instances where it exist and it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Haywire weapons doing Mortal Wounds to Vehicles is intended. Shieldbreaker Missiles versus Titanic is intentional. Thundercoil harpoon versus Monsters and Vehicles is intended. Even the humble Condemnor Blowgun is supposed to do Mortal Wounds to Psykers easily.
What they need to look out for are unintentional combos where you get add either Devastating Wounds to an Anti weapon or the reverse.
alextroy wrote: The Anti and Devastating Wounds combo is a feature not a bug. Look at the instances where it exist and it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Haywire weapons doing Mortal Wounds to Vehicles is intended. Shieldbreaker Missiles versus Titanic is intentional. Thundercoil harpoon versus Monsters and Vehicles is intended. Even the humble Condemnor Blowgun is supposed to do Mortal Wounds to Psykers easily.
What they need to look out for are unintentional combos where you get add either Devastating Wounds to an Anti weapon or the reverse.
Yes, i agree. The synergy is definitely intended, and the problematic cases seem to arise where you can either add Devastating Wounds on weapons that were not intended to have it (i.e. mostly high-ROF weapons, weapons with good Anti-X values, or Blast weapons) or conversely add Anti-X to stuff that already has DW baked in. Or, like in the Eldar case, manipulate the dice consistently to work in your favour and make it trigger when you want to.
bullyboy wrote: Does anyone have any clue how much the cards are going to cost? Knowing GW. I can see them being pretty pricy
I bought some 5x8 inch index cards (blank on both sides) at Office Max, 500 for US$6, so that. Plus however much the ink costs per page.
The cards in the files are 5x7.5 inches for some reason. It doesn't seem to be any of the standard European A5 or A6 sizes either so I have no idea why they picked that. My printer can't do borderless so there's about a 1/8-1/4 inch white border around it but otherwise they look fine.
Voss wrote: I do think devastating wounds is the problem child, but the biggest problems are interaction with [Anti] and dice substitution.
I don't think GW will give it up entirely, but if its changed to only on a natural 6 and doesn't trigger off [Anti], its a lot less oppressive. Happily there's some precedent for this already in the day 2 nerf to the Death Watch Hellfire Rounds stratagem.
The biggest problem is some armies are dependent on MW for their 'all-comers' toolbox (especially anti-armor), and Devastating Wounds is the primary (and in some cases, only) mechanism.
I Agree. Broadly there is not much about 10e i don't like but the prevalence of weapons with both anti-x AND devastating wounds i think is going to need addressing at some point. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with either the Anti-x rule or devastating wounds rule in isolation but when you give weapons the ability to inflict mortal wounds on less than a 6 to wound and effectively ignore both the targets toughness AND armour in one fell swoop it feels a bit much. Then layer on things like strands of fate where you can swap in a guaranteed 6 and still trigger these effects which just compounds the issue. Time will tell i guess.
Not sure why there’s all this discussion of nerfing points costs or changing baseline rules interactions. Just make Fate Dice count as a modified dice roll.
morganfreeman wrote: Not sure why there’s all this discussion of nerfing points costs or changing baseline rules interactions. Just make Fate Dice count as a modified dice roll.
Problem solved.
Fate dice are a particular problem and I agree some sort of cap on how many can be used per unit per phase and certainly having them not count as unmodified rolls would certainly fix that problem. There is still a broader issue bubbling away under the surface though with the way [anti] and [devastating wounds] interact. I may be wrong and time will tell. So far though it stands out to me as a likely problematic pairing.
a_typical_hero wrote: A problem I see with the current approach to points is: How much can you actually trust GW to keep the current loadouts legal?
We see it right now with Vanguard Veterans where a pair of lightning claws (iirc) is not a possible loadout anymore. Sucks to be you if you have your models like this, even though there are enough bits in the box to do it.
Who here has enough faith in GW to go out and buy, build and paint 30 Death Company Marines now with Jump packs, Power fists and Inferno pistols?
If you want to stick to WYSIWYG, I see it as a deeply problematic development. Even if this stays legal for the whole edition, it might already change again in ~3 years and then you are stuck with a lot of useless plastic.
100%. I lost all faith in that when they released the last CSM book. Unless someone wants to build the unit precisely like the instructions tell them, then I would assume at some point this edition, you'll be screwed over.
I agree that is a serious issue GW needs to get on top of, because I feel it directly impacts the appeal of the game/hobby.
I would love if they announced some sort of policy that they will stick to regardless of edition/army. Obviously it would take a solid 3-5 years to be worth trusting, but that it would take so long is an indication of how bad the problem is. [/wishlist]
The cards in the files are 5x7.5 inches for some reason. It doesn't seem to be any of the standard European A5 or A6 sizes either so I have no idea why they picked that. My printer can't do borderless so there's about a 1/8-1/4 inch white border around it but otherwise they look fine.
GW always makes their cards a weird size. The Blood Bowl and Necromunda cards, most of the Warhammer Quest cards...
NinthMusketeer wrote: Only a new edition can inspire THIS much salt from Dakka. Seriously guys, it is still just a game. Man dollies on a table going 'pew! pew!' at each other. We can (and will) still have a lot of fun if we can focus on having it and put criticism in the background for a few hours.
Its about a 5 000 dollar hobby investment for me, over the years. So not just a game.
Add to it a $1000 weekend a year for a tournament where I'm among the beer 'n pretzel people, rules affecting quality of fun had.
I want to turn your argument on its head. It is for us casual gamers that rules and some semblance balance is important. The competative crowd does not give a crap about the rule-set being lazy or a masterful effort, they are going to pay 2 play (win) and play their netlist anyway. And I wish them the best.
A few of the more mature ones may make some admission that "yeah, thats a bit silly" about the rule as the they synergize it to get rerollable rerolls on the rerolling, like they did with the 10 free rhinos for the gladius force. The power gamers enjoy the game no matter what. And good for them
Casual players prefer intuitive rules that mostly makes sense, which imo is why a shallow game like Mordheim has had such a revival imo, even it is damned unbalanced. Compare to 40k and the terrain rules of 9th alone
I gotta proxy the hell out of it, but at least everyone in each unit has the same loadout.
Played my first (of two) games today with my DA vs BA with 10 JP Death Company/Lemartes and Dante/10 Sanguinary Guard. I go first and fire 10 Desolation Marines Castellan Launchers and Vengor at the Death Company. With Oath of the Moment, Dev Doctrine (Gladius Detachment), and Bolter Discipline enhancement, 10 Death Company got picked up. Turn 2, rinse and repeat vs the Sanguinary Guard. We called the game bottom of turn 2.
Second game the BA player swapped out the JPDC and Sanginary Guard for assault elements in Impulsors and and additional Drop Pod. Game was much closer.
We are under the initial impression that jump pack Marines are over costed, especially considering how fly interacts with terrain. Hope your game fares better.
Yeah, I got creamed by turn 3 by a dude bringing marines with names I dont recognize, and they gunned my DC down. The 20 Vanguards were supposed to hold objectives, but got cleaned out too. Oh well, just to get started with 10th it was ok, I'm going to half heart the whole edition anyway
The poster asking if you would trust GW enough to actually model 30 marines with a special weapons loadout is raising an interesting question. My answer is of course not. The BA I played yesterday were part of an Archangel formation/detatchment from 7th (?) who got free power swords and more. Usually came up against gladius forces with a dozen free razobacks.
So I guess the answer is -no-. It is GWs business model to release rules that causes tinkering and disarray in the armies of the existing playerbase, only to repeat about every 18 months or so. I can see why fundamentalist Stillmanism has had a minor revival among some players, at least in fantasy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Only a new edition can inspire THIS much salt from Dakka. Seriously guys, it is still just a game. Man dollies on a table going 'pew! pew!' at each other. We can (and will) still have a lot of fun if we can focus on having it and put criticism in the background for a few hours.
But 40k is a serious game, played by serious people, who are too serious for petty concepts such as 'fun', why have fun when we can math hammer the system into oblivion!
You must have missed the memo.
In all honesty I think GW can not win, the player base complained the game was too simple, so GW added more and more to it, to make it more convoluted and appealing to the tournament crowd. End result we got 9th edition, which was largely called a bloated mess. So GW cut out a lot of the fat to make the game more streamlined and simple... which now gets called dumbed down.
Been playing 40k since 2nd edition, it has always had a very vocal and disgruntled fan base that seem to not like anything GW do.
Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.
I mean lets face it a lot of the complaints about GW making it more complex were things like how information was scatter shot through publications all over the place. Even within a publication - eg a codex - you had a lot of page flipping to get all the information or build a list. Then you add in the expansion books, updates, update documents and all and it was just messy.
And that's a huge issue if you're trying to make a game with lots of choices because you will get a lot of "this is too complicated" issues. However they might not relate to the actual complexity of the mechanics, just accessing all the information.
3rd and 4th ed I feel had good books. There were lots of weapon and upgrade choices, but the layout was logical and easy to follow.
Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.
3rd ed.
I feel 3rd was simple and unashamed of it. It played like an early 2000s game and was slightly ahead of its time. Later editions went back to being more like clunky 90s games imo.
Size and footprint of army is another deal. We're not really in skirmish territory anymore imo.
I for one prefer the easier points costs, and the "take whatever you want" system. I just feel it must be balanced or ironed out a bit. I also like the fixed unit sizes a lot. If we could just get rid of fliers and knights and go back to the larger table sizes, at least for some scenarios, I would feel we've made a return to a mere sleek and elegant 40k version with 10th.
Overread wrote: I mean lets face it a lot of the complaints about GW making it more complex were things like how information was scatter shot through publications all over the place. Even within a publication - eg a codex - you had a lot of page flipping to get all the information or build a list. Then you add in the expansion books, updates, update documents and all and it was just messy.
And that's a huge issue if you're trying to make a game with lots of choices because you will get a lot of "this is too complicated" issues. However they might not relate to the actual complexity of the mechanics, just accessing all the information.
3rd and 4th ed I feel had good books. There were lots of weapon and upgrade choices, but the layout was logical and easy to follow.
Mechanical, 40k has always been simple. However ot has a lot of things that become hard to keep track of and interact in odd ways. 9th too much to try to keep prominent in the mind. If 40k was someone's only hobby, then I am sure they would manage fine, but for other people who have a wide selection of hobbies ot made it neigh impossible to enjoy. Each time I went back to the game, there had been a drastic rules change that caught me, and made me feel like I couldn't play/enjoy the game.
This is part of the reason I have gone back to playing out of print editions if games, they arw a finished product, and are not going to be changed.
Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.
3rd ed.
I feel 3rd was simple and unashamed of it. It played like an early 2000s game and was slightly ahead of its time. Later editions went back to being more like clunky 90s games imo.
Size and footprint of army is another deal. We're not really in skirmish territory anymore imo.
I for one prefer the easier points costs, and the "take whatever you want" system. I just feel it must be balanced or ironed out a bit. I also like the fixed unit sizes a lot. If we could just get rid of fliers and knights and go back to the larger table sizes, at least for some scenarios, I would feel we've made a return to a mere sleek and elegant 40k version with 10th.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Quite telling how having a fun time isn't mentioned/talked about in criticism of the new points system, all about not having the best performance.
Personally I was a massive fan of 3rd edition using the army lists in the back of the book, that to me was the sweet spot. 10th seems to be invoking a lot of the ideas from that period, so I am exited.
Ah, 3rd edition, back when GW stores had a 'pistol amnesty' program where one could turn in no-longer legal plasma pistols off your assault marines and get free bolt pistols to replace them.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
As someone who's been to one locally hosted and very chill tournament in my entire 40k career...
I don't think I'll be playing 10th edition. Not right now, for sure. I'll follow the 40k news, I'll keep abreast of developments, but what I'm seeing just doesn't look fun.
There's some good stuff-morale is nice and meaningful, USRs returning is great and done reasonably well, the new weapon system has potential... But the overall game just doesn't appeal.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
I think they're trying to say when you have a casual like minded group with their own perceptions of what is "good" and what pushes the envelope too far, then this edition likely makes it simpler/easier for them. They were not fussed about stacking 6 auras with a 5 cp strat combo to one shot units anyway.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!
A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.
Roll the dice and have fun!
*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.
and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve
while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years
don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)
the imbalance and "how far can I get with this" is what attracts competitive players, not casual ones
a casual player does not challenge himself to win, they just have fun with the stuff they like but as soon as one of the players needs to play bad for the others to even have a chance unless they buy into stuff they don't want there is a problem
kodos wrote: and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve
while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years
don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)
Because as you said the casual player will have fun.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!
A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.
Roll the dice and have fun!
*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.
There's a difference between imbalanced, as-in, "Your list has 4% more mathematical efficiency than mine," and imbalance such as "We can tell who's gonna win before the game even starts."
Everyone has a different level for what's considered "Good enough" balance, but no one wants no balance at all. Games are best when they're close, and good balance helps achieve that.
always losing every single game without even a chance to win is only considered "fun" by very few people
people enjoy close games were both had a chance to win until the very end of it
but if you say casual players are the ones having fun playing games were they never have a chance winning, that is a very strange take as than everyone who plays to win is not casual any more
(so I guess the casual ones stop playing after 1st turn because non of them wants to win as this means no fun)
kodos wrote: and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve
while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years
don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)
Because as you said the casual player will have fun.
Why have we made winning the ultimate goal?
Because facing opponents who intentionally plays less than their ability is boring af, and is much closer to playtime with your GI joes than actually doing a tabletop wargame.
If the army they have are so-so in composition and has lots of crap units, I dont care, but I expect the guy to give me a challenge and play as well as he can.
