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.
Part of the reason I don't care about crusade is because the system is built around the idea that you'll play multiple games over several weeks. That never works out, at least for me. I've joined leagues and always end up dropping within the first couple weeks because it's such a chore. You have to carve out time to devote to the games, you have to set up times with your opponent that match THEIR schedule, people absolutely suck at making plans (You wanna get our game in this week? Sure! ...Okay when? Oh, whenever's fine! Is Saturday good. Oh, no I have underwater basket weaving that day. ...I hate you so much.), life gets in the way, etc, etc.
I get this, for sure. And it is true that Crusade is at it's best when you have the capacity to play it this way- especially if you are using the campaign specific materials for the season.
You can still crusade casually, but I fully acknowledge it's not "the complete package" if you do. It also depends how good your bespoke crusade content is- if you are playing sisters, T'au, GSC or DE, your long term goals are so interesting and cool that you could just track that stuff yourself, though that alone won't really solve the issue of bland GT missions. And of course, if it's a pickup game, you may not be using all the Crusade advances you've earned either...
So I get that there are some hang-ups for a lot of players. And there should be a way to engage in an interesting pick-up style play experience.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/17 22:03:12
I wish I could get enough games in to get bored of any of the mode of play. I don't even remember the last game I got to play outside of a tournament.
Part of the reason I don't care about crusade is because the system is built around the idea that you'll play multiple games over several weeks. That never works out, at least for me. I've joined leagues and always end up dropping within the first couple weeks because it's such a chore. You have to carve out time to devote to the games, you have to set up times with your opponent that match THEIR schedule, people absolutely suck at making plans (You wanna get our game in this week? Sure! ...Okay when? Oh, whenever's fine! Is Saturday good. Oh, no I have underwater basket weaving that day. ...I hate you so much.), life gets in the way, etc, etc.
TLDR, being bored of the game sounds like a 1st world problem and I have no sympathy for it. Being MAD at the game for how bad GW has been at balance, specifically in 2022, is much more relatable.
This is yet another difference in "gaming life experience" between players, that sets different expectations on what GW should focus on. When you have a time to play just a single game every few weeks, so around 10 games yearly, then what you expect is completely different than a person who plays a 100 games a year expects. But that's not all - if you play those 10 or 100 games on PUG nights with new people each time, so just two or three times with the same person with the same list, then your expectations on what GW should focus on to keep you entertained is completely different than expectations of a person who plays those same 10 or 100 games a year but always with the same people with their limited collections of models and factions. When I returned to 40k in the middle of 7th, I got bored of Eternal War missions in about a month, because when you play several times a week with the same two factions and a limited collection of minis you pretty much solve this kind of missions with the kind of lists you can build and terrain you own. But Maelstrom, so cursed upon by PUG players, have kept me and my group entertained for a long time. Same with additional content like IA campaigns or Pale Courts rules - you can have a very varied gaming life even with a limited collection of minis and limited number of opponents, because there is enough content to explore. The same content which PUG players would consider bloat and too much to memorise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/17 20:55:28
Platuan4th wrote: there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership
If they don't wear the licensed bathrobes while in meetings I will be filing an official protest.
Heh, I was actually wearing mine when I typed that this morning.
Based Sigilite bathrobe posting hours.
I got the Chaos robe, actually.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
I dont disagree about the theory on competitive players. They do care about the community size because small tournaments suck and don't really showcase a lot of validity to who wins.
No one cares if you win a 4 man tournament.
Winning a 180 player GT brings all kinds of rewards from the community, from street cred to subs on their youtube and ad revenue.
Same with tournament organizers. Where I left, the tournament organizers were doing their damndest to making running tournaments profitable to them.
The more people they can attract to their events, the more money they pocket for themselves.
Growing the community is huge for them.
Narrative players more than likely to play at home? Yes and no. We had a large narrative group that played in the store and I ran narrative events regularly for the stores in my area. I acknowledge that these things are rarities though.
The conflict was when trying to run public narrative events, that the competitive players in my area did their damndest to turn those narrative events into ITC standard tournaments and were VERY aggressive when we would deviate from ITC standards and would go out of their way to crap on it publicly and try to dissuade people from playing in it because it wasn't "proper 40k".
That created the conflict and drama and instead of how it should be - people going "well your narrative scenario isn't for me, I prefer playing competitive standard ITC but good luck" - it was a number of people making an us vs you scenario.
