Switch Theme:

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.


I actually had a look at Necron tournament lists and most seem to be Silent King + catacomb command barge + Chronomancer + 40 necrons+ ghost ark then the rest of the army is like 3 tomb blades, 5 lychguard or a c'tan depending on taste?

I guess because theres a filler unit chucked in there its not skew?


 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?

I think it's just a points issue, I think Necrons need as many nerfs as they need buffs, most Drukhari units need to go up in points, half of AdMech units need to go up in points. The only things points cannot fix is damage output to survivability ratio and whether resolving or remembering a unit's rules is cumbersome. I think most Necron units strike the right balance between offence and defence, same for Drukhari. AdMech are probably a little too glass cannon-esque, stuff like getting a 100% return on investment isn't something I would associate with AdMech, like an Assault 3 gun with auto-wound on hits of 6 on a T3 4+/6++ body. Necrons and Drukhari have some cumbersome rules, but cumbersome rules like Drukhari Blade Artists or Necron Reanimation Protocols for multi-wound models are not a balance issue, they just bog the game down in minutiae.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 17:29:31


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


No, it's very likely a you problem. At least concerning Necrons You're just biased & can't (I.E. won't) see it. I know this because you aren't the only Necron player playing in casual settings & plenty of them (and myself) are doing just fine with our not-undead space robots.
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?




Noctis Labyrinthus

 Sim-Life wrote:

Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


If you get stomped in casual play with Necrons then it is you who is at fault my friend. Be mad about it all you like, but no one has to accept the lies you tell yourself.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:

Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


If you get stomped in casual play with Necrons then it is you who is at fault my friend. Be mad about it all you like, but no one has to accept the lies you tell yourself.


(Most balanced edition ever!)

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Necrons are in an odd position of probably being the weakest 9th edition book. But realistically if (when) they nerf DE, Ad Mech and possibly some elements of Sisters and Ork Buggies (sorry guys, but yeah), they'll be up there.

As it stands I feel if you are playing casually they are fine - unless the only people you play casually are Dark Eldar players or mysteriously running the above.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Ah, the good old "blame the victim" defense. That always works so well. I can win consistently with all-comers Sisters, AdMech, IG and Daemons and even occasionally my nids. But for some reason necrons just make me play like a doofus.

(Also I forgot I also have Grey Knights, which I haven't used much but the game I did play with them, I won, but it was 8th so I dunno if it counts.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 18:26:09



 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?

I think it's just a points issue, I think Necrons need as many nerfs as they need buffs, most Drukhari units need to go up in points, half of AdMech units need to go up in points. The only things points cannot fix is damage output to survivability ratio and whether resolving or remembering a unit's rules is cumbersome. I think most Necron units strike the right balance between offence and defence, same for Drukhari. AdMech are probably a little too glass cannon-esque, stuff like getting a 100% return on investment isn't something I would associate with AdMech, like an Assault 3 gun with auto-wound on hits of 6 on a T3 4+/6++ body. Necrons and Drukhari have some cumbersome rules, but cumbersome rules like Drukhari Blade Artists or Necron Reanimation Protocols for multi-wound models are not a balance issue, they just bog the game down in minutiae.

Agreed. I think a lot of the balance issues that factions with older codexes, be they early 9th edition codexes like Necrons or 8th edition codexes, is because gw isn't putting enough effort into balancing their points against the more highly tuned newer codexes like AdMech and Dark Eldar. Most of the units in the newer codexes seem a bit cheap for what they do compared to the units in older books.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I know that "git gud" is not a good reply but as a matter of fact I suck at this game.

If I play stronger lists I do better but not even 10% of the potential a better player could achieve with those same lists.

But thats fine. I play warhammer 1-3 times a month. 20-30 times a year. How can you be good at something you do 20-30 times a year?

I mean I played thousands of games of lol and I was mediocre at best.

In general , most of the people that play 40k is actually pretty bad at it. But I know, not many people want to admit it because is very easy to come online and complaint about how easy the game is, but then when you are on the table actually making the right choices doesnt come as easy, even if you know the combos or tactics of your list.