Agreed. 10th seems to be an edition for the casual gamer and not the tournament player. So what if my models are not loaded out with the optimal load out, oh no I may run the risk of losing a game, and that would be terrible!
Again with this bizarre notion that game balance benefits competitive players and hinders casual players, when the reverse is true.
A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!
A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.
Roll the dice and have fun!
*far too many variables for the game designers to factor in. It isn't a closed system, but rather an open system so can not be balanced.
There's a difference between imbalanced, as-in, "Your list has 4% more mathematical efficiency than mine," and imbalance such as "We can tell who's gonna win before the game even starts."
Everyone has a different level for what's considered "Good enough" balance, but no one wants no balance at all. Games are best when they're close, and good balance helps achieve that.
Narrative play also helps achieve that, players don't always stick to the missions provided, but can make their own.
'Fancy those new Terminators you painted facing off against my small Tyranid force'
'Oh, could say their teleportation went wrong and they got stuck in the middle of a swarm'
'Exactly, now let's set the board up with loads of jungle terrain'.
'Could also have this unit of Scouts as a relief force sent to find the Terminators'
'OK, they arrive on turn... rolls a D6, 3. Turn 3 they arrive.'
'That is if my guys live that long!'
Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
stonehorse wrote: A game like 40k can never be balanced*, this fixation on balance is what gets in the way of having fun. It just comes across as 'I can't win due to things being unbalanced, there for the game is bad'. Now this doesn't mean we abandon an attempt at trying to make things reasonable, as long as it is done knowing the game can not be totally balanced. 40k like the setting, is a chaotic mess, so best to just go with it, enjoy your games, and the worst that'll happen is you may end up losing a few games... Big whoop!
There is losing a game that was hard fought and tense till the end and there is losing against release week Dhrukari, AdMech, Orks, Custodes, Eldar. The latter makes you question why you bother at all with showing up to a game. 40k can and could be a hell of a lot more balanced than it was during its past 9 editions. It is just not a priority for GW. And I agree that a bad balance affects casual players more for the stated reasons.
stonehorse wrote: A lot of wargames are imbalanced, which is part of the appeal, it is a 'how can I fare in this situation?', and it can create a great sense of achievement when you do manage to over come what seemed like an unwinnable situation.
40k is not a wargame where you replay a famous battle with (semi) set forces on each side.You are free to play it like that, but the core of the game sees two equal armies duking it out. That's why both players use the same amount of points to muster an army.
The casual player is one that would happily take part in a 'last stand' type mission, where they are hopelessly outnumbered with no chance of victory, and the fun comes from seeing how well they do before being wiped out. The old Ork's Drift routine.
kodos wrote: and yet the tournament player does not care of his army is still playable, he just buys a new one or proxy the units he needs to be competitve
while the casual player has fun losing all his games because he wants to keep the units he like with the army he build up over years
don't really see how this benefits the casual player unless by accident they have now the strong army (and than they won't have fun anyway because they get called out for playing it)
Because as you said the casual player will have fun.
Why have we made winning the ultimate goal?
Because facing opponents who intentionally plays less than their ability is boring af, and is much closer to playtime with your GI joes than actually doing a tabletop wargame.
If the army they have are so-so in composition and has lots of crap units, I dont care, but I expect the guy to give me a challenge and play as well as he can.
If you think 40K is a wargame, you are deeply mistaken.
It is a miniatures game, the rules exist to sell wonderful miniatures.
Most wargames don't use miniatures, but rather tokens, or wooden cubes.
Shakalooloo wrote: The casual player is one that would happily take part in a 'last stand' type mission, where they are hopelessly outnumbered with no chance of victory, and the fun comes from seeing how well they do before being wiped out. The old Ork's Drift routine.
Thing is, you can do these types of game just as well if the 'base' version of the game is balanced (as far as it can be) or at least aims at being balanced. It's possible to play un-balanced scenarios with roughly balanced games, but the reverse is not true. And of course there are all sorts of cases, like specific missions, where one side has a comparative advantage that is not reflected in their e.g. points costs, but then again that's a specific example while we're mostly speaking averages here.
I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
but there is no other game that has that level of imbalance so they won't have any fun playing that
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
but there is no other game that has that level of imbalance so they won't have any fun playing that
Anyone that's good at a game understands that relative balance is what make competitive play interesting. It's why people have played chess for hundres of years.
It makes sense that that idea would be outside of your experiences, though.
ERJAK wrote: It makes sense that that idea would be outside of your experiences, though.
so you agree with stonehorse here that 40k is played because it is so bad as this is the only way competitive players can take the challenge and casual players can have fun?
but yes I would say that the competitive 40k players won't have much fun with chess as there are a lot of things missing from chess you get with 40k, like chasing the meta or find broken lists
and people who enjoy those things will call 40k the best game ever while everything that is better balanced is called boring and not deep enough
bullyboy wrote: Simply fix Fate Dice as one per unit per phase.
There's several ways GW could FAQ Fate dice to tone it down.
Once per phase could work, but I honestly feel that wouldn't fix the main issue if using 6s (whether from the initial rolls or subbed from a Farseer) to trigger DevWounds.
I think a better way is to treat Fate Dice as a Modified dice. That way they can't be used to trigger DevWounds, Sustained hits or Lethal hits.
You'd still be able to use Fate Dice for crucial rolls as intended, but would take away the ability to "game" those abilities that weren't intended to be guarantees.
You could still use Fafe Dice for 6s on damage rolls when the NATURAL 6s to wound give DevWounds, but would still need luck to get that first 6
Galef wrote: there's several ways GW could FAQ Fate dice to tone it down.
Once per phase could work, but I honestly feel that wouldn't fix the main issue if using 6s (whether from the initial rolls or subbed from a Farseer) to trigger DevWounds.
I think a better way is to treat Fate Dice as a Modified dice. That way they can't be used to trigger DevWounds, Sustained hits or Lethal hits.
You'd still be able to use Fate Dice for crucial rolls as intended, but would take away the ability to "game" those abilities that weren't intended to be guarantees.
You could still use Fafe Dice for 6s on damage rolls when the NATURAL 6s to wound give DevWounds, but would still need luck to get that first 6
-
GW could (and probably should) do both.
They could then also change the reroll of a hit and wound to one or the other.
And then review the points. There's an army called... Ad Mech, that I think provide a fair baseline.
In the past 15 years I have played more games of Turnip28 than I have 40k. Same for Frostgrave, Forbidden Psalm, This is Not a Test, One Page Rules, Monsterpocalyse, Dystopian Wars and a slew of others I'm forgetting.
Please try to tell me again that the problem is simply that I'm not casual enough to enjoy this new version of 40k where tourney grinders find a 75 mortal wound combo on their first pass of the datacards and some people are stuck with models worth half their points cost because they glued the wrong bits on
So you agree with stonehorse here that 40k is played because it is so bad as this is the only way competitive players can take the challenge and casual players can have fun?
What are you even on about at this point?
Do you honestly think 40k is only played because people find it to be a bad system? Nothing to do with the extensive lore, the settings the wonderful miniatures, etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: In the past 15 years I have played more games of Turnip28 than I have 40k. Same for Frostgrave, Forbidden Psalm, This is Not a Test, One Page Rules, Monsterpocalyse, Dystopian Wars and a slew of others I'm forgetting.
Please try to tell me again that I'm not casual enough to enjoy this new version of 40k where tourney grinders find a 75 mortal wound combo on their first pass of the datacards and some people are stuck with models worth half their points cost because they glued the wrong bits on
No such thing as gluing on the wrong bits, as soon as someone buys the model, they can do with it as they like. Some people prefer to build their models for what they think looks best, and for variety. It is an easier life than building models to follow an ever changing meta. Editions/rules come and go, but models stay together, unless the glue is a bit shoddy and the model isn't looked after properly.
If you think 40K is a wargame, you are deeply mistaken.
It is a miniatures game, the rules exist to sell wonderful miniatures.
Most wargames don't use miniatures, but rather tokens, or wooden cubes.
40K is the very definition of a tabletop minitature wargame. Take the wargaming part out and see what happens.
It is not a wargame, tabletop miniatures game, most certainly. But far from a wargame. The two miniature games that GW have made that came close to being what you describe are Warmaster and Epic 40,000... both of which were unpopular with GW's fan base.
JNAProductions wrote: I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.
No, no, I have it on good authority that 40k players don't want customisation. It just confuses them. Same with basic maths. And really any choice at all.
Did you know that 40k players are so inept that they would frequently place characters with unapproved units?
Thus, our benevolent overlords at GW have spared us from choices like wargear, psychic powers, squad sizes, wargear, character/unit pairings etc. so that we can't make incorrect decisions.
So just get out your wallet and start showing your appreciation.
So you agree with stonehorse here that 40k is played because it is so bad as this is the only way competitive players can take the challenge and casual players can have fun?
What are you even on about at this point?
Do you honestly think 40k is only played because people find it to be a bad system? Nothing to do with the extensive lore, the settings the wonderful miniatures, etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: In the past 15 years I have played more games of Turnip28 than I have 40k. Same for Frostgrave, Forbidden Psalm, This is Not a Test, One Page Rules, Monsterpocalyse, Dystopian Wars and a slew of others I'm forgetting.
Please try to tell me again that I'm not casual enough to enjoy this new version of 40k where tourney grinders find a 75 mortal wound combo on their first pass of the datacards and some people are stuck with models worth half their points cost because they glued the wrong bits on
No such thing as gluing on the wrong bits, as soon as someone buys the model, they can do with it as they like. Some people prefer to build their models for what they think looks best, and for variety. It is an easier life than building models to follow an ever changing meta. Editions/rules come and go, but models stay together, unless the glue is a bit shoddy and the model isn't looked after properly.
If you think 40K is a wargame, you are deeply mistaken.
It is a miniatures game, the rules exist to sell wonderful miniatures.
Most wargames don't use miniatures, but rather tokens, or wooden cubes.
40K is the very definition of a tabletop minitature wargame. Take the wargaming part out and see what happens.
It is not a wargame, tabletop miniatures game, most certainly. But far from a wargame. The two miniature games that GW have made that came close to being what you describe are Warmaster and Epic 40,000... both of which were unpopular with GW's fan base.
My feelings about the grinding, endless discourse at hand aside, that last set of statements seem myopic to me.
So you agree with stonehorse here that 40k is played because it is so bad as this is the only way competitive players can take the challenge and casual players can have fun?
What are you even on about at this point?
Do you honestly think 40k is only played because people find it to be a bad system? Nothing to do with the extensive lore, the settings the wonderful miniatures, etc?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: In the past 15 years I have played more games of Turnip28 than I have 40k. Same for Frostgrave, Forbidden Psalm, This is Not a Test, One Page Rules, Monsterpocalyse, Dystopian Wars and a slew of others I'm forgetting.
Please try to tell me again that I'm not casual enough to enjoy this new version of 40k where tourney grinders find a 75 mortal wound combo on their first pass of the datacards and some people are stuck with models worth half their points cost because they glued the wrong bits on
No such thing as gluing on the wrong bits, as soon as someone buys the model, they can do with it as they like. Some people prefer to build their models for what they think looks best, and for variety. It is an easier life than building models to follow an ever changing meta. Editions/rules come and go, but models stay together, unless the glue is a bit shoddy and the model isn't looked after properly.
The new rules make ‘glued the wrong bits on’ much more of an issue then before.
Before if you didn’t take every option you could, or took something suboptimal, then you at least got a points discount you could put into something else. If you were playing a causal game rather than ultra meta then that was fine, doesn’t need to be super optimal but is hopefully roughly balanced.
Now if you don’t take the best thing, or heaven forbid have upgrades you didn’t take, then you’re effectively playing with a massive points deficit and that feels bad.
You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
Prometheum5 wrote: You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
And every single one of those ways benefits from models being costed appropriate to their ability.
Prometheum5 wrote: You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
Feels to me like the new points system has taken the all-too-common occurrence of being saddled with an underpowered army and, rather than it arising from codex creep, instead baked it into your wargear choices with no hope of reprieve.
My buddies and I will probably approach the 'your army is 2000pts on paper but we all know it's worth less than that' issue the same way in 10th that we did in prior editions, balancing it out ourselves.
It just somehow feels insulting for GW to say that this is their intent, let alone that this is a good thing and an improvement over the terrible burden of elementary school arithmetic.
Played a game of 40k, 1000pts of Necrons vs Grey Knights. I could only barely kill his guys, slowly whittling stuff down. Meanwhile he killed my guys off in impressive droves, but never quite enough to finish off a unit and then they all just came back. Ended the game with no one dead and two wounds on my Command Barge, he lost one five man unit and had a half dead Dreadknight. Most importantly I scored max 50 primary points to his 12 and a failed Gambit. We didn’t track secondaries very well because someone else had been using that part of the deck. New Reanimation Protocols are Crazy good on Warriors.
There's a lot of discussion about triggering devastating wounds with fate dice. On the face of it, I agree it looks like it could be a big problem but in the context of a actual games being played, is it as big an issue as it looks?
Most (not all) Eldar units fall over in a stiff breeze, so it may just be the case that both armies annihilate eachother.
Has anybody got any links to Eldar battle reports?
There are already plenty of battle reports with eldar on youtube. I've only (partially) watched one of these so I'm not sure how much fate dice affected the games.
Mchagen wrote: There are already plenty of battle reports with eldar on youtube. I've only (partially) watched one of these so I'm not sure how much fate dice affected the games.
