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 ca
Charing Cold One Knight





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


I do agree with this now that you mention it. Disgustingly resilient gets a lot more ominous and fun when people talk about it instead of some "Hard Resist" ability. In that way the new format is much more meaningful and fun lorewise.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


Firstly, there are ways around that, by including a fluff-based name as well as the USR, or improving the fluff content in recent Codices.

That aside, I don't really get why you're so concerned about the name of a rule when surely the most important thing is how the unit is represented on the tabletop. I want my unit to operate how it should according to the fluff. The name of the rule isn't nearly as important as the effect it has, unless you're in the habit of just shouting the names of rules at each other rather than playing the game. I didn't see anyone complaining in previous editions that Blood Angels, Tau and Eldar all had troops that could Deep Strike using various different means.
   
Made in ca
Master Sergeant





 Gert wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.


This is a reply to an opinion that is even less data-based, existing purely in imagination land. Virtually nothing about this entire thread is data-based by the very nature of the content being argued. And I think you know full well that the term deep strike is still ubiquitous in the hobby.

Why even make this post.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.


There's a difference between what happens on the table and how you process the background of your army. I'm never going to say 'Ardent Automata' and I'll always say they're just immune to morale. This is in lieu of telling my opponent that they're 'Steadfast' and then they may have to look that up if they don't remember or we go full circle and I just tell them 'immune to morale'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:


Firstly, there are ways around that, by including a fluff-based name as well as the USR, or improving the fluff content in recent Codices.

That aside, I don't really get why you're so concerned about the name of a rule when surely the most important thing is how the unit is represented on the tabletop. I want my unit to operate how it should according to the fluff. The name of the rule isn't nearly as important as the effect it has, unless you're in the habit of just shouting the names of rules at each other rather than playing the game. I didn't see anyone complaining in previous editions that Blood Angels, Tau and Eldar all had troops that could Deep Strike using various different means.


I'm not truly concerned. I see both sides. For me it's just easier to have the rule on the datasheet regardless of the name and be able to just state what it does rather than reference it in any way to a name or USR.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 14:37:14


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.




Rubric Marines
Skilled Bolter Dude Malicious Volleys : This unit can bla bla bla...


Just have rules written like this on the datasheet if you think the fluff name should be part of the rules.

Personally, i think the fluff names don't need to be in the datasheet, you know from reading the fluff of your army that orks use tellyporta instead of Teleportariums or Webway infiltrations

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 14:59:58


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

No, it does not. The lore should be explained in the lore section of the codex, not in the datasheet.
 Gert wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.

Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.


Understood.

I don't think I'm particularly against USR nor am I for them. I just don't see a quality of life improvement, because I am just giving rules text from the datasheet directly.

   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 vict0988 wrote:
Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.

If you don't have different magic effects prepared then I'm sorry but you have lost 40k.
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 vict0988 wrote:

Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.


To be fair, with most witchfire psychic power, just letting the caster do an extra smite would give pretty much the same outcome

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Ventus wrote:
Why even make this post.
Because Gert, for whatever reason, seems weirdly intent on shooting down any proposed idea as either being "two difficult" or "because it wouldn't work".

"Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions!"

He's only made it half-way through that phrase so far.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 15:18:36


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

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 the_scotsman wrote:

You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.


If GW was ever to implement this revolutionary idea, do you think there's any possibility they might use black and white pictures for the images (instead of either paintings or photographs)?

Each to their own but I can't say I've been particularly thrilled by the pictures in recent books. Most of them look like someone drank some watercolours and then threw up onto a moving train.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoiler:
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.



Thanks for getting back to me. I hadn't considered the aspect of splitting auras based on how they are generated. It's definitely a neat idea.

 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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


Tellyporta
Ork Meks are capable of building short-distance teleportation beacons, and guard the secrets of their construction- whether this is out of simple jealousy or because they themselves don't quite know how it works is a mystery to Imperial scientists.
This unit has the Deep Strike USR.

This was already a solved problem two decades ago. If you don't want to have to look up what Deep Strike means, you can even reproduce the rules text in the entry as well.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 16:20:06


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


Tellyporta
Ork Meks are capable of building short-distance teleportation beacons, and guard the secrets of their construction- whether this is out of simple jealousy or because they themselves don't quite know how it works is a mystery to Imperial scientists.
This unit has the Deep Strike USR.

This was already a solved problem two decades ago. If you don't want to have to look up what Deep Strike means, you can even reproduce the rules text in the entry as well.


But then what problem are we solving?

