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.
RevlidRas wrote: Sid Meier is quoted as saying that a game is a series of interesting decisions. My core problem with 8e is that it includes fewer of those decisions, and they matter less.
Just a little correction. He said GAMEPLAY is a series of interesting decisions. There is a big difference between defining a game and defining gameplay.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
RevlidRas wrote: Sid Meier is quoted as saying that a game is a series of interesting decisions. My core problem with 8e is that it includes fewer of those decisions, and they matter less.
Just a little correction. He said GAMEPLAY is a series of interesting decisions. There is a big difference between defining a game and defining gameplay.
True, but a game shapes gameplay. There are certainly games in which players create their own interesting decisions largely from the sandbox ether, discover new opportunities emergent from the existing systems, or even against the developer's intent – Minecraft is an example of the former – but a wargame like Warhammer 40,000 probably shouldn't be one of them.
(I don't actually know the full quote, and I've often heard that it's a misquote – so I just said he was quoted as saying it, which is a nice weaselly way of dodging responsibility for getting it right)
Jidmah wrote: Eh, there is quite a lot of rose-tinted glasses involved here.
To be clear, I'm not praising these older mechanics (at least, not universally) – I'm just pointing out the ways in which different stats and options had more weight and distinction to them than in the "sliding scale" approach of 8e.
I can agree on that, but I don't think that the old mechanics did it better, quite the opposite. Right now the weapons I use to kill a predator (SAG, KMK) vary vastly from those I need to kill a assault terminator squad (mortal wounds) to those I need to kill a unit of intercessors (lootas, flash gits) to those I need to kill a unit of scouts (shootas). Of course, lootas might kill a terminator or two and a SAG will definitely kill some scouts, but neither is effective at it.
Some weapons are too all-round efficient and need to be fixed, but I don't think that the system is the problem. Then again, I really love apoc's idea of providing different "strengths" for shooting at armored targets.
To use an example you raised, I'm not really concerned with whether insta-exploding vehicles that are immune to most weapons is a good thing for the game. I'm more concerned with examining how much weight that system puts on weapon choice and placement, as opposed to blasting away at vehicles to whittle them down the same way you would anything else. As I noted in my own post, the Marine-heavy meta (which hasn't and will never change) and tendency toward army-wide standard Save values meant that AP4 was worthless against MEQ armies while stripping clean through Tau or Eldar – but it can't be denied that the difference between an AP4 weapon and an AP3 weapon was more stark than an AP-1 weapon vs an AP-2 weapon now.
But isn't that the only difference in the whole system?
AP 4+ were the same. AP 1-3 were the same. You basically had AP "yes" and AP "no" with the definition varying depending on the army you were facing. If you look at it closely the "initiative system" in 8th has more variation with "fight in order", "fight first" and "fight before first".
The problem is more that AP-1 is priced to aggressively on high strength, high RoF weapons, making them all-rounders. In general, the difference between AP-1 and AP-2 is quite big when shooting targets with good saves, with the higher values getting slightly weaker due to invulnerable saves. A squad of loots is unlikely to kill a squad of terminators in cover, no matter what.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
RevlidRas wrote: Sid Meier is quoted as saying that a game is a series of interesting decisions. My core problem with 8e is that it includes fewer of those decisions, and they matter less.
Just a little correction. He said GAMEPLAY is a series of interesting decisions. There is a big difference between defining a game and defining gameplay.
True, but a game shapes gameplay. There are certainly games in which players create their own interesting decisions largely from the sandbox ether, discover new opportunities emergent from the existing systems, or even against the developer's intent – Minecraft is an example of the former – but a wargame like Warhammer 40,000 probably shouldn't be one of them.
(I don't actually know the full quote, and I've often heard that it's a misquote – so I just said he was quoted as saying it, which is a nice weaselly way of dodging responsibility for getting it right)
Incorrect. A Game is generally something that has a win condition and rules governing it's structure and game play no matter how vague those things might be. Tag is a game where you chase a person to make the other one "It" Not being it is a win condition. Everything else is left vague. The emergent gameplay of hiding and running and dodging or whatever is just some game play.