1. Didn't bring Dcannons on the Wraithknight, still nearly tabled his opponent and lost basically nothing. That said, marine list was ass. Eldar Win. 2. Eldar list was a hodge podge with only Eldrad and the Fire Prisms being big threats. Rerolled fate dice down to 13, ended up with 3 sixes and terrible dice otherwise. Points were close but the GK player had barely any models left with most of the Eldar army still on the table. Eldar win. 3. Same sort of hodge-podgey eldar list with Eldrad. CSM list just went for a bunch of toughish bodies. Fate dice were 4 sixes and decent otherwise. Eldar lost and lost most of the army, but still scored very well. 4. Pretty strong looking Marine list (desolation marines) into Eldar with max platforms, a DCannon Knight, and some Wave Serpents. Both lists seems solid, though not totally optimised. I would actually favor marines here because the Eldar player has a lot of Infantry that Deslation Marines are going to eat and doesn't have a great answer for the Dreads without all his 6s on the fate dice.. Three 6s for Fate dice. Eldar win by 1 point. Lost more units (Desolation Marines). Both armies are strong, so not really surprised at the close match. 5. Eldar list had Dcannons and Prism, but was otherwise most just a pile of stuff. Knights were knights. Preceptor, Warden, otherone, Little guys.Knights win by 1pt.
So 2 stomps, 1 close win, and 2 close losses against other factions that are considered pretty solid.
Not sure if you can read anything into these either way, honestly. All players were mostly having a laugh, lists weren't terrible but only dipped their toes into degenerate (both Eldar and the opponents), also didn't play any of the dogwater factions. All 5 games saw big contibutions from fate dice, but it kind of felt like they either forgot about them or pretended to forget about them sometimes.
simply just using your own arguments for why it is good for casual players that the rules are bad, to show that those make no sense
so fine that you realised that people play 40k despite the rules and not because of it, so defending bad rules makes no sense as no one benefits from it except GW
simply just using your own arguments for why it is good for casual players that the rules are bad, to show that those make no sense
so fine that you realised that people play 40k despite the rules and not because of it, so defending bad rules makes no sense as no one benefits from it except GW
Shakalooloo wrote: The casual player is one that would happily take part in a 'last stand' type mission, where they are hopelessly outnumbered with no chance of victory, and the fun comes from seeing how well they do before being wiped out. The old Ork's Drift routine.
Some of my fondest memories were using my praetorian IG holding out in the Gorkamorka fortress vs endless waves of orks.
Crusade for me is not essential to buy as book, most gamers can make their own rules up.
I wonder how GW got the idea that players don't like doing points calculations? It's part of the fun of making an army list. It's painful of you have to have multiple books open to do it, but working through a single codex to come up with a list is quite enjoyable. And finding the points to squeeze in those extra items and upgrades is definitely part of the enjoyment. I can see how people who want a quick game would like to be able to slam a list together fast, but otherwise this really didn't seem necessary. Seems to me that they tried to merge power levels and points values, and possibly ended up with the worst of both worlds. Or it's just change for the sake of change, which is probably the product of their absurdly fast edition cycle.
Strangely enough, I had a feeling that they might be headed in the direction of even more streamlined army list construction, and simplified my Ork army into units that largely seem to track what they've done. But as I've now switched to HH, where (mercifully) everything moves much more slowly, I'm not sure if it will matter. I just hope HH sticks to its pre-8th Edition roots.
Can someone explain to me the balancing of vehicles? Even the scout sentinel and sentinel have 3+ 2+ armour saves, so I guess most vehicles have high armour and the differing value for vehicles will mainly be toughness/wounds?
RustyNumber wrote: Can someone explain to me the balancing of vehicles? Even the scout sentinel and sentinel have 3+ 2+ armour saves, so I guess most vehicles have high armour and the differing value for vehicles will mainly be toughness/wounds?
You see the armor value represents one part of the armoredness of a tank. The really important stat is the increased T ceiling with the wound count.
in the past we could do that with the wounds and AV what we now need 3 stats for. Theoretically the later solution increases posibility for finetuning, but only if the people involved actually USE the spread of stats. Hence the wierdness you brought up with the SV being so close and so good on sentinels, traditionally not very tanky units.
IoW, on paper a 3 step modifyable "tank" toughness system is a good idea but only if you actually have the designers that have the overall restraint and awareness over multiple factions for it to be made to work.
Mchagen wrote: There are already plenty of battle reports with eldar on youtube. I've only (partially) watched one of these so I'm not sure how much fate dice affected the games.
1. Didn't bring Dcannons on the Wraithknight, still nearly tabled his opponent and lost basically nothing. That said, marine list was ass. Eldar Win.
2. Eldar list was a hodge podge with only Eldrad and the Fire Prisms being big threats. Rerolled fate dice down to 13, ended up with 3 sixes and terrible dice otherwise. Points were close but the GK player had barely any models left with most of the Eldar army still on the table. Eldar win.
3. Same sort of hodge-podgey eldar list with Eldrad. CSM list just went for a bunch of toughish bodies. Fate dice were 4 sixes and decent otherwise. Eldar lost and lost most of the army, but still scored very well.
4. Pretty strong looking Marine list (desolation marines) into Eldar with max platforms, a DCannon Knight, and some Wave Serpents. Both lists seems solid, though not totally optimised. I would actually favor marines here because the Eldar player has a lot of Infantry that Deslation Marines are going to eat and doesn't have a great answer for the Dreads without all his 6s on the fate dice.. Three 6s for Fate dice. Eldar win by 1 point. Lost more units (Desolation Marines). Both armies are strong, so not really surprised at the close match.
5. Eldar list had Dcannons and Prism, but was otherwise most just a pile of stuff. Knights were knights. Preceptor, Warden, otherone, Little guys.Knights win by 1pt.
So 2 stomps, 1 close win, and 2 close losses against other factions that are considered pretty solid.
Not sure if you can read anything into these either way, honestly. All players were mostly having a laugh, lists weren't terrible but only dipped their toes into degenerate (both Eldar and the opponents), also didn't play any of the dogwater factions. All 5 games saw big contibutions from fate dice, but it kind of felt like they either forgot about them or pretended to forget about them sometimes.
Thanks for the links and the summary. I'll give those a watch over this week. I suppose the important thing is how those fate dice were used, or could have been used. If, as you say, they forgot about them when they could have been used, that might have altered the outcome of those games.
My feeling is, you'll get 2 or 3 sixes most of the time, because you'll be rolling fewer and fewer dice even if you want to fish. Eldrad may give you one more. Anything else is going to have to come from rerolls of existing dice or the additional dice you can generate, so maybe one or two more. I'm working on the basis that you'll get 6 on average, even if you work for it. Of course you might spike sometimes and get 10 or more and then your opponent is in for a world of pain.
The half dozen sixes that I think you'll get could swing big moments but I'm not convinced they'll be oppressive however I think it's difficult to judge at this early stage. I think a lot will depend on whether you can get enough fate dice manipulation combined with big devastating wounds output and still have enough left to have a good objective game to get the victory points. Some of the armies in those reports are really odd looking and I'm not sure how they cope with a big horde. A lot will depend how the meta shakes out and devastating wounds looks like it will shape the meta.
One of my big concerns for this edition is the spamable number of precision shots. There seem to be a large number of ways to get precision. I initially thought they'd trigger only on crits, but it's on any hit. Rangers with Illic, corsairs and deathmarks all look rather scary for the average character. Corsairs even get a wraith cannon with precision for some lovely mortal wound sniping
RustyNumber wrote: Can someone explain to me the balancing of vehicles? Even the scout sentinel and sentinel have 3+ 2+ armour saves, so I guess most vehicles have high armour and the differing value for vehicles will mainly be toughness/wounds?
You see the armor value represents one part of the armoredness of a tank. The really important stat is the increased T ceiling with the wound count.
in the past we could do that with the wounds and AV what we now need 3 stats for. Theoretically the later solution increases posibility for finetuning, but only if the people involved actually USE the spread of stats. Hence the wierdness you brought up with the SV being so close and so good on sentinels, traditionally not very tanky units.
IoW, on paper a 3 step modifyable "tank" toughness system is a good idea but only if you actually have the designers that have the overall restraint and awareness over multiple factions for it to be made to work.
Huh thanks, so it seems like armour value is now based around an infantry scale, and thus almost any vehicle is 'ard as in comparison.
RustyNumber wrote: Can someone explain to me the balancing of vehicles? Even the scout sentinel and sentinel have 3+ 2+ armour saves, so I guess most vehicles have high armour and the differing value for vehicles will mainly be toughness/wounds?
You see the armor value represents one part of the armoredness of a tank. The really important stat is the increased T ceiling with the wound count.
in the past we could do that with the wounds and AV what we now need 3 stats for. Theoretically the later solution increases posibility for finetuning, but only if the people involved actually USE the spread of stats. Hence the wierdness you brought up with the SV being so close and so good on sentinels, traditionally not very tanky units.
IoW, on paper a 3 step modifyable "tank" toughness system is a good idea but only if you actually have the designers that have the overall restraint and awareness over multiple factions for it to be made to work.
Amrou saves make sense but yeah the light scout vehicles should be 4+ or more often 5+ Armour save - we did have the awful system in earlier editions where monsters and pretend monsters like Tau and Eldar vehiclces benefited from Armour saves but vehicles did not.
Snord wrote: I wonder how GW got the idea that players don't like doing points calculations?
GW does not like it as it uses up a lot of resources for no gain (people play the game anyway).
if they could they would cut points all together but that failed so they took the middle ground with Powerlevel and you got an Edition with both to get used to the concept
but marketing speech won't advertise it as "we don't want to do it" but always as something the people demanded and/or benefit from it
Justyn wrote: Why the feth are those bundles? So we can force the Eldar player who doesn't happen to know a Tau player to waste money?
I guess they just made bundles of equal size so all can have the same price and they don't need to keep track of different stocks
similar as the Index books in 8th were bundles of similar size
which also means all Xenos combined have a similar number of units as all Space Marines combined
RustyNumber wrote: Can someone explain to me the balancing of vehicles? Even the scout sentinel and sentinel have 3+ 2+ armour saves, so I guess most vehicles have high armour and the differing value for vehicles will mainly be toughness/wounds?
You see the armor value represents one part of the armoredness of a tank. The really important stat is the increased T ceiling with the wound count.
in the past we could do that with the wounds and AV what we now need 3 stats for. Theoretically the later solution increases posibility for finetuning, but only if the people involved actually USE the spread of stats. Hence the wierdness you brought up with the SV being so close and so good on sentinels, traditionally not very tanky units.
IoW, on paper a 3 step modifyable "tank" toughness system is a good idea but only if you actually have the designers that have the overall restraint and awareness over multiple factions for it to be made to work.
Amrou saves make sense but yeah the light scout vehicles should be 4+ or more often 5+ Armour save - we did have the awful system in earlier editions where monsters and pretend monsters like Tau and Eldar vehiclces benefited from Armour saves but vehicles did not.
Incidentally the issues of the old system is the same as the issue with the new system.
Designers that have neither restraint nor awareness. MC's were BS i agree in their untold advantages over vehicles and clear vehicles being marked as MC because ..but i'd rather go back to the old system instead of the new system which since it's birth has the core issue with the wounding table AND no restraint at all once again on the designerfront.
simply just using your own arguments for why it is good for casual players that the rules are bad, to show that those make no sense
so fine that you realised that people play 40k despite the rules and not because of it, so defending bad rules makes no sense as no one benefits from it except GW
That would be correct if what you used was anything like my argument.
I'm not the one saying the rules are bad, so your point would only work if I said the rules are bad, as I haven't said that, your point doesn't work.
I don't know how many other ways I can explain this.
Shakalooloo wrote: The casual player is one that would happily take part in a 'last stand' type mission, where they are hopelessly outnumbered with no chance of victory, and the fun comes from seeing how well they do before being wiped out. The old Ork's Drift routine.
Some of my fondest memories were using my praetorian IG holding out in the Gorkamorka fortress vs endless waves of orks.
Crusade for me is not essential to buy as book, most gamers can make their own rules up.
Crusade is not something I am familiar with, but if it leans into narrative missions like the one you mention playing, I am all for that.
Prometheum5 wrote: You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
And every single one is helped by having good balance as the starting point. It's much easier to get something approaching a good asymmetric scenario first time if the game is more balanced.
More importantly, the vast, vast majority of games are some kind of roughly equal points battle, whether that's cutthroat tournament games, club pickup games, garagehammer or Crusade. They all benefit massively from good balance. Being from a large university city a lot of my opponents are students. They tend to have older armies that need refreshing for a new edition or they pick up start collections and build from there. I've seen with my own eyes what happens when people start to play the game and one picks the overpowered faction while the other picks the underpowered one, with absolutely no knowledge of which one is which at the time. You can see the frustration from the person playing the underpowered faction as they struggle to get anywhere near a win. That's especially true when they build what should be a fairly normal force of, say, Fire Warriors, a Crisis Team, some Kroot and a couple of Devilfish. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions.
These are players who have no intention of playing competitive 40k at tournaments. They don't follow the meta and study statistics about which armies or units are good or bad. They just want an entertaining game of toy soldiers with forces representative of the fluff for their faction. Bad balance is more of a problem for casual players, not less.
Why GW can't just do an all in one app with all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc and provide it at normal price or free, like pretty much every other games company is beyond me.
I think this is being misinterpreted. These are bundles of 10 card packs sold to retailers at around £67-£75, with the RRP per pack being £12-£13.
It's not clear right now what exactly these bundles contain. The only clue is that the SM bundle weighs twice as much as the Imperium one, implying it contains far more cards.