That story is shared by several people in the communities and helps deepen the divide.
It would go so far to have GW stream and showcase narrative events that were NOT competitive based but were using asymmetrical scenarios and using forces that were not all about competitive optimization.
Exhalted. This 100%.
I honestly think we need to start explicitly calling these people "tourney players" because "competitive player" implies that any other play pattern is not also competitive, which is mostly a fiction pushed by tourney players themselves.
Both narrative and casual players are playing to win, but what changes is the way in which they want to achieve that win.
Casual players want to have fun with the units they like and, assuming they aren't a sore loser, just want to feel like they have a fair shake at winning. That means units should abstractly function similar to their lore/appearance and the game shouldn't feel wholly one-sided.
Narrative players want to win by achieving a specified objective while playing their army in a way that is authentic to the lore. So that means a victory doesn't involve scoring points or wiping out your opponent, but rather fielding a setting accurate force and completing a contextual objective like evacuating a VIP, sabotaging enemy supplies, defending a critical position or device, etc. And units should function exactly as described in the lore and be balanced through narrative means such as rarity or unwieldiness.
If someone doesn't understand Narrative gaming then go look up The Campaign for North Africa simulation board game. That's the narrative mood dialed up to 13, but is pretty representative of the difference in thought process compared to tourney gamers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/17 21:50:25
Daedalus81 wrote: ...There is a ton of narrative content. There's six Crusade mission packs kicking out there right now...
Crusade isn't "narrative content". Crusade is a tournament league format.
I disagree. It's a progression system like Mordhiem or Necromunda (minus the steamrolls due to mass casualties). Honestly the problem of Crusade is the lack of any formalization on creating campaigns, something they used to include in the core rule books such as in 3rd (which has a narrative progression system in the core book) and 5th (I don't know if 4th had that due to missing that edition). Giving Crusade missions is a start but they should have spent more time introducing campaigns and even how to design your own crusade missions.
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Honetly the worst part of 8th was when i, as a tsons player, got my codex as one of the first to come out.
Daedalus81 wrote: There is a ton of narrative content. There's six Crusade mission packs kicking out there right now.
And has been stated dozens of times in multiple threads over the past couple of months, none of those matter in the world of pick-up games. The method of interaction for so many people in this hobby is pick-up games with people at stores. To these people that's just the norm when it comes to playing 40k. Pick-up games, by their very definition, are put together quickly using a set of generally agreed upon rules. You're not meant to spend a lot of time organising things, and narrative gaming requires organisation.
So while it's great there there is Crusade content out there (although every Crusade book is mostly just a reprint of the 40k rules, and the missions should have just been included in their accompanying campaign books... but that's another different discussion), it doesn't really mean much to a large section of the gaming community because the gaming community just plays matched play games, which means using the latest tournament packs, because they're the generally agreed upon rules.
GW tried to float the "You can play your Crusade army in matched play games, and your opponent just gets bonus CP!" idea, but c'mon, let's be real here: Who really does that on any appreciable scale?
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
Crusade isn't "narrative content". Crusade is a tournament league format.
Okay, so I'm playing a battle. My army is in the lead ever so slightly, but it's neck and neck all game.
In turn 4, a unit of battle sisters is holding a critical objective, but they are gunned down by a unit of CSM, who then pile in to claim the objective for themselves, and the game is lost.
After the battle, when those battle sisters recover from their wounds, they swear a Penitent oath. In the following game, they return as sisters Repentia.
They must redeem themselves in the eyes of the Emperor- a feat they can only achieve by seeking units more powerful than their own and cutting them down beneath the teeth of their eviscerators. In the first battle, they seek out the Chaos Marines who shamed them and bestow the Emperor's judgement.
In the following battle, they take down a daemon prince.
In the third battle, the destroy a war machine.
At the end of the battle, they are called before their cannoness and their sisters, and they are told that they have redeemed themselves in the eyes of their Emperor. Their Cannoness has been so inspired by their penitence that she selects these sisters to become her elite Sacressants, so that their faith and persistence may serve as an example to their sisters of what it means to be brought low and redeem oneself in the crucible of war.
This story arc was created using the Penitent Path and Glorious Redemption requisitions and the Atonement in Battle Agenda, all of which appear in the Sisters dex.