Minecraft is only really a game in survival mode where your decisions have potential consequences. Otherwise it is a fun sandbox (things that are not games can also be fun) to play in but that does not make it a game (Some kids LOVE shoots and ladders but shoots and ladders has no choices to make so it has no game play and is thus not really a game). 40k has all of it's most interesting decisions in the list building. Which leaves it's actual game play shallow and empty. Screening is a form of emergent game play because it's a thing that is never explicitly stated as a thing to do but it's so useful that it inherently happens. Developers intent is mostly meaningless (the author is dead). Once the rules have been released the players who follow them will do what they want within the structure of the game. A bad design will see the players run rampant in unintended ways that are a detriment to the game play experience. A good design will either leave much open intentionally to the benefit of the gameplay experience or it won't allow the players to make those decisions at all.
Again, back to the topic, 40k has next to no meaningful choices. 90% of the time the decision of who to shoot that gun at is crystal clear and to do otherwise just hurts yourself. Which doesn't make it an interesting choice it makes it a dull dumb one. VERY rarely will you reach a point in the middle of the game where your decisions are not clear and you have to make an actual decision with good and bad in both directions and actual gameplay emerges. Too bad the other 9/10ths of the time your just going through the motions.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/05 14:48:16
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
First I would say that the game is in s pretty decent state when the majority of people don't mention specific factions and/or units as the most broken parts of 40k!
What I think is the most broken part would be CP created by one codex being used on other codexes stratagems. So CP farms.
The other thing the IGOUGO system. I would like to see casualties being removed after both players had had their turn.
The last thing is all "Vs specific army" rules, stratagems etc. being included in matched play.
Formal definitions around this sort of thing tends to be too vague to be valuable.
Having fun is why you play. It's not a win condition for the rules. The golden rule isn't an actual rule. Formal definitions are very valuable if you actually care about the study of games and game design. What isn't valuable is pedantic nonsense that has no point or purpose.
Wibe wrote:First I would say that the game is in s pretty decent state when the majority of people don't mention specific factions and/or units as the most broken parts of 40k!
What I think is the most broken part would be CP created by one codex being used on other codexes stratagems. So CP farms.
The other thing the IGOUGO system. I would like to see casualties being removed after both players had had their turn.
The last thing is all "Vs specific army" rules, stratagems etc. being included in matched play.
I like that the cards we saw for apoc so far that have effects against specific armies have a secondary use that is universal. Good call apoc design team.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smote.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
There's also offensive output - some armies can take units that have a huge RoF or damage output for relatively cheap. Other armies (again, such as necrons) have to pay out the nose for a weaker equivalent that can't churn out nearly that many dice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/06 09:56:18
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no.
Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers.
Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no.
Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers.
Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
Tau should at least have a psyker auxiliary unit though. There's bound to be a psyker Gue'Vesa somewhere in their empire. And there's always the Nicassar, though apparently they aren't suitable for ground combat.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no.
Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers.
Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
Tau should at least have a psyker auxiliary unit though. There's bound to be a psyker Gue'Vesa somewhere in their empire. And there's always the Nicassar, though apparently they aren't suitable for ground combat.
So long GW tries to maintain a hold on the inbuilt weakness design so long that will not happen.
And frankly i don't mind Tau beeing not capable at psy or defense of it. What bothers me more is that Psy has A such a vast array of Good to outright Terrible spells and B rather non dangerous even if you fail.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no.
Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers.
Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
Tau should at least have a psyker auxiliary unit though. There's bound to be a psyker Gue'Vesa somewhere in their empire. And there's always the Nicassar, though apparently they aren't suitable for ground combat.