One possibility is that is 5 x generic SM packs, plus 1 each BA,DA,BT,SW,DW. For the others... who knows? We might have to wait until Friday for confirmation.
Sunno wrote: Why GW can't just do an all in one app with all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc and provide it at normal price or free, like pretty much every other games company is beyond me.
Sunno wrote: Why GW can't just do an all in one app with all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc and provide it at normal price or free, like pretty much every other games company is beyond me.
If any of it requires the subscription its a hard pass from me. I detest subscriptions in general. A subscription to do basic math, that I will probably have to own every codex I want to use it for, double hard pass. Fortunately there are alternatives. And with the ultra stupid lack of choices the math is going to be very easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally the issues of the old system is the same as the issue with the new system.
Designers that have neither restraint nor awareness. MC's were BS i agree in their untold advantages over vehicles and clear vehicles being marked as MC because ..but i'd rather go back to the old system instead of the new system which since it's birth has the core issue with the wounding table AND no restraint at all once again on the designerfront.
I might be missing something, but it certainly seems like this problem is back. With Tyrannid MC being much cheaper than equivalent SM Dreads. Again I could be wrong. But looking at the statblocks that seems to be the way it is.
stonehorse wrote: Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.
It also means the game is more about fun and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.
This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.
But 40k is a serious game, played by serious people, who are too serious for petty concepts such as 'fun', why have fun when we can math hammer the system into oblivion!
I'm not the one saying the rules are bad, so your point would only work if I said the rules are bad, as I haven't said that, your point doesn't work.
No, you said that casual players need bad rules to have fun because good rules are only for competitive mathhammer players and make having fun impossible while 10th puts back the fun into the game because of its imbalance and inconstancy
I call 10th in its current form bad, simply for the inconsistency in design that we have as a reset should be done to get everything on the same level again and not to just make previous rules invalid (for everything the Indices do a simple Errata for the previous Codex would have done the same)
an casual players don't benefit at all from it while competitive players just don't care (because they just play the strongest build anyway)
and having upgrades not costing points but being including is making mathhammer much more important so you are not playing against a force that is worth double the points
not like we had this thing with free upgrades already in 7th and I remember how the casual players all say that free-upgrade 7th was the most fun version of the game
Prometheum5 wrote: You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
And every single one is helped by having good balance as the starting point. It's much easier to get something approaching a good asymmetric scenario first time if the game is more balanced.
More importantly, the vast, vast majority of games are some kind of roughly equal points battle, whether that's cutthroat tournament games, club pickup games, garagehammer or Crusade. They all benefit massively from good balance. Being from a large university city a lot of my opponents are students. They tend to have older armies that need refreshing for a new edition or they pick up start collections and build from there. I've seen with my own eyes what happens when people start to play the game and one picks the overpowered faction while the other picks the underpowered one, with absolutely no knowledge of which one is which at the time. You can see the frustration from the person playing the underpowered faction as they struggle to get anywhere near a win. That's especially true when they build what should be a fairly normal force of, say, Fire Warriors, a Crisis Team, some Kroot and a couple of Devilfish. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions.
These are players who have no intention of playing competitive 40k at tournaments. They don't follow the meta and study statistics about which armies or units are good or bad. They just want an entertaining game of toy soldiers with forces representative of the fluff for their faction. Bad balance is more of a problem for casual players, not less.
That is putting the cart in front of the horse. The game (like any game) is played to have fun. If one can only obtain fun from winning, then they need to reevaluate a few things. Sure winning is nice and makes for a good feeling, but essentially this is a game of make belief, the points are completely made up, and more a rough approximation of a units ability. The game designers have no idea what players are going to do with the game once it is out in the wild, terrain and force building are not always going to match what GW designers use, and it never can as there is simply to much to factor in. Even the playing a game with the same players, same forces, same terrain, and same missions will be completely different.
If a player finds that they are getting creamed so hard on a regular basis, to the point of not enjoying the game, it might be an idea to have a word with their gaming group, ask to try out a custom scenario or Crusade (as that seems to be more about those sort of games).
Shakalooloo wrote: The casual player is one that would happily take part in a 'last stand' type mission, where they are hopelessly outnumbered with no chance of victory, and the fun comes from seeing how well they do before being wiped out. The old Ork's Drift routine.
Thing is, you can do these types of game just as well if the 'base' version of the game is balanced (as far as it can be) or at least aims at being balanced. It's possible to play un-balanced scenarios with roughly balanced games, but the reverse is not true. And of course there are all sorts of cases, like specific missions, where one side has a comparative advantage that is not reflected in their e.g. points costs, but then again that's a specific example while we're mostly speaking averages here.
It's actually easier to make interesting scenarios if the base game you are building them from is balanced.
Lets take the aforementioned Last Stand scenario. You think that you have it set up that the defenders will slowly be overwhelmed. The orks have a point advantage and replenish destroyed units, after all. But that means nothing if the Guard actually have parity as their units are more efficiently costed and can just paste the Orks before they get close. Or the inverse, the Orks immediately overwhelm the Guard and it isn't so much a dogged last, desperate defence a la Rorke's Drift, but more akin to a recreation of the Amritsar massacre.
Sunno wrote: Why GW can't just do an all in one app with all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc and provide it at normal price or free, like pretty much every other games company is beyond me.
They have released all the rules for free, what more do you want them to do?
This is honestly a massive departure for GW, free rules for their flagship game.
GW are, for the most part allergic to the idea of free things.
Incidentally the issues of the old system is the same as the issue with the new system.
Designers that have neither restraint nor awareness. MC's were BS i agree in their untold advantages over vehicles and clear vehicles being marked as MC because ..but i'd rather go back to the old system instead of the new system which since it's birth has the core issue with the wounding table AND no restraint at all once again on the designerfront.
I might be missing something, but it certainly seems like this problem is back. With Tyrannid MC being much cheaper than equivalent SM Dreads. Again I could be wrong. But looking at the statblocks that seems to be the way it is.
The issue is the wound table is pretty much since 8th edition broken. Autowound 6 and only wounding on 2 + on double S vs T and the inversion of that, make a whole slew of mid range S weaponry pretty much useless, which in the past could land penetrating hits whilest HB and Bolters were not really usefull for AT duty.
That said the case above is just once again designers not being aware of what the other people do or the baselines should be...
tneva82 wrote: This is surprisingly reasonable if you play multiple armies. I was expecting around that per army.
Yeah, not much point going through the trouble of editing and printing PDFs and laminating when the printed cards net out cheaper. There's not a ton of overlap in my Crusade group (other than Marines), so one set of each should pretty much cover the entire group.
stonehorse wrote: They have released all the rules for free, what more do you want them to do?
Write good rules.
If they released a free PDF which just said "The players take turns swinging a dreadsock at the opponents groin until one quits. The player who didn't quit is the winner and gets to stamp on their opponents model collection whereas the loser has to walk barefoot over their own scattered leftover bits." would you praise that because it was free?
Sunno wrote: Why GW can't just do an all in one app with all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc and provide it at normal price or free, like pretty much every other games company is beyond me.
They have released all the rules for free, what more do you want them to do?
This is honestly a massive departure for GW, free rules for their flagship game.
GW are, for the most part allergic to the idea of free things.
And the cards themselves are uncharacteristically cheap O_o. Multiple armies in a bundle that costs about half the cardpack of ONE army in AOS.
For once starting cost from rules can't be complained. You can get by paying 0 without even resorting to wahapedia etc. Basically only thing that GW doesn't provide free that you probably want is the mission deck.
Cost of models and quality of rules is another thing but for a change cost of rules isn't unreasonable.
stonehorse wrote: They have released all the rules for free, what more do you want them to do?
Write good rules.
If they released a free PDF which just said "The players take turns swinging a dreadsock at the opponents groin until one quits. The player who didn't quit is the winner and gets to stamp on their opponents model collection whereas the loser has to walk barefoot over their own scattered leftover bits." would you praise that because it was free?
Quality still matters, even if it is free.
the eldar dreadsock needs a nerf, it has too many spikey bits
stonehorse wrote: They have released all the rules for free, what more do you want them to do?
Write good rules.
If they released a free PDF which just said "The players take turns swinging a dreadsock at the opponents groin until one quits. The player who didn't quit is the winner and gets to stamp on their opponents model collection whereas the loser has to walk barefoot over their own scattered leftover bits." would you praise that because it was free?
Prometheum5 wrote: You're only 'playing down' if the only reason you showed up is to run a mathematically optimized list to stomp your opponent into the dirt. There are more ways to play wargames than pure 1:1 competitive formats.
And every single one is helped by having good balance as the starting point. It's much easier to get something approaching a good asymmetric scenario first time if the game is more balanced.
More importantly, the vast, vast majority of games are some kind of roughly equal points battle, whether that's cutthroat tournament games, club pickup games, garagehammer or Crusade. They all benefit massively from good balance. Being from a large university city a lot of my opponents are students. They tend to have older armies that need refreshing for a new edition or they pick up start collections and build from there. I've seen with my own eyes what happens when people start to play the game and one picks the overpowered faction while the other picks the underpowered one, with absolutely no knowledge of which one is which at the time. You can see the frustration from the person playing the underpowered faction as they struggle to get anywhere near a win. That's especially true when they build what should be a fairly normal force of, say, Fire Warriors, a Crisis Team, some Kroot and a couple of Devilfish. I've seen this happen on numerous occasions.
These are players who have no intention of playing competitive 40k at tournaments. They don't follow the meta and study statistics about which armies or units are good or bad. They just want an entertaining game of toy soldiers with forces representative of the fluff for their faction. Bad balance is more of a problem for casual players, not less.
That is putting the cart in front of the horse. The game (like any game) is played to have fun. If one can only obtain fun from winning, then they need to reevaluate a few things. Sure winning is nice and makes for a good feeling, but essentially this is a game of make belief, the points are completely made up, and more a rough approximation of a units ability.
The point is to have fun, yes. None of us are TFG tournament players, but there comes a point where having literally no chance of winning because you bought the "wrong" units just stops being fun, and that point usually arrives very quickly. Having fun when losing usually involves at least having a chance to win.
The game designers have no idea what players are going to do with the game once it is out in the wild, terrain and force building are not always going to match what GW designers use, and it never can as there is simply to much to factor in. Even the playing a game with the same players, same forces, same terrain, and same missions will be completely different.
Other games manage to get much closer to achieving balance despite the vagaries of freeform terrain and model collections. Part of the problem is GW have gradually abdicated responsibility for list design by removing restrictions, first in the force org, then in what options you can take. Part of good game design is putting in place meaningful restrictions to control the sort of variables you're talking about, at least to some extent. It's also just a variation of the "perfect is the enemy of good" problem. We're not asking for perfect balance, just some kind of genuine attempt at it. 10th is not that.
If a player finds that they are getting creamed so hard on a regular basis, to the point of not enjoying the game, it might be an idea to have a word with their gaming group, ask to try out a custom scenario or Crusade (as that seems to be more about those sort of games).
And what if the gaming group are mostly new players who don't have big collections and don't have the experience with the game to even know what's going wrong? It's not unreasonable to expect a game to be pretty well balanced as a starting point. Experiencing GW's typical wild imbalance as a new player can leave you with no idea how to change things. The answer my be "you can't" because the balance is so bad between certain armies you just can't win unless you start playing with point handicaps or trying to play asymmetric scenarios. Neither of those situations are ones new players are equipped to deal with, IME. It's also just making excuses for terrible balance again. The game is clearly being sold, at least in part, as a balanced game where equally pointed armies will be roughly similar. We now have a situation where two players can take the same unit and have one be vastly superior to the other while costing the same. There's no way that can be balanced and there's no way that can be defended.
I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
The execution (or failure thereof) is the issue.
If 40k had 3 factions I think they might have managed it, for the volume of sheer stuff, they stood no chance.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
The execution (or failure thereof) is the issue.
If 40k had 3 factions I think they might have managed it, for the volume of sheer stuff, they stood no chance.
it would be nice if they at least tried though, and its their system, they brought in all the factions so its hardly a pass to say "its too complicated so we didn't bother"
There is an element of you can never win, no matter what you do. This is not defending GW, they surely can improve a lot, but there also needs to be an element of understanding that there are a lot of units so balancing them all is a tough job.
Either unit get banned from tournaments/competitive play to aid balance - and people moan - or they are allowed, taking into account it's a fools errand for it all to be balanced - and people moan.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
The execution (or failure thereof) is the issue.
That logic falls apart at the most basic of logical steps though.
The argument is thus: 1) All options are free 2) All options are balanced 3) Therefore, taking any option is balanced with any other option
It's a valid argument. If 1 and 2 are true then 3 is also true. But it is only a sound argument if it is valid and all of the premises (1 and 2) are true and the conclusion (3) is true.
Premise 1 is true. All upgrades are free. Premise 2 is not true. Not all options are balanced. This is plainly visible even in very simple units such as the many times mentioned commissar with bolt pistol and chainsword vs plasma pistol and power weapon. Therefore the conclusion is also not true.
The argument by GW is unsound, and it is laughably easy to demonstrate it.
Either GW is so incompetent at their jobs that they are unable to tell that premise 2 is false, or they are lazy and/or don't care that premise 2 is false. Either way, the system they built from that premise is terrible and is fundamentally unfixable without reverting back to the very foundation they just tried to discard.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think that any game designer whose thought process doesn't naturally flow from "We make all upgrades for units free" to "If all upgrades are free, many players will take as many upgrades as they can" should be fired as I'm not sure they are actually capable of logical thought.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
The execution (or failure thereof) is the issue.
That logic falls apart at the most basic of logical steps though.
