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.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

I think it will be a fine balance. I think most people would agree that the 7th Ed overuse of a cover save basically made AP irrelevant.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

I think it will be a fine balance. I think most people would agree that the 7th Ed overuse of a cover save basically made AP irrelevant.

Indeed, it is. I feel like with how strong shooting can be, cover saves should be pretty easy to gain. Honestly cover is the only thing that bugs me about 8th, but perhaps that has something to do with how much time I spent playing 5th.

Ok here's one I've been consistently getting wrong until now. Hemlocks can't actually conceal or protect themselves. There's a sentence on their data sheet that says they only know the second power for each of the Runes of Battle powers which means they only get to use the offensive halves of each of their spells. No more -3 to hit Alaitoc hemlock unless you LFR. Also conceal doesn't work on vehicles period so it wouldn't have worked anyway. Glad I decided to read the rulebook today.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

I think it will be a fine balance. I think most people would agree that the 7th Ed overuse of a cover save basically made AP irrelevant.

Indeed, it is. I feel like with how strong shooting can be, cover saves should be pretty easy to gain. Honestly cover is the only thing that bugs me about 8th, but perhaps that has something to do with how much time I spent playing 5th.

Cover actually IS quite easy to gain in 8th, and is without a doubt the rule i most see misplayed.

Just to clarify, in order to gain cover you need to:

1) If you are infantry, the MODEL needs to be in cover, not the unit. If you have some models in cover but not the full unit, you can remove the models that are out of cover first, and then claim cover for all the remaining ones. So if marine Joe was too slow to get in cover, let him die first. Yes, this is true even inside a single shooting event, so if i get targeted by a weapon which is Assault 1000, i will resolve part of the hits without the cover save and part of it with cover saves.

2) If you are not infantry, you need to have at least your little pinky in cover and then be obscured atleast 50% from the attacker. You DON'T need the actual cover to be obscuring you, anything is fine. If i put a Landraider with a fraction of a track over a rock and put 2 marines in front of it, that land raider is in cover because the 2 marines are obscuring it. Now if you only play with ruins (bad idea) be sure to at least put those on a base, you will spare yourself a lot of discussions.
I have seen people believe that to obscure a vehicle/monster you needed to put them over cover in such a way that they were totally over it and obscured by it, which is kind of impossible, and is not what the rules ask you to do.

Claming cover is difficult only for models with huge wings, were indeed covering 50% of it becomes a problem.

Psychic stuff i see played wrong/old habits die hard.

First is people resolving psychic powers before sorting out perils. Doesnt happen often, but when someone does perils on double 6s, they usually resolve before sorting out the mortal wounds the psyker suffers.

Another one is someone rolling double 6s for psychic test and then declaring it auto passes/cannot be denied.

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Psychic stuff i see played wrong/old habits die hard.

First is people resolving psychic powers before sorting out perils. Doesnt happen often, but when someone does perils on double 6s, they usually resolve before sorting out the mortal wounds the psyker suffers.

Another one is someone rolling double 6s for psychic test and then declaring it auto passes/cannot be denied.

To be fair in normal circumstances a double 6 can't be denied.

You're right that if the Psyker is killed by the mortal wound then the power doesn't go off, but then unless the denier has a +1 it won't be possible to deny it.

 Stux wrote:

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Psychic stuff i see played wrong/old habits die hard.

First is people resolving psychic powers before sorting out perils. Doesnt happen often, but when someone does perils on double 6s, they usually resolve before sorting out the mortal wounds the psyker suffers.

Another one is someone rolling double 6s for psychic test and then declaring it auto passes/cannot be denied.

To be fair in normal circumstances a double 6 can't be denied.

You're right that if the Psyker is killed by the mortal wound then the power doesn't go off, but then unless the denier has a +1 it won't be possible to deny it.

*Cough* Unless they have a denial Stratagem.

Lammia wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Giantwalkingchair wrote:
Psychic stuff i see played wrong/old habits die hard.

First is people resolving psychic powers before sorting out perils. Doesnt happen often, but when someone does perils on double 6s, they usually resolve before sorting out the mortal wounds the psyker suffers.

Another one is someone rolling double 6s for psychic test and then declaring it auto passes/cannot be denied.

To be fair in normal circumstances a double 6 can't be denied.

You're right that if the Psyker is killed by the mortal wound then the power doesn't go off, but then unless the denier has a +1 it won't be possible to deny it.

*Cough* Unless they have a denial Stratagem.

Ok, but my point is that the default is that you can't deny a double 6. It can only happen through the intervention of an additional special rule.

 Stux wrote:
Ok, but my point is that the default is that you can't deny a double 6. It can only happen through the intervention of an additional special rule.

I realise that, but there's enough cases of special rules that people ignoring the window to deny on that basis can be frustrating. (A frustration I've probably been the cause in the past.)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

Honestly with the way GW writes rules I think the problem is that their writing team is too familiar with how to play wargames for their own good. I think that they overlook layout, common questions and even writing down formally some rules because they just play those rules with each other without asking. So it might be when testing they had some rules for terrain that were just "common sense in wargames" to them and thus they didn't think to write them down.