Kroot Shaman! But then GW would actually have to give models to one of the main pillars of Tau lore! Nah, we need more big suits instead, that fits the Tau mobile and flexible combat doctrine. Big artillery suits...
Cause why would Tau have Aux? That'd be silly.
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no. Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers. Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
Tau should at least have a psyker auxiliary unit though. There's bound to be a psyker Gue'Vesa somewhere in their empire. And there's always the Nicassar, though apparently they aren't suitable for ground combat.
I honestly don't see why the Nicassar cannot be brought in (other than GW wanting to go all Battlesuits all the time with Tau...). With some of the stuff they've been pumping out for basic terrain they have no excuse not to do one in some kind of floating chamber. Hell, if they wanted to stick with the whole Battlesuit thing they still could as the Nicassar don't even have eyes. A Battlesuit looking like something like the Corollary warjack from PP would fit right in with Tau as a psyker unit IMO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/06 10:15:34
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me, what's broken about 40k are some really questionable design choices in terms of unit and army balance.
Consider psychic powers - there is literally no reason to not take psykers because they effectively give you access to another phase to do stuff.
Which means that if you don't have psykers you are pretty much screwed, as that means your opponent basically gets a free phase where all you can do is sit and get smoted.
What's even worse is that the psyker-less armies also have terrible psyker defense, because GW can't into army design.
And then there's soup - some armies can take allies or form <faction> combinations that are quite effective. Others, such as necrons, can't do that as well.
Psyker defense yes and no.
Necrons should absolutely be very capable of annoying psykers.
Tau not so much.
But considering allies threw the design concept of inbuilt weaknesses out the window i would agree that GW can't into army design. Well actually GW can't into attempt of balance, since the designs, allright i guess.
Tau should at least have a psyker auxiliary unit though. There's bound to be a psyker Gue'Vesa somewhere in their empire. And there's always the Nicassar, though apparently they aren't suitable for ground combat.
Kroot Shaman! But then GW would actually have to give models to one of the main pillars of Tau lore! Nah, we need more big suits instead, that fits the Tau mobile and flexible combat doctrine. Big artillery suits...
Cause why would Tau have Aux? That'd be silly.
Na fam, that would mean that Tau actually should be able to use their auxilia as a whole and not just sit around diddle fiddle blow apart anything without makeing use of the other phases.......
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
...So? Then smite needs nerfed. The Tau would absolutely utilize Gue'vesa Pyskers, Kroot Shaman and the Nisscar.
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
Any Psyker given rules so far.
They don't have Smite. Problem solved.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
Any Psyker given rules so far.
They don't have Smite. Problem solved.
Then they become support psykers only.
Somehow that would make the situation worse imo. Or you could take a gander over at the CSM Spells mostly support stuff.
I for one don't want another army with such capabilities. Especially if the baseline of it works better.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
Any Psyker given rules so far.
They don't have Smite. Problem solved.
Then they become support psykers only.
Somehow that would make the situation worse imo. Or you could take a gander over at the CSM Spells mostly support stuff.
I for one don't want another army with such capabilities. Especially if the baseline of it works better.
Or, at the very least, give Tau some way to deny. 0 Ways to participate in a phase just isn't good game design.
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
Any Psyker given rules so far.
They don't have Smite. Problem solved.
Then they become support psykers only.
Somehow that would make the situation worse imo. Or you could take a gander over at the CSM Spells mostly support stuff.
I for one don't want another army with such capabilities. Especially if the baseline of it works better.
Or, at the very least, give Tau some way to deny. 0 Ways to participate in a phase just isn't good game design.
Look GW fails to make both Tau Doctrines work in Army design of the Tau.
And often the army allready does ignore half the combat.
To say that GW fundamentally has no idea how to make the skew points of army design work is an understatement.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Sir Heckington wrote: It shouldn't even be a strong psyker unit. Pskyers can still be the Tau weakness without them being completely unable to participate in the phase.
any psyker in 40 k knows smite.
Smite spam still works.