The argument is thus:
1) All options are free
2) All options are balanced
3) Therefore, taking any option is balanced with any other option
It's a valid argument. If 1 and 2 are true then 3 is also true. But it is only a sound argument if it is valid and all of the premises (1 and 2) are true and the conclusion (3) is true.
Premise 1 is true. All upgrades are free.
Premise 2 is not true. Not all options are balanced. This is plainly visible even in very simple units such as the many times mentioned commissar with bolt pistol and chainsword vs plasma pistol and power weapon.
Therefore the conclusion is also not true.
The argument by GW is unsound, and it is laughably easy to demonstrate it.
Either GW is so incompetent at their jobs that they are unable to tell that premise 2 is false, or they are lazy and/or don't care that premise 2 is false. Either way, the system they built from that premise is terrible and is fundamentally unfixable without reverting back to the very foundation they just tried to discard.
Or option 3: they don't have required time/manpower. I know the forum likes to pretend they're either incompetent or negligent wastes of space, but they do have jobs with constraints that can be a factor.
You take BS/CS if you are hunting soft hordes, PP/PS is going after harder targets. If you were able to balance things, both choices should be valid.
Or leave the sponsons off the Russ for +2 movement (or something like that)
They set their mind on part 1.
Did their best on part 2
And said “close enough for 95%” and pushed it out the door.
I don’t think they got it right. It’s got a lot of rough edges and failures. But I don’t think the principle is inherently bad. It is different from what 40k classically has used
I like PL. This is PL. but done poorly. At some point you either need to have different datasheets for the same unit (naked russ, sponson russ. Unit with basic/ priemium gear) or just admit that sometimes, some options need to come with a surcharge.
You take BS/CS if you are hunting soft hordes, PP/PS is going after harder targets. If you were able to balance things, both choices should be valid.
Or leave the sponsons off the Russ for +2 movement (or something like that)
They set their mind on part 1.
Did their best on part 2
And said “close enough for 95%” and pushed it out the door.
I don’t think they got it right. It’s got a lot of rough edges and failures. But I don’t think the principle is inherently bad. It is different from what 40k classically has used
I like PL. This is PL. but done poorly. At some point you either need to have different datasheets for the same unit (naked russ, sponson russ. Unit with basic/ priemium gear) or just admit that sometimes, some options need to come with a surcharge.
Yea if every permutation was a legitimate sidegrade that'd be fine. That would actually let casuals run whatever they wanted and always having a decent game rather than having to go full See No Evil, Hear No Evil
stonehorse wrote: Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.
It also means the game is more about fun and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.
This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.
But 40k is a serious game, played by serious people, who are too serious for petty concepts such as 'fun', why have fun when we can math hammer the system into oblivion!
I'm not the one saying the rules are bad, so your point would only work if I said the rules are bad, as I haven't said that, your point doesn't work.
No, you said that casual players need bad rules to have fun because good rules are only for competitive mathhammer players and make having fun impossible while 10th puts back the fun into the game because of its imbalance and inconstancy
I call 10th in its current form bad, simply for the inconsistency in design that we have as a reset should be done to get everything on the same level again and not to just make previous rules invalid (for everything the Indices do a simple Errata for the previous Codex would have done the same)
an casual players don't benefit at all from it while competitive players just don't care (because they just play the strongest build anyway)
and having upgrades not costing points but being including is making mathhammer much more important so you are not playing against a force that is worth double the points
not like we had this thing with free upgrades already in 7th and I remember how the casual players all say that free-upgrade 7th was the most fun version of the game
No where it what you quote do I say 'Casual Gamers Need Bad Rules', in fact.
The only thing I can honestly think you are getting mixed up with meaning? Do you think unbalanced games are not capable of being Fun and Good, do you think the mark of a good game is balance?
If so, I think 40k may jot be for you, have you thought about playing Chess or Go?
You take BS/CS if you are hunting soft hordes, PP/PS is going after harder targets. If you were able to balance things, both choices should be valid.
Okay, let's assume this is at all workable.
They were already struggling with this for a unit with one model and 2 weapons which could each be swapped for a single other weapon as they failed to actually make them differentiated enough to have a real niche. Now do it for something with some real flexibility. Now do Crisis Suits. There are 35 possible unique weapon combinations you can take on a single crisis suit using only the weapons in the crisis suit kit. What should the points cost of a squad of 3 Crisis suits be, without referencing the equipment they are using? This is a squad that can take any combination of the anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, anti-whatever weapons they have access to in different combinations of each, from a single gun up to 3 guns, on a per model basis. How do you assign a points cost to that unit without having the slightest clue what it could be capable of via its loadout?
The idea is bad, and so is the execution.
The idea is bad because it cannot scale with complexity. It only possibly works with the most bland A or B choices and as soon as anything breaks from that by adding an option C or a D, it rapidly falls apart. It is executed badly because it fails even in the scenario where there is a single A or B choice.
Dudeface wrote: Or option 3: they don't have required time/manpower. I know the forum likes to pretend they're either incompetent or negligent wastes of space, but they do have jobs with constraints that can be a factor.
"Small family models company, please understand." That's the excuse Creative Assembly has been trying to pull with the Total War series for years.
They're a multi-billion dollar company. When it comes to the miniature gaming market, GW are not the biggest fist in the pond. They are the pond. You cannot play the manpower excuse when they have a rules department whose job it is to do one thing: Write rules.
Dudeface wrote: Or option 3: they don't have required time/manpower. I know the forum likes to pretend they're either incompetent or negligent wastes of space, but they do have jobs with constraints that can be a factor.
"Small family models company, please understand." That's the excuse Creative Assembly has been trying to pull with the Total War series for years.
They're a multi-billion dollar company. When it comes to the miniature gaming market, GW are not the biggest fist in the pond. They are the pond. You cannot play the manpower excuse when they have a rules department whose job it is to do one thing: Write rules.
^^ this
though GW are the market leader in "nice models, shame about the rules" and making it work anyway
if they lost sales through crap rules it would change, while the factory is running at capacity where is the incentive to change?
Or option 3: they don't have required time/manpower. I know the forum likes to pretend they're either incompetent or negligent wastes of space, but they do have jobs with constraints that can be a factor.
That falls under incompetence. If you don't have the manpower to do a complete overhaul of how your game system works in a big reset, then don't do that and instead iterate on the existing system to fix issues as best you can until you do have the time and manpower to do a big overhaul. Notice I said GW, not just the designers. If the designers are being forced by managers to try and do something they do not have the time or manpower to do, that is incompetence by GW.
And by 'rules' i mean 'one one-page pdf that basically says you can either use your old unit with new points or you can leave it'. No idea why they needed an extra article for that.
And by 'rules' i mean 'one one-page pdf that basically says you can either use your old unit with new points or you can leave it'. No idea why they needed an extra article for that.
And which also basically says "We broke a lot of the existing stuff, buy the new rules to fix it."
It feels like a common sense list of things to do if you have an ongoing campaign that crosses a version with new rules. There wasn’t anything in there that I thought needed to be clarified, but some people might need/want an official guide.
In 9th I had to re-jigger my crusade roster when my codex came out with harder questions to deal with then this PDF issues. Managed fine without a guide.
You take BS/CS if you are hunting soft hordes, PP/PS is going after harder targets. If you were able to balance things, both choices should be valid.
Okay, let's assume this is at all workable.
They were already struggling with this for a unit with one model and 2 weapons which could each be swapped for a single other weapon as they failed to actually make them differentiated enough to have a real niche. Now do it for something with some real flexibility.
Now do Crisis Suits. There are 35 possible unique weapon combinations you can take on a single crisis suit using only the weapons in the crisis suit kit. What should the points cost of a squad of 3 Crisis suits be, without referencing the equipment they are using? This is a squad that can take any combination of the anti-vehicle, anti-infantry, anti-whatever weapons they have access to in different combinations of each, from a single gun up to 3 guns, on a per model basis. How do you assign a points cost to that unit without having the slightest clue what it could be capable of via its loadout?
The idea is bad, and so is the execution.
The idea is bad because it cannot scale with complexity. It only possibly works with the most bland A or B choices and as soon as anything breaks from that by adding an option C or a D, it rapidly falls apart. It is executed badly because it fails even in the scenario where there is a single A or B choice.
I wish I could exalt this more, it's a fantastic example of how bad things have gone.
Nevelon wrote: It feels like a common sense list of things to do if you have an ongoing campaign that crosses a version with new rules. There wasn’t anything in there that I thought needed to be clarified, but some people might need/want an official guide.
In 9th I had to re-jigger my crusade roster when my codex came out with harder questions to deal with then this PDF issues. Managed fine without a guide.
It remains to be seen if Valrak is correct and we get more/actual Crusade stuff on the 23rd. So far his list of pdf releases was accurate with one exception (he said a GT pack was coming, which we have not seen so far) so maybe there's still a small measure of hope*
*
Spoiler:
The Surgeon General advises that hope is the first step to dissappointment. Use hope responsibly, and at your own risk. If you, or someone you know wishes to stop hoping, visit DakkaDakka at least 3-4 times a day
And by 'rules' i mean 'one one-page pdf that basically says you can either use your old unit with new points or you can leave it'. No idea why they needed an extra article for that.
These aren't the crusade rules.
These are get-you-by rules if you have an ongoing Crusade from last edition, but want to switch editions.
Nevelon wrote: It feels like a common sense list of things to do if you have an ongoing campaign that crosses a version with new rules. There wasn’t anything in there that I thought needed to be clarified, but some people might need/want an official guide.
In 9th I had to re-jigger my crusade roster when my codex came out with harder questions to deal with then this PDF issues. Managed fine without a guide.
It remains to be seen if Valrak is correct and we get more/actual Crusade stuff on the 23rd. So far his list of pdf releases was accurate with one exception (he said a GT pack was coming, which we have not seen so far) so maybe there's still a small measure of hope*
*
Spoiler:
The Surgeon General advises that hope is the first step to dissappointment. Use hope responsibly, and at your own risk. If you, or someone you know wishes to stop hoping, visit DakkaDakka at least 3-4 times a day
As an aside, thanks for putting in all the work keeping this thread updated, with a nicely organized front page. It made a journey to 10th a lot easier to track. Lot of work, but it is appreciated!
Almost to the end where you can rest, put your feet up, and crack open a beverage of choice to celebrate a job well done.
Another video, this time with rumours for a bunch of stuff: https://youtu.be/pou10BZl6tU - Jump Assault Marines are coming with the launch of the SM codex
- Jump Assault Intercessors, to be specific
- Jump Assault Captain
- Terminator Chaplain (most repeated rumour ever )
- Terminator Ancient
- Brand new Biovore for Tyranids
- New Genestealers
- Killteam/Spacehulk ambiguous mumblings
- Horus Heresy: Legion Imperialis based on Epic, but not 'officially Epic'
- Release date: at the end of summer, around same time as SM/Tyranid Stuff (doubtful)
- Warhammer: TOW
- Advises huge amount of salt: TOW launch box set is the last release of this year
- Early next year books and stuff for the non-starter ranges
Nevelon wrote: It feels like a common sense list of things to do if you have an ongoing campaign that crosses a version with new rules. There wasn’t anything in there that I thought needed to be clarified, but some people might need/want an official guide.
In 9th I had to re-jigger my crusade roster when my codex came out with harder questions to deal with then this PDF issues. Managed fine without a guide.
It remains to be seen if Valrak is correct and we get more/actual Crusade stuff on the 23rd. So far his list of pdf releases was accurate with one exception (he said a GT pack was coming, which we have not seen so far) so maybe there's still a small measure of hope*
*
Spoiler:
The Surgeon General advises that hope is the first step to dissappointment. Use hope responsibly, and at your own risk. If you, or someone you know wishes to stop hoping, visit DakkaDakka at least 3-4 times a day
As an aside, thanks for putting in all the work keeping this thread updated, with a nicely organized front page. It made a journey to 10th a lot easier to track. Lot of work, but it is appreciated!
Almost to the end where you can rest, put your feet up, and crack open a beverage of choice to celebrate a job well done.
Thanks, i appreciate that people appreciate it
And yes, i count down the days until i can set this thread's course into the nearest sun and bail out in a saviour pod, but that is not yet quite at hand - i will probably let this one roll on until the release of the starter sets and the last datacard pdfs (i.e. Imperial Armour), do a post-op debriefing on this rumour season, including a final assessment of Valrak's accuracy, and then roll over the relevant stuff into a new thread for 10th releases. I'm in for this in the long run
And by 'rules' i mean 'one one-page pdf that basically says you can either use your old unit with new points or you can leave it'. No idea why they needed an extra article for that.
The Crusade rules are its own book which is also contained within Leviathan Core Rulebook.
So if you buy Leviathan you get the Crusade rules. If you just buy the regular rulebook you need to buy the Tyrannic War Crusade book.
So it seems GW has realized it can't compete with Battlescribe or Wahpedia and has decided to just burn everything down by making the "free" versions so awful.
Whether they'll fix things in the Codex/future Munitorium is to be seen, or if they've finally given up for real. Even if GW "fixes" the situation, the monthly Codex releases (and its flip-flopping on which direction to take the rules system - "Do we want balanced or over-the-top this month?") and GWs inability to write tight, balanced rules in the first place doesn't bode well for the state of the game for the short life of 10th.
I'm so glad I bailed on GW's rules. Wish I'd been smart enough to have avoided buying the minis - but at least I can use them in other systems, if I choose.
The logic is “if all options are balanced, we don’t need to deal with upgrade costs”
The execution (or failure thereof) is the issue.
That's NOT logical though.