In most casual enviroments, the player matter more than the lists because most players range from bad to mediocre so even if one is playing an stronger list , most of the time they are gonna use it so badly that it won't be so different from a less optimized list.

if you really think using 50 points to give power swourds and plasma pistols to your tactical squad sargeants is the difference between winning or losing in a casual or semi competitive enviroment...

Knowing how to play to objetives, what secondaries to pick, and when to engage, will win you more games than changing your lists or units outside the most egregious examples.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 18:39:12


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Sim-Life wrote:
Ah, the good old "blame the victim" defense. That always works so well. I can win consistently with all-comers Sisters, AdMech, IG and Daemons and even occasionally my nids. But for some reason necrons just make me play like a doofus.


So it IS a you problem.
Though maybe not exactly a skill problem.
Look, there's just some armies that some people aren't compatible with for whatever mysterious reason. You'd think that shouldn't be the case. That in the end, no matter what your minis look like, that it's just math, probability/statistics, & knowing the special rules that apply to an army. Space robot skeleton, sci-fi Nun, card board pawn/token, random Monopoly pieces.... It shouldn't matter.
And yet it doesn't always work like that in miniature wargaming....

But your failure to pilot Necrons does not make them a bad army overall. Just a bad army for you.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.


I actually had a look at Necron tournament lists and most seem to be Silent King + catacomb command barge + Chronomancer + 40 necrons+ ghost ark then the rest of the army is like 3 tomb blades, 5 lychguard or a c'tan depending on taste?

I guess because theres a filler unit chucked in there its not skew?


What do you mean when you say "most"? 50%? 60%? There's tons of lists without SK though you'd be crazy not to take a ctan most games.

This guy took 2nd
Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Overlord [6 PL, 110pts]: Relic: Voidreaper, Voidscythe, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 2): Eternal Madness

Plasmancer [5 PL, 90pts, -1CP]: Arkana: Quantum Orb, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

+ Troops +

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer): 20x Gauss Flayer

+ Elites +

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

++ Vanguard Detachment -3CP (Necrons) [78 PL, 1,450pts, -5CP] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment Command Cost [-3CP]

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Skorpekh Lord [7 PL, 130pts, -2CP]: Dynastic Heirlooms, Rarefied Nobility, Relic: Gauntlet of the Conflagrator, Warlord Trait (Codex 1): Enduring Will

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Heavy Support +

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon


This guy was LWWWWL and took 7th

Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Chronomancer: Aeonstave, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

Lord: Relic: Orb of Eternity, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 3): Immortal Pride

Technomancer: Canoptek Cloak

+ Troops +

Immortals: Gauss Blaster, 5x Immortal

Immortals: Gauss Blaster, 5x Immortal

Necron Warriors
. 19x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper): 19x Gauss Reaper

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer: Power of the C'tan: Transdimensional Thunderbolt

Cryptothralls
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Flayed Ones
. 5x Flayed One: 5x Flayer Claws

Skorpekh Destroyers: Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade)
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Fast Attack +

Canoptek Scarab Swarms
. 3x Canoptek Scarab Swarm: 3x Feeder Mandibles

Canoptek Wraiths
. 5x Canoptek Wraith (Claws): 5x Vicious Claws

+ Heavy Support +

Annihilation Barge: Gauss Cannon

Annihilation Barge: Gauss Cannon

Tesseract Ark
. Two Gauss Cannons: 2x Gauss Cannon



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 19:11:08


   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:


This guy took 2nd
Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Overlord [6 PL, 110pts]: Relic: Voidreaper, Voidscythe, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 2): Eternal Madness

Plasmancer [5 PL, 90pts, -1CP]: Arkana: Quantum Orb, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

+ Troops +

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer): 20x Gauss Flayer

+ Elites +

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

++ Vanguard Detachment -3CP (Necrons) [78 PL, 1,450pts, -5CP] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment Command Cost [-3CP]

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Skorpekh Lord [7 PL, 130pts, -2CP]: Dynastic Heirlooms, Rarefied Nobility, Relic: Gauntlet of the Conflagrator, Warlord Trait (Codex 1): Enduring Will

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Heavy Support +

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon




And that's a list basically made by cheap halves of the starter set. The exact opposite of skew.