I've told the story as a series of ongoing battles between two armies. But the exact same thing could be done with any four battles- the battles don't have to bee the same size, they aren't locked to a mission, or a campaign setting. There is no time limit.
So explain to me 1) how this is not narrative and 2) why this requires a league?
It may require a few opponents who are willing to play Crusade instead of matched, but there are ways for players to work around even this if they choose.
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
Well, they have their balance dataslates now, so they can supposedly change balance by adjusting rules instead of just points. But they were very conservative with the latest one, and the CA that accompanied it. They'll need to be more aggressive with both if they intend to keep older codexes up to par with the newer ones.
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
Well, they have their balance dataslates now, so they can supposedly change balance by adjusting rules instead of just points. But they were very conservative with the latest one, and the CA that accompanied it. They'll need to be more aggressive with both if they intend to keep older codexes up to par with the newer ones.
I feel those dataslates are only pushing out beta rules or possibly playtested rules for the next update early as a stop gap and not actively seeking to massive address power imbalances beyond nerfing outliers..
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
Well, they have their balance dataslates now, so they can supposedly change balance by adjusting rules instead of just points. But they were very conservative with the latest one, and the CA that accompanied it. They'll need to be more aggressive with both if they intend to keep older codexes up to par with the newer ones.
I feel those dataslates are only pushing out beta rules or possibly playtested rules for the next update early as a stop gap and not actively seeking to massive address power imbalances beyond nerfing outliers..
Yeah, that's what it looks like. But they could use them to bring older codexes up to the "current paradigm". And I'm not just talking about the remaining 8th edition codexes, some of the early 9th edition codexes could use some updates. But they'd probably prefer to do that in a campaign book or something else they can charge money for.......
vipoid wrote: ... Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book...
This is exactly what I mean about GW constantly changing horses mid-race.
They go through paradigm shifts during editions, sometimes more than once. We've already started to see this shift with the Jervisification of weapons in the Genestealer Cult book, soon with the upcoming Eldar book (Harli weapons) and then with Chaos with Chosen/Terminator weapons. GW are entering a "gak we wrote too many rules!" phase, but they're not applying this the game, they're just applying it to whatever book is next. Meanwhile, all the books prior to that shift get to continue with all their rules in tact because everything they do is designed in a vaccum.
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
Well, they have their balance dataslates now, so they can supposedly change balance by adjusting rules instead of just points. But they were very conservative with the latest one, and the CA that accompanied it. They'll need to be more aggressive with both if they intend to keep older codexes up to par with the newer ones.
I feel those dataslates are only pushing out beta rules or possibly playtested rules for the next update early as a stop gap and not actively seeking to massive address power imbalances beyond nerfing outliers..
Yeah, that's what it looks like. But they could use them to bring older codexes up to the "current paradigm". And I'm not just talking about the remaining 8th edition codexes, some of the early 9th edition codexes could use some updates. But they'd probably prefer to do that in a campaign book or something else they can charge money for.......
From what I understand from listening to the Honest Wargamer talk about GW internals this ties into the problem that GW wants the book and box department to turn a profit which may be why we have so much book bloat.
Racerguy180 wrote: I'm pretty confident they use the same core mechanics so it is kinda tourney league format...
The core rules aren't what makes the game "tourney league format"
It's the symmetrical GT missions with progressive primaries and selected secondaries that do that.
If battle one is an onslaught mission from the Tactical Deployment mission pack, the second battle is a three player 25PL fight in the Octarius sector, the third battle is an incursion battle fought on Vigilus as part of a war of Faith in cooperation with a Black Templars Patrol and a Battalion of Guard for support and the final battle is a strik force battle using a White Dwarf mission using theatre of war rules, can you explain to me how any of these games followed a tourney league format or used tournament style rules?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/17 23:01:59
Part of the issue is they are never working on all the books at once, merely in groups so the first half of the edition is done before the edition launches often causing issues as they get more comfortable with their design direction in the latter half of the edition.
It also leads to balance issues as lessons learned can't be applied immediately due to the way they rely on printed codexes for rules releases.
I mean, you'd think they could manage writing the rules for all the books at the same time, even if they're not all released at once. The rest is mostly just taking the fluff from previous books and pressing Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. Oh, and replacing the art with either worse art or pages from the webstore. None of which really requires a writer - just someone to edit and format it.
Alternatively, they could set some design parameters right at the start and make sure all writers actually stick to them.