How is the option to take a vox-caster for free supposed to be balanced against not taking a free vox-caster?
the only balance there is when its taking the Vox or taking something else, and even then it needs to make some sort of logical sense why you wouldn't have both
I guess its an option for people who built without but frankly just bake it into the unit rules at this point for stuff like this
the only balance there is when its taking the Vox or taking something else, and even then it needs to make some sort of logical sense why you wouldn't have both
Because the plasma gun arms only go with the vox caster body...
the only balance there is when its taking the Vox or taking something else, and even then it needs to make some sort of logical sense why you wouldn't have both
Because the plasma gun arms only go with the vox caster body...
They're a multi-billion dollar company. When it comes to the miniature gaming market, GW are not the biggest fist in the pond. They are the pond. You cannot play the manpower excuse when they have a rules department whose job it is to do one thing: Write rules.
And when other great games companies like Wyrd, Covus Belli, PP etc can produce well balanced rule sets and provide all rules, cards, army building, game tracking etc in a single digital app format that is updated instantly and is either free or fairly minimal cost...... GW has no excuse for not committing part of their larger resources to doing the same.
Also, I object to the idea the GWare the pond. However, i would agree that their biggest achievement to date is persuading most people that hey are....
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
Also, I object to the idea the GWare the pond. However, i would agree that their biggest achievement to date is persuading most people that hey are....
GW 100% is the biggest name in the game. The odds of stores having some amount of GW products is much higher than them storing some Infinity/Malifaux/SW:Legion/etc.
I'd say GW's biggest achievement is not persuading that theyre the biggest name, more that theyre the ones offering the best system and the their cost is the average cost of wargames.
The amount of time i've tried to make people try other games and was told "Oh, it seems worse than 40k" or "Oh ,i don't wanna drop a ton of cash in a new game" is mind boggling.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
Yep.
For every 10 models in this unit, up to 2 Death Korps Troopers can each have their lasgun replaced with one of the following:* ◦ 1 flamer ◦ 1 grenade launcher ◦ 1 meltagun ◦ 1 sniper rifle
■ For every 10 models in this unit, 1 Death Korps Trooper equipped with a lasgun can be equipped with one of the following: ◦ 1 vox-caster (that model’s lasgun cannot be replaced) ◦ 1 plasma gun
So for every 10 models, you get 1 choice of a plasma gun or a vox.
Apparently the training for plasma guns on krieg is a shared class with operating the Vox, and clashes with every other weapon training class.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
I haven’t built the kit personally, but it seems you could just put the arms on another body? I do that with skitarii and it’s fine.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
But Kan's point is that despite what the instructions say, the arms fit on other bodies.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
But Kan's point is that despite what the instructions say, the arms fit on other bodies.
Which doesn't matter, as the options for the unit in-game are 1 vox or plasma gun per 10 models. So if you decided to take the plasma gun arms, and put them on a different body to have a plasma gun and a vox in your ten man krieg squad? Congratulations, that unit is not legal to play as a krieg squad. You need to have a 20 model unit of kriegers to get both a plasma gun and a vox.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun.
Do the instructions show that you can put the "Gunner Veteran" arms for the flamer onto the "Medic Veteran" body, with no conversion work needed?
There's really just a single body/arm/head combo that's locked and that is the Demo Specialist. The instructions just show what matches the showcased models.
Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or.
Frankly? I doubt that's why. If it had been, they would have locked it immediately via a downloaded datasheet. It never happened.
If I were to make an assumption?
I'd assume that the datasheet was locked that way to prevent exploiting the "Fire on My Position"(Vox-Caster model dies, on a D6 roll of a 4+, every unit within 3" suffers D3 Mortal Wounds. Cult of Sacrifice[the DKoK "suggested" regimental trait via FW] reduced it from 2 to 1 CP) Epic Deed Stratagem last edition, which we know had several books delayed significantly before their final releases.
But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
You understand that the kit also has to build an Infantry Squad as well, correct?
They have not yet done an actual, dedicated "Death Korps of Krieg" squad release intended for 40k proper. All the instructions are just copy/pastes of the Octarius ones, and I can flat out tell you right now that there are significant alterations you can make to the squad simply by playing around with the arms.
Kanluwen wrote: They have not yet done an actual, dedicated "Death Korps of Krieg" squad release intended for 40k proper. All the instructions are just copy/pastes of the Octarius ones, and I can flat out tell you right now that there are significant alterations you can make to the squad simply by playing around with the arms.
So, you're saying there is an actual, dedicated Death Korp of Krieg release for 40k proper.
Because it's rules are right there in the PDF alongside all of the other actual, dedicated releases for 40k proper, and it can only take 1 plasma gun OR vox per 10 models.
Which doesn't matter, as the options for the unit in-game are 1 vox or plasma gun per 10 models. So if you decided to take the plasma gun arms, and put them on a different body to have a plasma gun and a vox in your ten man krieg squad? Congratulations, that unit is not legal to play. You need to have a 20 model unit of kriegers to get both a plasma gun and a vox.
The Infantry Squad is still a thing...at least for now?
Which doesn't matter, as the options for the unit in-game are 1 vox or plasma gun per 10 models. So if you decided to take the plasma gun arms, and put them on a different body to have a plasma gun and a vox in your ten man krieg squad? Congratulations, that unit is not legal to play. You need to have a 20 model unit of kriegers to get both a plasma gun and a vox.
The Infantry Squad is still a thing...at least for now?
Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
So, why is it that Kriegers cannot take a plasma gun and a vox in a 10 man squad when every other battleline infantry squad can (except for the ancient catachans, but they can only take 1 flamer per 5 and 1 vox per 10)? And does it correlate to the printed instruction limitations of the set, regardless of whether the arms can actually be used on other bodies in practice?
Kanluwen wrote: They have not yet done an actual, dedicated "Death Korps of Krieg" squad release intended for 40k proper. All the instructions are just copy/pastes of the Octarius ones, and I can flat out tell you right now that there are significant alterations you can make to the squad simply by playing around with the arms.
So, you're saying there is an actual, dedicated Death Korp of Krieg release for 40k proper.
Because it's rules are right there in the PDF alongside all of the other actual, dedicated releases for 40k proper, and it can only take 1 plasma gun OR vox per 10 models.
So, you're saying that those rules were available from the outset?
January 2022 is when the DKoK individual box was released.
November 2022 is when the Cadia Stands army box released, marking the first instance of the "plasma OR vox" coming into effect.
We had KT downloads for quite a few teams over the past few years. DKoK wasn't one of them.
Kanluwen wrote: They have not yet done an actual, dedicated "Death Korps of Krieg" squad release intended for 40k proper. All the instructions are just copy/pastes of the Octarius ones, and I can flat out tell you right now that there are significant alterations you can make to the squad simply by playing around with the arms.
So, you're saying there is an actual, dedicated Death Korp of Krieg release for 40k proper.
Because it's rules are right there in the PDF alongside all of the other actual, dedicated releases for 40k proper, and it can only take 1 plasma gun OR vox per 10 models.
So, you're saying that those rules were available from the outset?.
I mean, yes. The rules for the Death Korp of Krieg squad has been available in the Imperial Guard 10th edition rules from the outset of the rules for Imperial Guard in 10th edition being available. Have you actually read them?
Which doesn't matter, as the options for the unit in-game are 1 vox or plasma gun per 10 models. So if you decided to take the plasma gun arms, and put them on a different body to have a plasma gun and a vox in your ten man krieg squad? Congratulations, that unit is not legal to play. You need to have a 20 model unit of kriegers to get both a plasma gun and a vox.
The Infantry Squad is still a thing...at least for now?
Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
Yes. Same as how anyone who had Cadian Snipers has to use the Infantry Squads.
So, why is it that Kriegers cannot take a plasma gun and a vox in a 10 man squad when every other battleline infantry squad can (except for the ancient catachans, but they can only take 1 flamer per 5 and 1 vox per 10)?
Counterpoint:
Why is it that Krieg can take a Plasma Gun and 2 specials in a 10 man squad when every other battleline infantry squad can not?
And does it correlate to the printed instruction limitations of the set, regardless of whether the arms can actually be used on other bodies in practice?
Why is it that Kasrkin Sergeants cannot take a Hotshot Lasgun, despite the printed instructions and the Kill Team roster actually allowing for it?
The answer is how the hell should I know, the designers constantly screw up when it comes to Guard. I said this last week when the index drop in that it feels like the writers don't actually know what the kits can do.
I mean, yes. The rules for the Death Korp of Krieg squad has been available in the Imperial Guard 10th edition rules from the outset of the rules for Imperial Guard in 10th edition being available. Have you actually read them?
So the 10th edition rules have been available since January of 2022?
This is going to be a circular argument it seems. You're hyperfocused on the 10th edition rules, while ignoring that DKoK have been available for over a year now and for almost half a year before the 9th edition codex dropped.
I'm not focused on that. I built three DKoK squads, a pair of Special Weapon Squads, and a Command Squad before the 9E book even dropped. I don't know why precisely they did any of what they did. Nobody but the design team knows why they did it that way.
Actually, you can’t attach any Krieg arms to any body - at least not without some degree of modification. They’re quite restrictive. It’s not just the instructions that limit the options.
Then why did you claim that Dawnbringer was wrong when he said that the rules for kriegers prevented them from taking both a plasma gun and a vox in a 10 man squad and the reason that GW imposed such a restriction?
"the only balance there is when its taking the Vox or taking something else, and even then it needs to make some sort of logical sense why you wouldn't have both"
"Because the plasma gun arms only go with the vox caster body..."
According to the official instructions for assembling the models, which is what GW often uses for its idiotic and arbitrary restrictions, that is exactly the reason that kriegers cannot take both a plasma gun and a vox.
So the 10th edition rules have been available since January of 2022?
This is going to be a circular argument it seems. You're hyperfocused on the 10th edition rules, while ignoring that DKoK have been available for over a year now and for almost half a year before the 9th edition codex dropped.
I'm not focused on that. I built three DKoK squads, a pair of Special Weapon Squads, and a Command Squad before the 9E book even dropped. I don't know why precisely they did any of what they did. Nobody but the design team knows why they did it that way.
Might want to check the topic of the thread then, Kan, I wonder if there might be a reason that people here are focused on what the rules for 10th edition are rather than the rules from a year ago that you want to talk about. From the onset of 10th, what this entire thread is about, Krieg have had rules in the main rules document for the IG, and those rules say 1 vox or plasma gun per ten models, because 1 model in the kit is designed to either use a plasma gun or a vox, just as Dawn said.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
In fairness - and in a vague attempt to inject a dash of levity into proceedings here - the DKoK squad can't benefit from the medpack yet either, as they have no way to take it in the squad
A Town Called Malus wrote: Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
In fairness - and in a vague attempt to inject a dash of levity into proceedings here - the DKoK squad can't benefit from the medpack yet either, as they have no way to take it in the squad
Yeah, I also noticed that. Nice to see that my Stealth Suits aren't alone in looking at wargear locked behind a glass case with rules for using them on the table but no rules for acquiring them. Maybe they should set up a support group, Wargear Anonymous.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Then why did you claim that Dawnbringer was wrong when he said that the rules for kriegers prevented them from taking both a plasma gun and a vox in a 10 man squad and the reason that GW imposed such a restriction?
"the only balance there is when its taking the Vox or taking something else, and even then it needs to make some sort of logical sense why you wouldn't have both" "Because the plasma gun arms only go with the vox caster body..."
Cool, so where's the article discussing that? I'd assume there is one, since we're taking Dawnbringer's statement as fact to be defended.
I get that people assume it's why, but I can point to several kits with instructions that clearly aren't complete nor reflected in the rules.
According to the official instructions for assembling the models, which is what GW often uses for its idiotic and arbitrary restrictions, that is exactly the reason that kriegers cannot take both a plasma gun and a vox.
And yet, you can build a squad with both a plasma gun and a vox.
Might want to check the topic of the thread then, Kan, I wonder if there might be a reason that people here are focused on what the rules for 10th edition are rather than the rules from a year ago that you want to talk about. From the onset of 10th, what this entire thread is about, Krieg have had rules in the main rules document for the IG, and those rules say 1 vox or plasma gun per ten models, because 1 model in the kit is designed to either use a plasma gun or a vox, just as Dawn said.
That's why I mentioned the whole Infantry Squad thing, that you immediately leaped in to try to discredit or something, while ignoring that we do not have a dedicated Infantry Squad kit. The Cadians, Catachans, and DKoK all have to also be able to build that unit.
Also, repeating it since you chose to ignore it: The instructions aren't the end all, be all. If they truly were? I'd have Kasrkin Sergeants with Hotshot Lasguns right now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
In fairness - and in a vague attempt to inject a dash of levity into proceedings here - the DKoK squad can't benefit from the medpack yet either, as they have no way to take it in the squad
Dollars to donuts, the medpack wasn't meant to be an upgrade but rather a keyword.
Kanluwen wrote: The Cadians, Catachans, and DKoK all have to also be able to build that unit.
The Catachan kit cannot build all of the options in the infantry kit. It has no plasma guns, meltaguns, sniper rifles, or grenade launchers.
So, no, the kits do not have to be able to make all of the options in the infantry squad kit, only the bare minimum.
So, the krieg kit being limited to only being able to assemble 1 vox or 1 plasma gun satisfies that condition with the kit still restricting to not being able to make both from a single 10 man squad. Which brings us back to how the Krieg squad is the only one which has the vox as a choice between it and a special weapon.