You can sort of see this in how the rules don't always cover multiple interactions or even point out some common practical examples of how the rules might flow and sometimes in how random some positions of information can be (a great example being Endless spells where the dedicated page for them, ergo the place you'd go to to find info on using them; specifically mentions that you can use as many Endless Spells of the same type as you own models for. Whilst if you flip to the end of the book and Matched play rules the limit of one of any one type of Endless Spell per side in the game is mentioned in the army building section - not the place you'd expect to look. The lack of an Index further complicates finding some info references like that)

Lammia wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Ok, but my point is that the default is that you can't deny a double 6. It can only happen through the intervention of an additional special rule.

I realise that, but there's enough cases of special rules that people ignoring the window to deny on that basis can be frustrating. (A frustration I've probably been the cause in the past.)

Fair enough!

I don't think I've rolled a double 6 on a psychic test all edition now I think about it

Reroll a dice vs. a die roll. Realized yesterday Gaze of Fate is the whole roll and not a single dice.

elodingens wrote:
Reroll a dice vs. a die roll. Realized yesterday Gaze of Fate is the whole roll and not a single dice.

Oh wow, it really is "a single dice roll" and not "a single dice". That's confusing and also completely new to me. I wonder how else I've been cheating.

 Overread wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

Honestly with the way GW writes rules I think the problem is that their writing team is too familiar with how to play wargames for their own good. I think that they overlook layout, common questions and even writing down formally some rules because they just play those rules with each other without asking. So it might be when testing they had some rules for terrain that were just "common sense in wargames" to them and thus they didn't think to write them down.

You can sort of see this in how the rules don't always cover multiple interactions or even point out some common practical examples of how the rules might flow and sometimes in how random some positions of information can be (a great example being Endless spells where the dedicated page for them, ergo the place you'd go to to find info on using them; specifically mentions that you can use as many Endless Spells of the same type as you own models for. Whilst if you flip to the end of the book and Matched play rules the limit of one of any one type of Endless Spell per side in the game is mentioned in the army building section - not the place you'd expect to look. The lack of an Index further complicates finding some info references like that)

You know, I can totally see that being the source of the problem. Maybe they lack a village idiot to run the rules by to make sure everyone gets them?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
Lack of terrain rules and interactions is probably one of the biggest flaws in 8th Ed so far IMO.

Indeed. Unless you house rule it the lack of terrain rules (and with them cover saves) hurts the game in ways I don't thing the devs forsaw, or they just forgot that page when they sent it to the printers, I don't know.

Honestly with the way GW writes rules I think the problem is that their writing team is too familiar with how to play wargames for their own good. I think that they overlook layout, common questions and even writing down formally some rules because they just play those rules with each other without asking. So it might be when testing they had some rules for terrain that were just "common sense in wargames" to them and thus they didn't think to write them down.

You can sort of see this in how the rules don't always cover multiple interactions or even point out some common practical examples of how the rules might flow and sometimes in how random some positions of information can be (a great example being Endless spells where the dedicated page for them, ergo the place you'd go to to find info on using them; specifically mentions that you can use as many Endless Spells of the same type as you own models for. Whilst if you flip to the end of the book and Matched play rules the limit of one of any one type of Endless Spell per side in the game is mentioned in the army building section - not the place you'd expect to look. The lack of an Index further complicates finding some info references like that)

You know, I can totally see that being the source of the problem. Maybe they lack a village idiot to run the rules by to make sure everyone gets them?

That and it also might be that its hard for them to see the "need" for some rules even if they have a "village idiot" to point them out to them. The Kirby "no marketing research" ear might even have cemented that line of thinking worse than normal since it would have shut down a lot of customer feedback into the rules team. Honestly I think they need a big shake up and likely only would get that if they hired several new members of rules writing staff into key positions so that there is room and space to have an influx of new input.

That said the AT rules are much tighter in general, so its clear there is skill in there, so it might be other things. It could even be that management forcing them to make the rules only 8 pages has caused them issues in trying to cover everything. So in a bid to make the game simpler it fractured things.

 Overread wrote:
That and it also might be that its hard for them to see the "need" for some rules even if they have a "village idiot" to point them out to them. The Kirby "no marketing research" ear might even have cemented that line of thinking worse than normal since it would have shut down a lot of customer feedback into the rules team. Honestly I think they need a big shake up and likely only would get that if they hired several new members of rules writing staff into key positions so that there is room and space to have an influx of new input.

That said the AT rules are much tighter in general, so its clear there is skill in there, so it might be other things. It could even be that management forcing them to make the rules only 8 pages has caused them issues in trying to cover everything. So in a bid to make the game simpler it fractured things.

I'd argue that because they have "Advanced Rules" in the core rulebook that there is a flaw in that logic. It's clear that they had more room to expand stuff but failed to do so which is an issue they need to get around to addressing properly.