If it's a new player then they have to go look up the rule to understand the datasheet.
If it's an old player it doesn't seem to make a difference.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do that - I'm just having a hard time getting my brain to go along. Why not just have everything on the datasheet?

I think what people are asking for is that I hand you my army list and it says:

Unit 1 - stuff
USR: Deepstrike, Steadfast

Unit 2 - stuff
USR: Resolute, Unbreakable

etc etc

Then at that point you don't need my book to interpret the list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 17:02:16


   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Daedalus81 wrote:

But then what problem are we solving?

If it's a new player then they have to go look up the rule to understand the datasheet.
If it's an old player it doesn't seem to make a difference.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do that - I'm just having a hard time getting my brain to go along. Why not just have everything on the datasheet?

I think what people are asking for is that I hand you my army list and it says:

Unit 1 - stuff
USR: Deepstrike, Steadfast

Unit 2 - stuff
USR: Resolute, Unbreakable

etc etc

Then at that point you don't need my book to interpret the list.



Multiple problems would be solved. But before i list them , i'll specify that i would apply USR like MTG does.
So the datasheet would have a "table" with these informations :
USR Name (USR variable)fluff name : <Rules description>.

This accomplishes many things.

First, you don't need to reference another source for the rules, theyre already on your datasheet (the complete USR list should still be present outside datasheets, problably in the BRB).

Second, new players would learn through repetition what the rules do, even for other armies. Example : if a new player plays Deathguard and knows that his poxwalkers have the Fearless USR, when a Thousand Sons players tells him his Rubrics are Fearless, he'll know what it means instantly.

Thirdly (and most importantly), it opens up cleaner rules writing and more options in the long run. Now you could feasibly have certain bespoke abilities that reference USR, lets say Nightlords get a specific psychic power that prevented a unit from being immune to morale. Instead of needing to write something like "Target unit is unaffected by any abilities that lets them automatically pass morale/combat attrition tests", you could simply have it say "Target unit loses Fearless". Adding USR variables also helps for cleaner rules writing, now instead of giving the Callidus assassin an extra rule that lets her deepstrike at 9-D6", just give her "Deepstrike (9-D6")" or you could give GSG Deepstrike(8") or add a brand new "ambush shooting unit" with Deepstrike (12"), to signify that its not meant to charge out of deepstrike but to shoot instead.



As for "why not have everything on the datasheet".. well. yes? thats kinda what we've been suggesting in addition to giving stuff names that are universal



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 17:20:09


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The great thing is that GW already does this in other games. The Kill Team Core Rulebook has all of the USRs (and they are indeed USRs) in the back, using (x) to denote variables and listing all of the effects in nice, neat, alphabetical order. You do have to reference the USRs, since they don't list all the effects on the datacards, which probably saves space and ink, but whatever.

They do something similar for Terrain in 40k, giving terrain keywords like 'Defensible' and 'Light Cover' and 'Obscuring' and whatnot to help everyone at the table understand what all the terrain does in a language that every terrain piece shares. It's not like Imperium Terrain has "Defensible In His Holy Name" and Eldar cover has "Superior Defensibility" and Ork terrain has "ROIGHT PROPAH DEFENSY". No matter what faction it is, it's the same keywords, which, lo and behold, helps speed the game up quite a bit.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...But then what problem are we solving?...


The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun) to try and figure out whether your Deep Strike is the same as my Deep Strike or if it's one of a dozen slight variations on Deep Strike GW wrote for the sake of making sure everyone's Deep Strike is just a little bit different from everyone else's. If I've read every Codex I'll know the slight variations, yes, and if I'm completely brand-new I'll need to read it anyway, yes, but standardization helps a lot with getting people across that gap from "not knowing how everything works" to "knowing how everything works" by making the intermediate stage of only knowing how some things work shorter and less painful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:03:18


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 ca
Charing Cold One Knight





The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:10:35


 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Thats exactly why GW should bring them back (and use them in a smart way)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

same concept as this. If your playerbase already ignores the fluff names and calls it "Deepstrike" for convenience, you should really rename it to "Deepstrike" everywhere

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:13:09


Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Sort of, among players, but I've seen cases where we call a rule the same thing as another one that's written slightly differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Thats exactly why GW should bring them back (and use them in a smart way)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

same concept as this. If your playerbase already ignores the fluff names and calls it "Deepstrike" for convenience, you should really rename it to "Deepstrike" everywhere


If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:21:55


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 ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?


I'm describing the fact that GW's standard design practice today is to do the exact opposite of that, which is probably a better explanation for why we don't have USRs than any specific properties of whether USRs are a good or bad idea.