Now, onto your kasrkin sergeant with hotshot lasgun point. Lets take a mosey to GWs official sales page for the Kasrkin kit and look through it at what the official constructed models are. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/kill-team-kasrkin-2023 Now lets go to image seven, showing the official ways that GW wants you to build your Kasrkin sergeant, which I imagine are probably also the only ways shown in the instruction booklet. Hmm, I see Kasrkin with bolt pistol, with hot-shot laspistol, and with plasma pistol. I also see an arm holding a powersword, and the first image of the kit also shows a chainsword arm. Now lets mosey onto the rules for 10th on what equipment a kasrkin sergeant can take. Hotshot laspistol or bolt pistol or plasma pistol, chainsword or power weapon. Exactly what the kit (and dollars to donuts the assembly instructions) shows the sergeant having.
I'm not seeing the contradiction here, I'm afraid. Seems to me that the problem with both of these kits and the corresponding rules is the exact same idiotic "no model, no rules, and only the GW(tm) Official FineAssembly(tm) method is tabletop legal, regardless of whether you can use the bits interchangeably".
A Town Called Malus wrote: Ah yes, the infantry squad which does not get any of the rules specific to the Death Korp of Krieg squad such as the medpack, or the DKoK unit ability.
In fairness - and in a vague attempt to inject a dash of levity into proceedings here - the DKoK squad can't benefit from the medpack yet either, as they have no way to take it in the squad
Dollars to donuts, the medpack wasn't meant to be an upgrade but rather a keyword.
Unlikely, when none of the three other units (Platoon Command Squad, Cadian Command Squad, Storm Trooper Command Squad) gain a keyword when they take a medi-pack.
This looks like someone simply missed adding the option for one Krieger per 10 to replace their lasgun with a Death Korps medipack and [insert weapon option here].
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.
Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?
If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"
Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.
JNAProductions wrote: I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.
The customization is on a different level now. Using my main as an example...
Damage Rubrics + Ahriman - +1 to wound on auto-hitting flamers and a free nuke in the form of MW or stripping saves
Rubrics + Infernal - strong spell combined with SH1 - great for bolter squads
Scarabs + Termie Sorc - good spell, LH, and army-wide reroll vs a target
Fly Prince - fly over mortal wounds
Durability / Control Rubrics + Sorcerer - LH, but more importantly no targeting outside 18", which allows for control without threat from OOLOS shooting
Rubrics + Exalted - durability and resurrecting models. Can stand off or get in the mix with flamers.
Rubrics + Exalted on Disc - durability and screwing with enemy movement.
Enlightened w/ Bows - snipers
Enlightened w/ Spears - quick unit that can exploit poor movement by the opponent
Tzaangors + Shaman - T4 with a 5+++ and also a decent buff for the now S5 AP1 swings
Support Cultists - granting CP on kills or death allowing for aggressive play
Tzaangors - gives Cabal on objectives so a reasonable backfield unit
Foot Prince - -1 to hit aura and a once per game Precision buff
Helbrute - decrease Cabal cost
Forgefiend - -1 to hit to one unit
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.
Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?
If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"
Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.
That's kind of why I like 10th. It has so much less math and so much more utility. And it's also why I'm upset, because they didn't do all the work to make sure we didn't have stupid stuff.
Kanluwen wrote: The Cadians, Catachans, and DKoK all have to also be able to build that unit.
The Catachan kit cannot build all of the options in the infantry kit. It has no plasma guns, meltaguns, sniper rifles, or grenade launchers.
So, no, the kits do not have to be able to make all of the options in the infantry squad kit, only the bare minimum.
They don't even show off the Catachan kit in the datasheet for them in 10E. They use a single model from the Command Squad, which does have those things.
So, the krieg kit being limited to only being able to assemble 1 vox or 1 plasma gun satisfies that condition with the kit still restricting to not being able to make both from a single 10 man squad. Which brings us back to how the Krieg squad is the only one which has the vox as a choice between it and a special weapon.
DKoK get a special option in their roster. They can't take an autorifle like the Cadians can on their Sergeant, nor 2 flamers per 10 models like the Catachans can. Instead they get to take 3x specials, ditching a vox if they do so.
I don't like it. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't mean that it was done because of the kit...because if it was truly done because of the kit, even assuming you're not wanting to kitbash? There is a second vox-caster model in the form of the Spotter Specialist which uses an entirely different body than the plasma/vox body. Just like how there are two medic bodies in the kit.
They have some wild and crazy reason to have wanted to do it. I don't know it, nor do I suspect anyone else outside of the studio truly does. There's just wild, reckless speculation.
Now, onto your kasrkin sergeant with hotshot lasgun point. Lets take a mosey to GWs official sales page for the Kasrkin kit and look through it at what the official constructed models are. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/kill-team-kasrkin-2023 Now lets go to image seven, showing the official ways that GW wants you to build your Kasrkin sergeant, which I imagine are probably also the only ways shown in the instruction booklet. Hmm, I see Kasrkin with bolt pistol, with hot-shot laspistol, and with plasma pistol. I also see an arm holding a powersword, and the first image of the kit also shows a chainsword arm. Now lets mosey onto the rules for 10th on what equipment a kasrkin sergeant can take. Hotshot laspistol or bolt pistol or plasma pistol, chainsword or power weapon. Exactly what the kit (and dollars to donuts the assembly instructions) shows the sergeant having.
Spoiler:
Additionally, where it says "Consult the Kill Team Operative" list? Command Roster will show you that the Kasrkin Sergeant has a drop-down box of options, including which is the Hot-shot Lasgun and Gun Butt.
I'm not seeing the contradiction here, I'm afraid. Seems to me that the problem with both of these kits and the corresponding rules is the exact same idiotic "no model, no rules, and only the GW(tm) Official FineAssembly(tm) method is tabletop legal, regardless of whether you can use the bits interchangeably".
The instruction sheets I posted are both Shadowvault and the official Kasrkin kit. There's several items in here and the actual Cadian Shock Troop kits that have models but no rules. Same with the new Heavy Weapons Team kit, which has vox-casters as options but no rules.
So I reiterate: I genuinely believe that these rules were done before the kits themselves, and the designers have never once built them. There are way, way too many glaring inconsistencies for the Guard.
Unlikely, when none of the three other units (Platoon Command Squad, Cadian Command Squad, Storm Trooper Command Squad) gain a keyword when they take a medi-pack.
The Cadian Command Squad doesn't get a choice, but I get what you're meaning. I stand by what I said though. It's entirely possible that an early iteration of the datasheets had medipacks as a keyworded bit for certain units, instead moving them to upgrades or default wargear and missing the units(DKoK, Scions, and Kasrkin) that could take them.
This looks like someone simply missed adding the option for one Krieger per 10 to replace their lasgun with a Death Korps medipack and [insert weapon option here].
It would just be a lasgun. Both of the medics get lasguns as part of their instructions.
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.
Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?
If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"
Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.
I get your point, but what you're describing isn't it. It's just different math. Especially flanking. People have this hilarious idea that 'flanking' in a tabletop game is like some god tier strategic maneuver that should decimate the enemy forces because of how difficult and tacitcal it is. IRL, that might be true. On the table that just means 12" move models do way more damage than 6" move models and Deepstrike is basically god mode.
JNAProductions wrote: I'd also like to say this-if the game isn't trying to be balanced, where is the customization? I'd be a LOT more forgiving of what's going on right now if the datasheets were more like 30k's, where HQs have a list of options the entire page long and units in general can be customized to hell and back.
The customization is on a different level now. Using my main as an example...
Damage Rubrics + Ahriman - +1 to wound on auto-hitting flamers and a free nuke in the form of MW or stripping saves
Rubrics + Infernal - strong spell combined with SH1 - great for bolter squads
Scarabs + Termie Sorc - good spell, LH, and army-wide reroll vs a target
Fly Prince - fly over mortal wounds
Durability / Control Rubrics + Sorcerer - LH, but more importantly no targeting outside 18", which allows for control without threat from OOLOS shooting
Rubrics + Exalted - durability and resurrecting models. Can stand off or get in the mix with flamers.
Rubrics + Exalted on Disc - durability and screwing with enemy movement.
Enlightened w/ Bows - snipers
Enlightened w/ Spears - quick unit that can exploit poor movement by the opponent
Tzaangors + Shaman - T4 with a 5+++ and also a decent buff for the now S5 AP1 swings
Support Cultists - granting CP on kills or death allowing for aggressive play
Tzaangors - gives Cabal on objectives so a reasonable backfield unit
Foot Prince - -1 to hit aura and a once per game Precision buff
Helbrute - decrease Cabal cost
Forgefiend - -1 to hit to one unit
Prometheum5 wrote: Warhammer 40K players should really try out some other wargames and get some perspective on all the fun and engaging ways people can get together to play with their toy soldiers that don't rely on mathematically beating the piss out of each other.
Just going to note that I play a ton of other games. We're not naïve and unaware of other systems. We just like 40K more for what it offers -- and it doesn't involve beating each other with math.
Then why does GW consistently put out a game where it can so easily come down to maths?
If you want a game that isn't about beating each other with maths, there needs to actually be depth, meaningful in game choices and the like. Driving a massive tank through some woods or blowing a hole in a ruin to clear a path for the infantry following behind, for example, or a way to use the four F's (Find, Fix, Flank, Finish) to enable actual tactical manoeuvres and give more decision making to ranged combat than "which things do I need to shoot first?"
Think about how much more design space that would open up on weapons if they were not just about killing outright. If weapons like heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, multilasers etc. and the like were designed to be good at suppressing enemy infantry, preventing them from being able to move, rather than it just coming down to "do these kill as effectively as a X weapon?" Then think about how important movement could be if getting to the side of enemy units, especially enemy units in cover, mattered. Where getting a unit caught in a crossfire was a death sentence for that unit, rewarding tactical play and movements? All of that makes the pregame maths less important, and the actual decisions on the table more important.
That's kind of why I like 10th. It has so much less math and so much more utility. And it's also why I'm upset, because they didn't do all the work to make sure we didn't have stupid stuff.
[/spoiler]
So the problem with the 'new style of Customization' thing is that not every faction has that.
BSS with MM and Meltaguns? Bad. Heavy Bolter, Stormbolter? Bad, but at a longer range. Heavy Flamer, Flamer? Bad, but occasionally tricks you into using a CP on them. Honestly, battle sisters are so bad 110pts that whether you give them free guns or not, doesn't really change the ability of the unit to contribute to the game that much.
Sacresants with Maces? Bad. Sacresants with Halberds? Bad,but in a slightly different way.
Dominions with 4 Meltas? Bad, because they're 130pts and you have to take 5 worthless bodies. 4 Flamers? Same problem, worse gun. 4 Stormbolters? Would be fine if they still had devastating wounds.
Paragons? Literally never a reason to take the flamer or heavy bolter. Not even to be funny.
Novitiates? Their upgrades require you to give up melee attacks and also suck.
The only unit with decent specialization is Seraphim and that's just 'Deepstrike, Y/N'
I get your point, but what you're describing isn't it. It's just different math. Especially flanking. People have this hilarious idea that 'flanking' in a tabletop game is like some god tier strategic maneuver that should decimate the enemy forces because of how difficult and tacitcal it is. IRL, that might be true. On the table that just means 12" move models do way more damage than 6" move models and Deepstrike is basically god mode.
All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).
Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?
Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.
In the melee phase, you have a strong melee unit you want to charge into an opponent on an objective, but that opponent has two units on the objective, and a third unit, a strong melee unit, in charge range of your strong melee unit and the objective. You could sacrifice a weaker unit by charging them into the strong melee unit and locking it down for this phase. But if you do that, your opponent can charge one of their units off the objective, retaining control as they still have a unit there, into your own melee unit and lock them down. But if you charge your melee unit into the two units on the objective then your opponent can then charge their melee unit into you, turning a potentially tough but winnable 2v1 fight into, most likely, a 3v1 slaughter. If you charge their melee unit this round with your melee unit, you give up the possibility of getting control of the objective, but also maybe get the most favourable fight against that unit as even if your opponent charges a unit off the objective in support, you also have a unit that can charge in in support. This will result in your melee unit taking some damage from that fight before they try and take the objective on the next turn, so might lack the strength to win it before the game ends if they get hurt too badly. Choices, choices.
Throw in asymmetrical mission design, so the players don't know which objectives their opponent may need for their mission, and now you have the potential for feints and deception. Did your opponent move their cavalry to flank your unit because they need the objective your unit is sitting on? Or do they want you to think that and waste your shooting on that cavalry unit at the expense of your forces elsewhere on the board?
The potential design space for a wargame is huge. And 40K does nothing with most of it.
ERJAK wrote: So the problem with the 'new style of Customization' thing is that not every faction has that.
BSS with MM and Meltaguns? Bad. Heavy Bolter, Stormbolter? Bad, but at a longer range. Heavy Flamer, Flamer? Bad, but occasionally tricks you into using a CP on them. Honestly, battle sisters are so bad 110pts that whether you give them free guns or not, doesn't really change the ability of the unit to contribute to the game that much.
Sacresants with Maces? Bad. Sacresants with Halberds? Bad,but in a slightly different way.
Dominions with 4 Meltas? Bad, because they're 130pts and you have to take 5 worthless bodies. 4 Flamers? Same problem, worse gun. 4 Stormbolters? Would be fine if they still had devastating wounds.
Paragons? Literally never a reason to take the flamer or heavy bolter. Not even to be funny.
Novitiates? Their upgrades require you to give up melee attacks and also suck.
The only unit with decent specialization is Seraphim and that's just 'Deepstrike, Y/N'
I'll agree with the nature of your assessment and not necessarily the details, but with caveats -- some things are "bad" as is defined by the currently busted state of other armies and from within a detachment that leans melee. It also leans into MD, which by comparison to what Eldar can so now seems quaint.
Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.
This is a WK into terminators with no fate dice:
Spoiler:
And this is a Stompa with the +1 :
Spoiler:
yeah but :
wraithknight 370pts
Stompa 800pts + Mek 45pts
And lets not pretend like the wraithknight won't use his fate dice too
Right. And this isn't me saying the WK is proper cost or that fate dice don't exist.
It just shows the Stompa performing quite well for 2x the cost of the worst unit in the game as well as highlighting that the WK is more about rules interactions than points ( though points could have made it slightly less oppressive ).
Nightlord1987 wrote: When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.
They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.
How is it impossible?
See above, it looked like a 16" diameter with an 9" radius, that somehow made the quarters 32" apart. I think the numbers are poorly placed and instead means the vertical to the outer objectives.
Nightlord1987 wrote: When are mission packs being released? Need to k ow about Turn 1 deepstrikes.
They are out there alongside the impossible deployment zone.
Literally a non-Euclidean horror
On further reflection I think the 16" is the length from the middle to the outer objectives, but it's a mess to look at
You seem to be correct, it's 16'' upwards to where the arrows that delineate 12'' meet. I agree that it could have been depicted more clearly, or with clearer annotations.
All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).
Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?
Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.
Honestly these thing exist in 40k. The difference is that they are delayed because of the IGOUGO system.
Now, I am not speaking against Alternating Activation, but I have to agree with ERJAK that the "ideal" idea of flanking isn't really that much deeper in wargames. I mean, when I was playing Terminus Est type forces I tended to flank my opponents which is why they'd try to screen the deep strike zone to prevent me from doing just that. Hell, when I played windrunner Eldar in 7th I'd flank my opponents all the time.
All problems which can be fixed by changing to an alternating phase structure, allowing immediate counterplay (and many other tweaks no doubt).
Player 1 moves their cavalry up to flank unit X. This has opened a space on the board that Player 2 uses to deep strike a unit down, threatening player 1s tank. Player 1 now needs to decide whether to continue committing forces to ensure that they defeat unit X, or to try and save their tank. And so on. The shooting phase is then also alternating actions, so you need to think about what units to shoot, and when, as your opponent will be shooting in between your own shots. If player 1 shoots at the unit threatening their tank first, then their cavalry unit, somewhat exposed to try and get the kill on unit X, may be destroyed which allows unit X to survive and retain its position on the board. But if they go after X, they sacrifice their tank. Which do they think gets them closer to achieving their objective, or will be more useful in the future?
Suddenly you need to be thinking about not only your move now, but how your opponent might respond to that move, and then how you will respond to that move. All within the same phase. You are constantly having something to engage with, to think about, to adjust your plan to. In the shooting phase, what unit do you think your opponent will try to kill? Should you try to prevent that by attacking their units in position to make that attack first? Or instead attack another unit that may be in a more vulnerable position, potentially sacrificing your own unit in order to gain an advantage in either unit power on the board, or effective control over the board such as knocking an enemy off an objective.
Honestly these thing exist in 40k. The difference is that they are delayed because of the IGOUGO system.
Now, I am not speaking against Alternating Activation, but I have to agree with ERJAK that the "ideal" idea of flanking isn't really that much deeper in wargames. I mean, when I was playing Terminus Est type forces I tended to flank my opponents which is why they'd try to screen the deep strike zone to prevent me from doing just that. Hell, when I played windrunner Eldar in 7th I'd flank my opponents all the time.
Flanking is inherently supported just by the way...physical space works. You're presented a wide angle of attack vectors and a small angle of return attack vectors when you attack areas of an opponent's force where either terrain, weapon ranges, or their own troops are blocking counterattacks.
Game rules don't need to spell it out for you, you don't need extra bonuses, and it certainly isn't non-existant in ANY game that has physical space as a mechanic.
Yet, people treat it like it's magic. (and like deepstriking behind a tank to hit it's AV10 rear facing made you General goddam Patton).
ERJAK wrote: Game rules don't need to spell it out for you, you don't need extra bonuses, and it certainly isn't non-existant in ANY game that has physical space as a mechanic.
Yet, people treat it like it's magic. (and like deepstriking behind a tank to hit it's AV10 rear facing made you General goddam Patton).
Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction. Surrounding a unit produces significantly greater casualties than attacking from a single direction even if the total volume of fire is the same.
It isn't 'magic', it's just one of those dynamic elements of real warfare that's been systematically stripped down in favor of firepower being determined at the listbuilding stage. What you're describing is more about Lanchesterian-square concentration of force, which is a legitimate thing but also a totally separate concept.
Armored vehicles IRL do tend to have more armor up front, and getting to their side is often advantageous.
It's a mechanic that reflects reality, provides incentive for maneuver, and variations in AV can act as a method of unit differentiation. It's a win, win, win.
this is good, I had visions of a vox caster turning ear wax to plasma and firing it sideways
The Krieg instructions show you can build either the vox or plasma gun. Hence the restriction on the data sheet for either / or. But thanks Kanluwen for telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about...
The argument is not exactly right because without any need for conversions 2 miniatures (The vox caster, and kriegsman number 8 iirc) can be build with either melta or plasma. So the reason for having to pick between plasma or vox is different or GW's designers are even dumber for not knowing their kits.
Eh. He has access to +1 to hit and some pretty big guns. It's an appropriate cost.
Surely this is a joke For 800pts you could have two Wraith Knights or two Imperial Knights. It is also disingenuous to allow a buff for the Stompa and not for the other faction.
sadly I think the problem is some of the minis are hard to tell what is the side and what isn't. I mean a rhino is pretty easy, but some of the more oddly shaped xenos tanks? maybe less so
I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes
not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun
kodos wrote: I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes
not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun
There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.
Star Wars: Legion uses large bases for vehicles with arcs etched onto the base itself. It's sometimes kind of annoying when basing (to make sure you have the arc still visible) but seems like a pretty clean solution that allows for a fair amount of modeling/customization.
kodos wrote: I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes
not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun
There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.
as I wrote, sadly not possible for 40k as you cannot trust the players and GW being the small garage company that cannot make a huge investment in creating dedicated based for their games but must buy them of the shelf from another manufacturer
so there is no solution of having anything but 360° arcs
kodos wrote: I wonder how games like Warmachine/Hordes did manage that as their oddly shaped Monsters were impossible to tell if you are in the front or back
or Star Wars Legion as SW has vehicles that have those odd shapes
not like wargames could use something like a "base" for their miniatures so you can easily spot which side is the front and which is the back
but I guess this is not possible for 40k and there cannot be any solution that actually improves the gameplay because this would kill all the fun
There's some real irony in your statement, the base for warmahordes requires people to paint on the divisor for front/back as the base doesn't (or didn't) have one. This might force the front back to be illogical, it also required you to trust your opponent had marked them out correctly. So simply having a base is hardly a silver bullet, despite improving the situation.
as I wrote, sadly not possible for 40k as you cannot trust the players and GW being the small garage company that cannot make a huge investment in creating dedicated based for their games but must buy them of the shelf from another manufacturer
so there is no solution of having anything but 360° arcs
Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.
BrianDavion wrote: sadly I think the problem is some of the minis are hard to tell what is the side and what isn't. I mean a rhino is pretty easy, but some of the more oddly shaped xenos tanks? maybe less so
I mean, this is a solved problem - provide a top-down diagram of the model's silhouette, with the front/side/rear arcs marked on it.
Depending on the vehicle, you might just have front all the way around (Land Raider, Monolith), for others you might just want front/rear, but this isn't an unsolvable problem.
I'm not a fan of bases for vehicles, so I'm ignoring that one
Tracking facing in Warmachine was horrible. If you were lucky everyone at least painted the front arc on their bases. If not it was usually which way the head was facing. It was still a paint in the butt regardless because so many people can not agree which way an invisible line from that point is drawn. So many of the same issues as scatter dice. Talk about non-euclidian geometry…
Dudeface wrote: Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.
but why is that a poor example?
because GW cannot make their own bases and need to pick what is on the market and those don't come with markings?
because 40k players are all cheaters and you cannot trust them to paint the markings right?
because it is too expensive for GW to actually make a game that works and sell bases with markings if arcs would be in the rules?
they only thing my poor example shows that people don't get tired searching for an excuse why it is impossible for a multi million company to actually write a working game
Dudeface wrote: Not my fault you picked a poor example in hordes monsters.
but why is that a poor example?
because GW cannot make their own bases and need to pick what is on the market and those don't come with markings?
because 40k players are all cheaters and you cannot trust them to paint the markings right?
because it is too expensive for GW to actually make a game that works and sell bases with markings if arcs would be in the rules?
they only thing my poor example shows that people don't get tired searching for an excuse why it is impossible for a multi million company to actually write a working game
It was a poor example because you pointed at a company who put no additional facing marks onto the bases as an example of a GW competitor "doing it better".
Calm your hate boner, nobody is saying they can't do it. They're simply stating they maybe don't like bases for all models, don't like the practicalities or don't see facings as necessary.
catbarf wrote: Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction.
Have 40k ever had any mechanics simulating directional engagement for non vehicle units?
catbarf wrote: Flanking bonuses are an approximation of the reality that a unit under fire positions itself to make use of concealment and cover in reaction to the unit engaging it, and is much more vulnerable to attack from a second direction.
Have 40k ever had any mechanics simulating directional engagement for non vehicle units?
Crossfire recently
And it was a good mechanic. Or would've been if tables weren't as crampedly full and mobility therefore actually mattered.
Dudeface wrote: nobody is saying they can't do it. They're simply stating they maybe don't like bases for all models, don't like the practicalities or don't see facings as necessary.
that was pretty much the argument, that arcs are not possible because outside of Rhinos it is too hard to determine them
not that bases on vehicles are ugly, or that they don't see facings necessary but that it is too hard to do it in game
and if your excuse is that the simplest solution of "why it is not too hard" is a poor example because people are cheating I don't know what your point is
if GW want that to be there it could be done very easily, even with tanks like a Falcon and not "GW has not found a solution so it must be impossible"
which is the same stupid argument why all the datacards are full of mistakes, because if GW releases them that way it must be impossible to avoid
Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
NAVARRO wrote: All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?
I haven't seen a complete count anywhere but there are several floating around in a few indexes. With the Orks for instance the Warboss on the Wartrike is a Leader but lacks the character keyword. In turn he can't be targeted by precision due to this oversight.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
Just want to say that this is more or less exactly how we play it locally and the mechanic does not feel out of place in a 40k game. There is a surprising amount of weapons that can be made more interesting when adding the "Suppression" rule to it. For example Multilasers on Chimeras.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills
That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:
Battleshock test after being hit
Movement/charge penalty after being hit
Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit
Cannot benefit from cover after being hit
Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
NAVARRO wrote: All datacards full of mistakes? Genuine question. How many are we talking here?
I haven't seen a complete count anywhere but there are several floating around in a few indexes. With the Orks for instance the Warboss on the Wartrike is a Leader but lacks the character keyword. In turn he can't be targeted by precision due to this oversight.
There also is Thrakka counting as 1 model in a trukk, Mega-Armoured Nobz missing the Mega Armour keyword and the Mob Rule stratagem only lasting until the end of the command phase when there are no command phase stratagems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.
We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"
As some have pointed out there are already rules in place for things such as suppression.
Hell, the "Suppressor Squad" has suppressive fire as their ability.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills
That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:
Battleshock test after being hit
Movement/charge penalty after being hit
Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit
Cannot benefit from cover after being hit
1) Battleshock is not pinning, it does nothing to prevent movement. 2) A modifier to movement or charge range is also not pinning, as it can be largely ignored on fast units. Oh no, my 10" move unit now only moves 8", a loss of 1/5 of my movement. Meanwhile the poor Ork went from 6" to 4", losing 1/3 of their movement. Pinning locks you in place regardless. That's the whole point. 3) A modifier rather than a flat change more heavily penalises units with lower BS while allowing those with better to, again, largely ignore it. 4) This is better applied to weapons such as grenades or flamethrowers to represent a weapon designed to flush people out of cover. When bullets start flying and you hunker down behind a wall, you don't suddenly become more vulnerable to the bullets making you do that.
Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.
And how many factions have none? The point of a single rule is that everyone can have access to it, and it is meant to be harsh and capable of affecting the majority of the units in the game because if it isn't then it is pointless. Units being immune to morale, including the entirety of the most played codex, Space Marines, was literally what made morale and the effects which were designed around it largely pointless in previous editions.
Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.
Spoiler:
Tell me you read the word suppression, and didn't parse what the effects of suppression should be and how it should affect the game. My suggested rule also incorporated leadership, which meant that better trained units require more suppression to reliably pin them, as well as the ability to use your own abilities by your officer equivalents to get a suppressed units back into the fight. That rule does neither. An Eldar Phoenix Lord is just as likely to suffer those effects as a unit of Gretchin.
Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged the enemy! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that suppression allowed them to move as normal!
Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.
Are you really arguing that singular weapons / units constitute an actually valuable mechanic for a wargame that should be a tool that you have available in any vaguely modern warfare type game in all armies? really? NVM that the ability is once again completly static and in a way that it will hurt some armies and factions once more decidedly harder ?
Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged me! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that my suppression allowed them to move as normal!
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.
HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: God knows there's enough room on the new datasheets to include a diagram...
the irony was not lost on me that in 8th when they moved to vehicles having a toughness etc and took away facings as it was too complicated was the same time they gave each vehicle a data card that had space to include an arc diagram, providing for variable toughness and saves in different arcs and could easily have included weapon arcs for all models as well