See the issue?
Any Psyker given rules so far.
They don't have Smite. Problem solved.
Then they become support psykers only.
Somehow that would make the situation worse imo. Or you could take a gander over at the CSM Spells mostly support stuff.
I for one don't want another army with such capabilities. Especially if the baseline of it works better.
So?
If that is their role then so be it. GW did just fine in WHFB with Dwarfs and TK having no or unorthodox wizards and still being able to participate in the magic phase.
This is like the USR discussions all over again, just because GW implements it poorly (or theoretically will given past evidence) does not make it a bad idea.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
I think one of the biggest issues is that 40k is basically a game of numbers, with very little actual strategy involved (as already stated the vast majority of "strategy" comes from list building and deciding which combos to apply; it's essentially a CCG with expensive models and not a wargame anymore; it's a wargame in name only by virtue of you using models to simulate combat and has about as much in common with a wargame now as a go-kart has with a car). As someone said earlier, you have units that are meant to be very tough, and then others that roll 100+ dice so the fact your 5-man squad is super tough doesn't matter. Quantity largely applies over quality, which is part of why your "elite" armies are usually in a very bad place.
The gameplay in 40k isn't engaging or tactically rewarding, it basically just a matter of adding buffs to what you want to do, and roll a fethton of dice to overwhelm your opponent. While the older editions had more tactical decisions, 40k's decisions now are largely just where to apply firepower and what to enhance it with. I really think it's showing the major limitations of the d6 system in the style 40k wants to do it (buckets of dice). Warmahordes got away with it because you had a 2d6 system and it was per-model, not per unit, so you were only ever rolling 2d6 and comparing it rather than "These ten guys shoot, each weapon gets 2 shots so that's 20 dice, re-rolling 1s because of X" sort of rolling. Now granted 40k couldn't do a 2d6/model system since it's way too large, but I really do think that if Apoc shows that d12 works, a future version might change it. It's about time to move away from the d6 system if 40k wants to keep the modifiers and re-rolls stuff, they completely skew the math at a d6 level.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/06 11:29:36
flandarz wrote: Are Tau not strong enough already without giving them another mechanic? Cuz, last I checked, they ain't exactly in a bad place this edition.
Good, and fun to play, are two different things. Tau are good, but they are not fun nor interactive to play.
My problems with Tau aren't from a 'being good' view point. I view the army as unfulfilling to play as, and against. Our main playstyle involves castling around units that create unrealistic armies and unfun gameplay. This is part of a core issue with 8th, but we're set to sit in one place and out shoot the enemy, and do nothing else. This is not fun game play the way I see it.
Not only do we have to play a castling playstyle, caused by Shield Drones, Master of War and For the Greater Good, we miss out on two of the main phases of the game. This is bad game design, other armies can just have a field day with us and we have to have special rules to stop this. In a hyper competitive environment yes you can deal with this, but that's not how balance works and we should have options to deal with these things in more conventional and interesting ways than shoot it till it dies. (Drones that can deny psykers, skirmisher units like Kroot, ect. ect.)
We also play much like guard, hyper gunlines and hording up FWs. We play with a strict non mobile playstyle (Competitively) that feels like it would fit a guard regiment more than anything.
Which leads me into my final and largest compliant about Tau, the lack of Auxillery and their representation. They are one of the largest defining features of the T'au Empire, and they get almost 0 representation. What we do have are either resin/metal or have terrible rules, and we also are missing much of the fleshing out that the Aux deserve.
I won't deny that Tau have some of the most flexibility and best rules in the game, competitive wise. However to me that does not mean our rules are fun or interesting. Yes we have it better than other armies, but that does not mean we shouldn't be fixed, that's not how game design works. Certain armies don't need more treatment because they are worse in ways, every army needs to be taken into account for its own needs.
Here's a short thing I wrote a while about on my current opinions about Tau.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/07/06 12:00:32
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
~4100
~1660