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 ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?


I'm describing the fact that GW's standard design practice today is to do the exact opposite of that, which is probably a better explanation for why we don't have USRs than any specific properties of whether USRs are a good or bad idea.


Oh, yeah, 100%. I just wish the rules were written with a more modern flair tbh.

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

As long as the full or nearly the full rules of a unit are in his datasheet I cannot care more about how they do it.


I hate old rules of "This model has this 3 options for weapons" ok I'm flipping to the armory to see the stats of the weapons and chose what I want "Oh look each weapon has 1-2 USR to look for how cool".

Thats stupid. The only rules I accept to not be on the datasheet of every model are the general rules of a faction or subfaction like Angels of Death because those apply to all my army so I don't need to reference them when chosing what units to put on my list or each time I'm using a unit.

Give me the stats, the weapons options, the weapons profiles and rules and effects and the full rules of a unit in his datasheet. I don't care if you put it "Come from the shadows: this unit has deepstrike: it can enter from reservers blablabla"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:45:59


 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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 18:57:13


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ca
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus






 the_scotsman wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT


Don't get me started on the Chaos Land Raider one shotting itself if its pintle mounted plasma rolls a 1....

Admech Lucius
Drukhari
Craftworld Yme-Loc
Thousand sons
Tzeentch Demons
Slaanesh Demons
Night Lords
Imperial knights

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT


Don't get me started on the Chaos Land Raider one shotting itself if its pintle mounted plasma rolls a 1....


Oh, you mean how the NO FUN POLICE at GW got rid of my incredibly smart incredibly good khorne bezerker turn 1 charge strat with their garbage terrible FAQ that makes combi-plasma rhinos not blow themselves up 75% of the time?

More like Games DONT WORK ges-shop-o.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 19:14:40


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The edition wars are pretty bad right now; asking questions about "how is anyone supposed to parse 9th?" on Dakka is likely to lead to a long argument between the "9th is best edition!" crowd and "9th is worst edition!" crowd. Generally this comes in the form of making wildly different value judgements on the same facts (ex. the pace of releases is good because people get new stuff faster, or the pace of releases is bad because it makes it hard to keep up with what's going on), which means that the arguments go on and on and round in circles and never go anywhere.

I've found that except for a couple of outliers (hi PenitentJake!) the people who enjoy 9th the most are competitive players that don't mind buying models just to win/not playing models they like because they're bad, enjoy keeping up with the tournament meta, and like the move to a more deterministic game. If you're going to try and play 40k right now I'd strongly suggest doing your research ahead of time; before buying anything or making any list-building decisions watch some battle reports, read some reviews (not the GW ones where they're gushing over everything independent of whether it's crap), and look at what lists other people are building. Internal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.

If you just want to start playing a minis game I'd strongly suggest looking into things that aren't 40k. More so than earlier editions it's hard to drop in/drop out or otherwise play casually; you're expected to keep up with tournament play and have multiple armies so you can swap when half your stuff gets squatted to a degree that wasn't so mainstream ten or fifteen years ago.


Counterpoint from my own experiance: This is no different to any other edition, and I came in at 2007 so I have about 13-14 years of experiance and all that time the players have been no different. You netlist the same 25% of units and get told your using the wrong minis for wanting to actually enjoy the game for its lore or want a bit more variety in the lists. The playerbase has always been this toxic.

The main difference is that in 8th-9th it's a lot more transparent. Every competitive list revolves around these main factors:

- Getting the auras
- Getting The strats
- Getting the Keywords
- Getting the subfaction
Combo it all together

For what purpose? Making sure your list has as close as possible to get probability to 0% on the rolling the dice to either A) Auto-Delete units or B) Survive whats coming while you squat on an objective. At this point the competitive playebase needs to concede the fact that they're not really wanting to roll dice, they just want to get rid of that time-wasting element so they can just get on winning in their turn of the game.

That's competitive 40k in a nutshell in 9th.

For the OP: I've just had my second game of 9th a few days ago after taking a gaming break mid-8th. My Necrons Vs. DG. 1250pts. Oppnent brought Morty...

I won the game 48-38VP and I really enjoy the fact that I played to the objective and won because of that felt gratifying, espcially with a unit I could not deal with at that low of points, but I can tell you right now that I can fully sympathise with the micro-management as there's a lot more than before, espically with Stratagems. I felt as though I was shuffling a card deck than pushing models around. I will be trying 9th again as I had enjoyed the core mechasnics and enjoyed the mission I was playing

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 19:19:45


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: