Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You guys make it sound like a LR is op just because it can fire all its guns. How many lists do you see these days that even have a LR...

And when was the last time you saw a predator tank on the table?

Its hard enough running vehicles currently already. Why make it even harder. Because the only such line of sight stuff to a weapon would affect are vehicles mainly. Because walkers have 360 line of sight so they don't care. Same for hovercraft.

Unfortunately, knights have killed the ability for other vehicles to be viable (with some exceptions of course). A Castellan just erases your vehicles, and since people also plan to face knights, killing much weaker vehicles is a piece of cake.

Jesus christ that was long.

For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.

 Sherrypie wrote:
For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.

That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.

That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.

Most of that is in the core rulebook, what isn't is in Chapter Approved 2018. That's not asking much, really.

Of course I agree those rules should be just put in as the base line, perhaps through the beta rules system, as people for some reason seem to avoid anything that isn't officially stamped "non-optional" like a plague. But until then, most have CA 18 either for themselves, for their group or store or can just crib it from the internet in like ten seconds.

 Galas wrote:
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.

Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Frankly it's pretty dumb to have flyers in the game at all. But that ship has sailed.

The dumb is that the anti-air stuff is pretty garbage at handling them and for whatever reason some of the stuff that is supposed to be anti-air/anti-skimmer/anti-fast vehicles(Looking at you Dark Reapers) have instead been rejigged to simply be "anti-hit penalty".

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.

That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.

Most of that is in the core rulebook, what isn't is in Chapter Approved 2018. That's not asking much, really.

Of course I agree those rules should be just put in as the base line, perhaps through the beta rules system, as people for some reason seem to avoid anything that isn't officially stamped "non-optional" like a plague. But until then, most have CA 18 either for themselves, for their group or store or can just crib it from the internet in like ten seconds.

Peiple don't like cities of death as the last think the game needs is more sources of stackable minus to hit mess.
Oh yeah GW allow everyone to hit 1/6 of the time, shame the price weapons depending upon the number your supposed to be able to hit on.
+1,+2 cover also has fewer but still some terrible rules interactions. Terminators are as tough in cover as out of cover, but a guardsmen takes half the damage he otherwise would have, because 1's autofail having a -1 save is meaningless.
Cities of death helps meta codex's be more powerful than less meta codex's, that is what your proposing to improve balance really?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.

Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.

One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.

 Imateria wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.

Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.

One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.

Especially since you could put wound after wound on a Wraithlord and it was just as effective as it was unharmed.

Question to those who completed the survey and filled in their email, do you get a confirmation mail after finishing the survey? I finished the survey a few days ago but got just a blank screen within the survey frame after clicking "Done". I figured something might have gone wrong and decided to redo it this morning. Same result though. A blank screen in the survey after clicking done. I have no clue if my answers were actually sent to them or that something went wrong. I'm using Edge, which could be the problem. Any insight would be appreciated because I definitely want to submit my feedback and get a shot at the Sisters of Battle prices.

After completing the survey and filling in my E-Mail address I got a page from Survey Monkey. I don't remember if the page had a "thank you for participating" note, but it certainly looked like it was the official survey completion page.

I used Firefox and got to the survey via the link in GW's newsletter, if that makes a difference.

Thanks, I now redid the survey in IE and I got the final screen with the survey monkey. I have no clue if I now submitted the survey three times, but whatever. I hope they can figure out that this wasn't intentional.

Took the survey two times. Took forever.
No confirmation on neither a separate ”thank you” page nor an email (although it might be due to me selecting the ”no email adverts”-option). The buttons (previous & submit) just stopped working after I pressed submit.
Safari on iPhone XR.
Was my survey(s) submitted or not?
Frustrating.

I asked them to switch to dropper bottles for the paints. I don't think it will ever happen.

Final notes from me on the survay was to update the digital codexes with FAQ and errata as they come out and to include a free download code for the digital with the purchase of a physical copy of a codex/book.

It was long to fulfill for sure!

Far too much stuff about events in my opinion.

Some kind of "Thank you" message would be appreciated
after finishing the survey.
Miss on this one I think.

Couldn't care less about the games anymore. The few games of the latest 40k version I've played have all been about making up combos prior to the game. I can play MtG for that.
I just wish they'd put their paints in dripper bottles. At least do it with the air paints - which after opening become just as gloopy as the normal paints in a few weeks.

I voted for the Return of EPIC with a Horus Heresy Setting.

Everyone should vote for EPIC....

I‘d be up for Epic, but definitely not in the boring, dry, humour deprived Heresy shipwreck of a setting, which is pretty much the anti-thesis of everything that makes 40k great.

If they wanna do Epic right and instead of the wet fart that is AT, they need to go back to the roots with insane Tyranid/Daemon Godzillas and giant Tau suits, zany Ork flying fortresses, titan-sized Dreadnights, funky terrain-rules, etc...

I have to agree, if Epic comes along I really hope its not just "more Imperial VS Imperial." I think GW can only play that card so many times before it becomes boring on its own.

At the very least have pure chaos warped and converted armies to play against.

Then again I figure if we see Epic it will happen after or around the same time AT advances into the more modern eras and starts getting Xenos factions of its own to play with. The advantage there is that titans basically remain the same through the histories. Ground forces between the HH and more modern 40K times clearly evolve and advance. So by the time you've got Tyranids on the field your core Imperial armies are quite different in appearance.

+1 on that. Setting AdTitanicus in Horus period ruined any chance of buying it for me. Mirror matches yay!

I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.

But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.

This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.

They would surely start EPIC in the Horus Heresy, because they need not so much Releases and the Game is better suited to Play this Conflict than 40k.

Later they can introduce Xenos (Orks and Eldar) for the Great Crusade.

And later the 41st MIllenium with new Imoerium and Xeno stuff.

Makes the most sense.

 Sherrypie wrote:
For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.

Because A) that's a lot of extra book keeping and B) Tournaments don't use it.

Of course, I'd be fine if they just got rid of hills. Hills are stupid.

 Imateria wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.

Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.

One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.

This is why I think tanks should be able to buy Invulnerable saves. Should we really believe they can put energy shields on power armor, but not on predators, or leman russes? Being able to spend an appropriate amount of points to get a 5++ save for my predator would be great.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.

Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.

One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.

Especially since you could put wound after wound on a Wraithlord and it was just as effective as it was unharmed.

Yeah, the monster rules were a bit goofy back then.
I do like how they tried to balance them out, but vehicles are now indistinguishable to monsters, and that gets rid of some depth.
I'd rather they gave the monsters the degrading statline and kept some of the vehicle rules to make them stand out mechanically.

They could expand on the degradation mechanic where if a vehicle loses enough wounds, it could risk losing weapons, getting immobilized, etc. The trade off could be that vehicles have lower degradation thresh holds than monsters, and a few more wounds to boot. That should make them a little more distinct.

One thing I think they should have done differently for their own benefit in the survey is this:

They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.

It might be beneficial to ask couple of questions from those who say 'no'. Why aren't they interested in that game and what might change that?

 Crimson wrote:
One thing I think they should have done differently for their own benefit in the survey is this:

They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.

It might be beneficial to ask couple of questions from those who say 'no'. Why aren't they interested in that game and what might change that?

Well, that surely would've made the survey quicker, if everyone also had to answer another page of question on why they don't play Blitzbowl or Adeptus Titanicus, lol.