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

I personally think the complexity is in the right place - the codexes. Without it, sure the game would be easier to pick up for new players, but experienced players could lose interest. That's not to say that I don't think the rules could be improved by removing some of the complexity (CPs and stratagems), but I think the high level idea is right.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 07:14:39


https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/
Chaos Knights - Ultramarines - Thousand Sons - Grey Knights 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:

What do you mean when you say "most"? 50%? 60%? There's tons of lists without SK though you'd be crazy not to take a ctan most games.




By most I mean "the ones google showed me when I googled 'necron tournament list 2021'"


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 dreadblade wrote:
I personally think the complexity is in the right place - the codexes. Without it, sure the game would be easier to pick up for new players, but experienced players could lose interest. That's not to say that I don't think the rules could be improved by removing some of the complexity (CPs and stratagems), but I think the high level idea is right.


I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity. I mean, combined with the core rules there aren't many more rules than we had in the past. And current rules are way easier to understand and remember, they're simply better written.

I do have a problem of complexity, or just standard bloat, when in a codex there's tons of stuff that is almost identical. Take the ork codex: why 4 planes and 5 buggies for example? In the older codexes buggies had one profile and four possible weapons, now there are five datasheets and 15 weapons between them, with some that are basically the same thing (rokkit launcha, rokkit kannon, wing missiles) but with a slightly different profile. Each model has also specific own rules. What's the point of having something like 10 transports in a SM codex?

For someone new it's extremely hard to figure out what to buy and play, it's not a matter of remembering the rules.

Good internal balance that 9th edition codexes have helps with that, but it's still a barrier for beginners, especially for those who want to play armies that don't have good starters/patrol boxes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 07:43:17



 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It's a bloated mess, and even others are talking about it aside from here. The only ones who don't see it probably say very little bad about 40k no matter what it does. Not to cast shade on anyone directly but, looking at it as a new player, your mind would melt with the level of bloat to run some armies currently and it'll only get worse.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.


I'm not against codex (read faction) specific rules, but I'd rather lose the CP/stratagem mechanic. Put unit-specific rules on the datasheet then you don't have to try and memorise and cross-reference so much.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/
Chaos Knights - Ultramarines - Thousand Sons - Grey Knights 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 dreadblade wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.


I'm not against codex (read faction) specific rules, but I'd rather lose the CP/stratagem mechanic. Put unit-specific rules on the datasheet then you don't have to try and memorise and cross-reference so much.


I absolutely agree regarding stratagems and CP.

As for faction-specific rules, I think it's fine to have them but with two conditions:

1) We also have USRs. The game does not need 400 different names for Deep Strike or Feel No Pain, and having them just makes other rule-interactions more awkward because you also can't reference them by name.

2) They have to actually add something to the game beyond more bloody rerolls. Reroll 1s when standing near a character, reroll 1s to hit in melee, reroll 1s to wound when shooting, zzzzzZZZZZ. These rules add nothing to the game beyond bloat and we'd be far better off cutting them wholesale.

I think it's reasonable to say that a big part of unit- or faction-specific rules is to help differentiate the different units and factions. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever if all these "faction-specific" rules basically amount to the same rules, just with different names.

As an example, let's take three units - a Space Marine Captain, a Thousand Sons Exalted Sorcerer, and a Dark Eldar Archon.

These are, I think you would agree, quite different units. You have a super-soldier who's a loyal servant of the Emperor, a high-ranking sorcerer of the Chaos god of change and mutation, and vampiric space elf who thrives on inflicting pain and suffering and excels at labyrinthine strategies.

So what special rules are these three characters given to differentiate them?

Well, the Captain has Rites of Battle, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
Meanwhile, the Exalted Sorcerer has Lord of the Thousand Sons, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
In stark contras, the Archon has Overlord, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.

This is the sort of thing I absolutely *don't* want to see when it comes to special rules for units or factions.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

Also, about the multiple types of buggy differentiated by weaponry, fully agree. For a race which bolts scraps of wrecked whatever together into functioning vehicles through the weird power of Mork and Gork, why are all of these "Scrapjets"(TM) excactly the same and so different from other vehicles, as if coming from a new Hyundai assembly line? I have a similar problem with new ork sculpts for Ao$ - what is the deal with smooth rounded armor panels all painted bright yellow? For a "destruction" army, that is some pretty nifty outfit... yuck.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/19 16:11:53


   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 jeff white wrote:
The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Death Guard play differently to Drukhari even though they both have access to a similar rule that echoes FNP. Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.

Also, about the multiple types of buggy differentiated by weaponry, fully agree. For a race which bolts scraps of wrecked whatever together into functioning vehicles through the weird power of Mork and Gork, why are all of these "Scrapjets"(TM) excactly the same and so different from other vehicles, as if coming from a new Hyundai assembly line?

Because it's a model kit, there's only so much you can do with it. If you want differentiated units, kitbash like everyone else, if you're an Ork player you'll have the spare parts. Did you also complain about the Battlewagon, Trukk, Warbikes, Wartrike, Warbuggy, and Ork Jets?

I have a similar problem with new ork sculpts for Ao$ - what is the deal with smooth rounded armor panels all painted bright yellow? For a "destruction" army, that is some pretty nifty outfit... yuck.

The Ironsunz wear yellow so people can see them coming. It's a sign you're about to get a good kicking. Also, Bad Moons are yellow. Orks like yellow cos it's flashy, shows you've got loads of teef.
Orcs and Orruks have had rounded armour since WHFB, and the Ironjawz are based on 'Ardboys. Rounded armour isn't magic science like gunpowder, you just hit it until it isn't flat anymore.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Gert wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Death Guard play differently to Drukhari even though they both have access to a similar rule that echoes FNP. Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.

I agree, having to flip to different places, even within the same book is not good. A datasheet should contain all rules, except for the wordiest ones like Resurrection Protocols and Power from Pain.

Deep Strike, Outflank, Feel No Pain, Infiltrate, Scout, Hard to Hit, Hard to Wound, Poisoned Weapon, Eternal Warrior, It Will Not Die would be my suggestions for rules that should be renamed, it's okay if you cannot immediately guess what these would do, I would still want the rule to be spelled out, I just want name changes.

Deep Strike: During deployment, you can set up this unit in Reserves instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you do, then during the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.
Outflank: During deployment, you can set up this unit in Reserves instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you do, then during the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models and wholly within 6" of the same battlefield edge.
(x+) Feel No Pain: Each time this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on an x+, the damage is ignored and the unit does not lose that wound.
Infiltrate: During deployment, when you set up this unit then it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models.
Scout (x): At the start of the first battle round, models in this unit can make a Normal Move x". They cannot end this move within 9" of any enemy models.
Hard to Hit/Hard to Hit (Melee)/Hard to Hit (Shooting): Subtract 1 from hit rolls for attacks made against this unit./Subtract 1 from hit rolls for Melee attacks made against this unit./Subtract 1 from hit rolls for Shooting attacks made against this unit.
Eternal Warrior (x-z): Unmodified wound rolls of x-z always fail against this unit.
It Will Not Die: At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains 1 lost wound.

SZAREKHAN DYNASTIC CODE example
Each time a model with this code would lose a wound as the result of a mortal wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost. -> Units with this code have a 5+ Feel No Pain against mortal wounds. Each time this unit loses a wound from a mortal wound, roll a D6; on an 5+, the damage is ignored and the unit does not lose that wound.

So if your opponent doesn't get what you mean when you say "units with this code have a 5+ FNP against mortal wounds", the rest of the explanation is still there, but GW helps maintain the vocabulary they built over editions to make learning the rules of new armies more manageable. Reading that Szarekhan Necrons have a 5+ FNP against mortal wounds and then having to look it up in the main rulebook would not be good, half the shorthand used to explain rules being informal isn't good either.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 vict0988 wrote:

It Will Not Die: At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains 1 lost wound.


Very minor point - I'd probably make this "It Will Not Die (X): At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains X lost wound(s)."

So X could be 1 but it could also be 2 or 3 or d3.

As with your FNP example, it just adds a little more flexibility.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







The same sort of logic could also be applied to the distance limitations of Deep Strike, Infiltrate and/or Outflank, though I'd be very hesitant to differ from the basic 9".