I mean, 8th's index era even provided them with all the core rules and all the core elements for every army going forward . . . and they still ended up changing design philosophies half-way through the edition.
The other aspect is how much GW shoots itself in the foot with its design choices. For example, I'm sure many of you are reading what I said above and thinking that writing the rules for every army at once would take far too long. Okay, now imagine how much time could be saved if GW stopped trying to cram 40 different stratagems into every book. Think how much time could be saved if we went back to USRs, so that writers aren't compelled to think of 400 different names for the exact same rule. Not only would these things help development time, it also means the writers can more easily set parameters (as USRs mean they're all working with the same core framework), and that they're not trying to balance around all the possible stratagem combinations, in addition to everything else.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
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.
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.
I think it should be noted that GW has a head rules writer position, but there is no one who serves as a rules editor to keep the team on track in terms of rules design or to serve as someone who ensures the rules language is as KISS as possible.
I think they start writing all rules at the same time. But as the codexes are released and issues are found and they come up with new ideas, the still unreleased books are modified to incorporate those changes.
And IIRC it isn't one team designing all the books, but each faction has a dedicated team (which often leads to escalation as those teams try to one-up each other).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/17 23:15:19
Mezmorki wrote: this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.
That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.
And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?
How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?
How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?
The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.
They are in general much more about the experience for both players.
So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)
Mezmorki wrote: this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.
That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.
And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?
How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?
How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?
Sorry, but that's nuts and completely wrong.
When you consider the creep of late editions its not that insane. A las canon is still brings a terminator to a 3+ which against a single wound model is stilla 33% to fail.
Think of the flip side to this, think of all the save that armies that have 4+ or worse now all of a sudden are not getting just vaporized by bolters.
auticus wrote: Something else that doesn't get enough talk...
The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.
They are in general much more about the experience for both players.
So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)
IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.
Mezmorki wrote: this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.
That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.
And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?
How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?
How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?
Sorry, but that's nuts and completely wrong.
When you consider the creep of late editions its not that insane. A las canon is still brings a terminator to a 3+ which against a single wound model is stilla 33% to fail.
Think of the flip side to this, think of all the save that armies that have 4+ or worse now all of a sudden are not getting just vaporized by bolters.
Justifying power creep with power creep is a bad take.
auticus wrote: Something else that doesn't get enough talk...
The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.
They are in general much more about the experience for both players.
So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)
IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.
It was LVO, and i know exactly which event it was.
They got completely murderized by the flying nid circus, it was directly after that LVO, flyrants got nerfed and rule of 3 went into effect.
IIRC it was actually directly quoted that "Americans play like animals"
auticus wrote: Something else that doesn't get enough talk...
The rules team are from the UK. The folks in the UK do not play games as aggressively or ruthlessly or powergamey as a lot of the tournament community in general does.
They are in general much more about the experience for both players.
So when they design rules that you can bust, their response was always "so dont do that why would you do that". (games day responses when they had those still were always filled with those responses when asked why such and such was allowed out of the design room in such a busted state)
IIRC, during one of the events' transmission in late 7th (probably LVO), soon after Rountree reign started, the GW staff was literally disgusted (IIRC it was Duncan or Peachy) by the kind of lists and general play style of tournament players of that era. Maybe someone with better memory can elaborate on that.
Cruddace didn't know about the 0" charge exploit until it was shown to him which lead to a lot of patching to try and prevent jank is one example I can think of.
Mezmorki wrote: this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.
That's a massive boost to Sv2+ and Sv3+:
* Terminators get Sv2+/3++ instead of Sv2+/5++,
* regular SMs Sv3+/4++ instead of Sv3+/-.
And it's for FREE? They're not buying DE Shadowfields for every Terminator?
How is it balanced that Terminators are getting a better basic save against Lascannon than their Invulnerable would grant?
How is it balanced that ordinary SMs are getting a Sv4+ against Krak missiles?
Sorry, but that's nuts and completely wrong.
When you consider the creep of late editions its not that insane. A las canon is still brings a terminator to a 3+ which against a single wound model is stilla 33% to fail.
Think of the flip side to this, think of all the save that armies that have 4+ or worse now all of a sudden are not getting just vaporized by bolters.
Justifying power creep with power creep is a bad take.
Ill be honest, im playing with it in HH, where AP2 and AP3 are tossed around like candy and it feels really good there so.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 