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Everything is better with (X) values.

If it were Deep Strike (X) that would allow for fewer special rules and exceptions to rules.

 Gert wrote:
Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
Any rules that are repeated between different books.

You have to look at USRs in a similar way that we would look at data compression. It's about removing redundancies via reducing instances of the same information being repeated over and over again. I think the perfect example of this is the "Overcharge" that most plasma weaponry can do. This rule is repeated over and over again, data-sheet to data-sheet, Codex to Codex, and with a few small variations here and there. This repetition has led to weird rules inconsistencies as well, such as Chaos Rhinos killing themselves instantly on a 1 because they use the Combi-Weapon rules, which are generic.

If the rulebook had a simple USR - Overcharge (X) - and defined it as "When an unmodified roll of X is scored on a To Hit roll, the unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound", you wouldn't need to repeat it a thousand times everywhere, and as it's an (X) value it automatically allows for scaling and special versions of the rule without re-writing the rule.

This is the benefit of USRs. It's the same principle that GW has taken for Marines. After an edition of having to include Primaris units in every Marine-focused Psychic Awakening book because BA/DA/etc. could take them, but they weren't native to their book, they changed those factions into supplements and put all the Primaris units into a single core book. Rather than USRs it's more USMU - Universal Space Marine Units.

 Gert wrote:
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.
And if the rules were compressed in such a fashion that there was limited chance of one person's FNP being slightly different from another, there'd be no reason to repeat them 5+ times per book. Plus you'd learn what that rule meant because it exists in a single location, thus you wouldn't have to keep looking through the BRB.

Fewer rules, compressed in one location, less to learn, more time spent playing, less time pouring through data-sheets.

 Gert wrote:
Because it's a model kit, there's only so much you can do with it.
That's a bit backwards. GW made the choice to release 6 different Buggies with zero options (rules or model-wise) rather than a single Buggie (or even a couple - a Buggie and a Trike), and thanks to no model/no rule, the race that should have the most kit-bash-ability and customisation options gets 6 set models with set options in the biggest display of anti-creativity from GW.

There is plenty you can do with a model kit. GW chose not to do it that way.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 01:38:50


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





I'm still playing third edition with family. LOL.

Just like anything else with the hobby my advice is to take your time, don't be in a hurry and don't rush to judgment. Just like it takes time to assemble and paint the models, it takes time to adjust to new rules.
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

My response to this discussion whenever it comes up is basically: 9th Ed isn't complex, but certain armies are. People talk about being overwhelmed by options and relics and upgrades and pre-game stuff or command phases being absurd, but I'm sitting here as a Necron ans Drukhari player going "u wot m8"

GW's major misstep has been making the most popular and prevalent army and one which new players are encouraged to pick up, one of the more complex to build army lists for and actually play. Of course Admech is also an issue in terms of rulesbloat too.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
Any rules that are repeated between different books.

You have to look at USRs in a similar way that we would look at data compression. It's about removing redundancies via reducing instances of the same information being repeated over and over again. I think the perfect example of this is the "Overcharge" that most plasma weaponry can do. This rule is repeated over and over again, data-sheet to data-sheet, Codex to Codex, and with a few small variations here and there. This repetition has led to weird rules inconsistencies as well, such as Chaos Rhinos killing themselves instantly on a 1 because they use the Combi-Weapon rules, which are generic.

If the rulebook had a simple USR - Overcharge (X) - and defined it as "When an unmodified roll of X is scored on a To Hit roll, the unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound", you wouldn't need to repeat it a thousand times everywhere, and as it's an (X) value it automatically allows for scaling and special versions of the rule without re-writing the rule.

This is the benefit of USRs. It's the same principle that GW has taken for Marines. After an edition of having to include Primaris units in every Marine-focused Psychic Awakening book because BA/DA/etc. could take them, but they weren't native to their book, they changed those factions into supplements and put all the Primaris units into a single core book. Rather than USRs it's more USMU - Universal Space Marine Units.


Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.

Heck, on datasheets where there is room, you could even reprint the rule in full - but you'd still be using the standardised language and name, which is what helps to breed familiarity with the rule and how it operates.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: