Switch Theme:

Terrain, the 3rd opponent  [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 us
Never Forget Isstvan!






So for all the people complaining about not having terrain diversity, whats stopping you from setting up your table how you want, then saying if your LoS crosses multiple different terrain pieces then you are obscured?

Lets you play on a table that looks however you want and still not get blown off the table turn one.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Eihnlazer wrote:
So for all the people complaining about not having terrain diversity, whats stopping you from setting up your table how you want, then saying if your LoS crosses multiple different terrain pieces then you are obscured?

Lets you play on a table that looks however you want and still not get blown off the table turn one.


For one thing, that's houseruling the terrain rules, which highlights the inadequacy of the stock rules. I'm sure we could do a pass to make the terrain rules easier to remember and less reliant on two or three specific varieties of terrain, but that's not really an endorsement of how they currently stand.

For another, you still have the problems with limitations on what can traverse said terrain; if you use lots of forests instead of ruins you quickly find that maneuvering tanks is a pain. Again, you can fix it with houserules.

And third, that particular solution emphasizes lots of small pieces of terrain over fewer, larger ones. Does it really make sense that you can see through 6" of terrain when it's one piece, but not 2" of terrain when it's two pieces? It's a step in the right direction, but it's a clunky resolution IMO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 15:33:54


   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User





The biggest problem is that people look into a GW book and see it as the beginning and end of all.
And no the tournament scene always used their own rules.
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




That’s how official rules work for a game like 40k. With the sheer size of it we basically have the power to hold up the official rules and say “these are the rules.” Houserules and alternative rules require consent from the opponent because you are asking for something that is beyond the official rules that players are in universal agreement to use. Consent to use alternative and house rules is easier the closer your relationship with the other players, which is why house rules and homebrewed rules are universally normal in DND groups vs 40k for example; in that case the players are not necessarily trying to compete with each other and the players are all fairly well acquainted or at least enough that experimenting with changing mechanics and rules is easier to agree on. 40k involves potentially playing pickup games with strangers, people that are new to the hobby, friends, tournaments, etc. the diversity of relationships makes house rules and playing beyond the rule books increasingly problematic and the core authority lies within the official rules.
Maybe if they designed a game mode that was like crusade except less crazy with the extra ruleon the profiles, designed to make a campaign for a player or even multiple players, and a gamemaster type, we would see a return to further experimentation with the rules and deviance to house rules and the like? At that point the objective shifts from winning and stomping your opponent into the ground and more towards story telling. At that point the game master would be the anchor that holds the authority to change rules to be smoother, more fun for everyone involved, etc.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







If I can convince my opponent to play different rules from 40k 9th, I can probably just convince him to play 40k 4th, or chain of command, or anything else.

The number of people willing to accept my house rules who would be unwilling to accept another set of rules entirely is very small.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 catbarf wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:
So for all the people complaining about not having terrain diversity, whats stopping you from setting up your table how you want, then saying if your LoS crosses multiple different terrain pieces then you are obscured?

Lets you play on a table that looks however you want and still not get blown off the table turn one.


For one thing, that's houseruling the terrain rules, which highlights the inadequacy of the stock rules. I'm sure we could do a pass to make the terrain rules easier to remember and less reliant on two or three specific varieties of terrain, but that's not really an endorsement of how they currently stand.

For another, you still have the problems with limitations on what can traverse said terrain; if you use lots of forests instead of ruins you quickly find that maneuvering tanks is a pain. Again, you can fix it with houserules.

And third, that particular solution emphasizes lots of small pieces of terrain over fewer, larger ones. Does it really make sense that you can see through 6" of terrain when it's one piece, but not 2" of terrain when it's two pieces? It's a step in the right direction, but it's a clunky resolution IMO.


Well, taking action & working with those you play with to fix something in the here & now beats the Hell out of the "Just bjtch & moan about it and hope GW changes it next edition" approach.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





ccs wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Eihnlazer wrote:
So for all the people complaining about not having terrain diversity, whats stopping you from setting up your table how you want, then saying if your LoS crosses multiple different terrain pieces then you are obscured?

Lets you play on a table that looks however you want and still not get blown off the table turn one.


For one thing, that's houseruling the terrain rules, which highlights the inadequacy of the stock rules. I'm sure we could do a pass to make the terrain rules easier to remember and less reliant on two or three specific varieties of terrain, but that's not really an endorsement of how they currently stand.

For another, you still have the problems with limitations on what can traverse said terrain; if you use lots of forests instead of ruins you quickly find that maneuvering tanks is a pain. Again, you can fix it with houserules.

And third, that particular solution emphasizes lots of small pieces of terrain over fewer, larger ones. Does it really make sense that you can see through 6" of terrain when it's one piece, but not 2" of terrain when it's two pieces? It's a step in the right direction, but it's a clunky resolution IMO.


Well, taking action & working with those you play with to fix something in the here & now beats the Hell out of the "Just bjtch & moan about it and hope GW changes it next edition" approach.


We shouldn't have to discuss ways to fix 40k with our group. GW should be able to write a competent ruleset. Thats kind of the point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 18:54:37



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
We shouldn't have to discuss ways to fix 40k with our group. GW should be able to write a competent ruleset. Thats kind of the point.


To me it is competent, but some people understandably don't like it. At some point we'll see if GW leans into the tournament terrain or finds some way to bridge the gap. We're supposedly getting Chapter Approved in December, but I'm betting we won't see any aid to this problem ( if any ) until 10th.

   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 19:12:24


Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought




macluvin wrote:
It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.


People using terrain to balance out lethality is one thing, but reducing lethality doesn't then make the other terrain more impactful by default.

Imo warhammer has never had the best terrain rules and those we have now aren't that far removed from all the other various rules they tried in reality.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





macluvin wrote:
It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.


It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that. Lethality is "bad" when you have a single unit stacking buffs. That's a single unit and that's the frame of reference everyone uses. And that single unit generally takes out another single unit. That or something from DE or Admech or some mathhammer in a vaccuum. There's some good suggestions about tackling some of the more obtuse issues, but not all of them are practical.

We had way more lethality in 8th edition and no one was complaining about that in the same fashion back then. Everyone was just talking about which particular unit/list was broken. Now we're in this position where the new books are pretty good and a few light to moderate taps would make things good, but lots of people seem to think it's like the Castellan days and it really doesn't feel like that at all to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/20 19:49:24


   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




I definitely recall tons of input from a people on dakka that the game is too lethal during 8th. As much as I’ve seen for 9th now. However, whether or not there was more lethality in 8th is irrelevant; that there is still too much for the current system currently in the current edition is. The issue is that the amount of shooting in most competitive lists have will shoot half your army off before you take your first turn. That’s a huge problem in an IGOUGO system. The solution is pretty much exclusively covering the board in incredibly dense LOS blocking terrain. There are ways to buff multiple units to the extent that they will shoot most of their points back in a single round of shooting and that is a problem. Alpha strikes without the aforementioned terrain setups still had approximately a 10% win rate advantage which is huge.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that.
It's 3 pages because people like you act like nothing is wrong.

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

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that.
It's 3 pages because people like you act like nothing is wrong.


I don't think I framed it like that, but I'm sorry you feel that way.

   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




As disagreeable as I find daedalus’s opinion he is entitled to his belief that the rules are good enough or any portion of the rules are good enough. He is also very much entitled to make his case for why he thinks we are wrong. Hopefully I didn’t come off as too aggressive. This is technically opinion based on unquantifiable qualities.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

macluvin wrote:
This is technically opinion based on unquantifiable qualities.
I want to agree with you, but I don't think that whether the rules are functional is as subjective as, say, film criticism (or as objective as, say, what colour the sky is for that matter).

And as others have pointed out, it's a reoccurring theme with Daed and his engagement with rules problems. The fourth post in this thread called it out quite quickly:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Another "the game is balanced if you try this ONE WEIRD TRICK" post from Daed.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 00:25:57


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

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.


It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that. Lethality is "bad" when you have a single unit stacking buffs. That's a single unit and that's the frame of reference everyone uses. And that single unit generally takes out another single unit. That or something from DE or Admech or some mathhammer in a vaccuum. There's some good suggestions about tackling some of the more obtuse issues, but not all of them are practical.

We had way more lethality in 8th edition and no one was complaining about that in the same fashion back then. Everyone was just talking about which particular unit/list was broken. Now we're in this position where the new books are pretty good and a few light to moderate taps would make things good, but lots of people seem to think it's like the Castellan days and it really doesn't feel like that at all to me.



All numbers here assuming T7 3+ target

Including Order of Companions (estimated):

Cawl’s Wrath: 14.6 damage
Volcano: 18.7 damage
Siegebreakers: 4.3 damage

605pts at the time of the castellan meta

.062 damage per point

Of note: this damage relies on AP-4 and AP-5 completely removing the enemy save to be put down. A 5++ reduces the damage of CW+Volc to 22 from 33.


I love that we’ve already poisoned the well against comparing to anything from Admech or Drukhari, that’s cute, wouldn’t be fair to compare the nastiest thing in the past competitive meta to the nastiest thing right now no sir so let’s go with something else, shall we?

Freebootas Wazbom Blastajet


2x tellyport blastas+1x smasha gun, 13.43 damage/190pts = .071 damage per point.

Hmm, that’s weird. How about Eradicators? We’ll give them zero auras, zero doctrines, zero auras and zero superdoctrines, just assume they outflanked onto the board (so theyre -1 to hit) and shot at something with their heavy melta rifles in range.

14.98 damage/150pts for the unit = 0.99 damage per point.

Oh, weird. That’s ALSO more than the old Terror of the Meta, huh?

What about let’s just get silly - sisters of battle. Let’s take a dominion squad, arm them with fething storm bolters, and point them at a tank with the ‘Blessed Bolts’ stratagem - how much can that possibly-
7.21 damage/(17x5pts) = .085 damage per point

Now - let's get the obvious counterpoint that daedelus is going to bring up here out of the way: The thing that made the Castellan meta bad, was actually the fact that the castellan is pretty durable and could at the time get up to a 3++ to protect itself, and it took a LOT to bring that beast down.

But that's not the claim that was made here: the complaint is that the game has, in general, gotten deadlier and that has pushed what was previously usually a 4-5 turn game into a 3-4 turn game with the 3rd and 4th really only happening if someone makes extensive use of reserves or has a big, Obscuring-filled tourney table.

I'm steelmanning here - using the restrictions daed laid out and nothing is from the Admech or Drukhari codex, nothing is relying on a billion...or any, auras, nothing is spending a billion cp, and i'm comparing to a model that has both a relic and an (at the time) 2cp stratagem on. What we're seeing is, when it comes to shoveling gak off the table, a bunch of units that are present in the meta but not particularly known to be top-table-terrors right now blow the old castellan away.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
Well, taking action & working with those you play with to fix something in the here & now beats the Hell out of the "Just bjtch & moan about it and hope GW changes it next edition" approach.


At this point I should just put together a copy-paste form letter along the lines of: 'I can complain about the GW-official rules and simultaneously houserule them to fix the problem as a stopgap, but having to houserule is a suboptimal resolution to poor core rules (particularly for pickup games where most people aren't willing to play by my personal house rules), and therefore I would prefer if GW put out a quality ruleset that doesn't need to be houseruled to work.'

Because this is a really tiring style of apologism that seems to come up in relation to literally every piece of criticism directed at the game. I didn't say it's completely unfixable, I gave practical objections for why Eihnlazer's suggestion is not a satisfactory resolution that solves the objections people in this thread have made. 9th's terrain system is at least a step up from 8th's, but using it to mitigate the current edition's issues quickly highlights its problems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 01:30:16


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.


It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that. Lethality is "bad" when you have a single unit stacking buffs. That's a single unit and that's the frame of reference everyone uses. And that single unit generally takes out another single unit. That or something from DE or Admech or some mathhammer in a vaccuum. There's some good suggestions about tackling some of the more obtuse issues, but not all of them are practical.

We had way more lethality in 8th edition and no one was complaining about that in the same fashion back then. Everyone was just talking about which particular unit/list was broken. Now we're in this position where the new books are pretty good and a few light to moderate taps would make things good, but lots of people seem to think it's like the Castellan days and it really doesn't feel like that at all to me.



All numbers here assuming T7 3+ target

Including Order of Companions (estimated):

Cawl’s Wrath: 14.6 damage
Volcano: 18.7 damage
Siegebreakers: 4.3 damage

605pts at the time of the castellan meta

.062 damage per point

Of note: this damage relies on AP-4 and AP-5 completely removing the enemy save to be put down. A 5++ reduces the damage of CW+Volc to 22 from 33.


I love that we’ve already poisoned the well against comparing to anything from Admech or Drukhari, that’s cute, wouldn’t be fair to compare the nastiest thing in the past competitive meta to the nastiest thing right now no sir so let’s go with something else, shall we?

Freebootas Wazbom Blastajet


2x tellyport blastas+1x smasha gun, 13.43 damage/190pts = .071 damage per point.

Hmm, that’s weird. How about Eradicators? We’ll give them zero auras, zero doctrines, zero auras and zero superdoctrines, just assume they outflanked onto the board (so theyre -1 to hit) and shot at something with their heavy melta rifles in range.

14.98 damage/150pts for the unit = 0.99 damage per point.

Oh, weird. That’s ALSO more than the old Terror of the Meta, huh?

What about let’s just get silly - sisters of battle. Let’s take a dominion squad, arm them with fething storm bolters, and point them at a tank with the ‘Blessed Bolts’ stratagem - how much can that possibly-
7.21 damage/(17x5pts) = .085 damage per point

Now - let's get the obvious counterpoint that daedelus is going to bring up here out of the way: The thing that made the Castellan meta bad, was actually the fact that the castellan is pretty durable and could at the time get up to a 3++ to protect itself, and it took a LOT to bring that beast down.

But that's not the claim that was made here: the complaint is that the game has, in general, gotten deadlier and that has pushed what was previously usually a 4-5 turn game into a 3-4 turn game with the 3rd and 4th really only happening if someone makes extensive use of reserves or has a big, Obscuring-filled tourney table.

I'm steelmanning here - using the restrictions daed laid out and nothing is from the Admech or Drukhari codex, nothing is relying on a billion...or any, auras, nothing is spending a billion cp, and i'm comparing to a model that has both a relic and an (at the time) 2cp stratagem on. What we're seeing is, when it comes to shoveling gak off the table, a bunch of units that are present in the meta but not particularly known to be top-table-terrors right now blow the old castellan away.


This is... not a great analysis. Eradicators are great...and they don't see play, because they die and they're hard to get into position. Time and time again people wax about melta and it just isn't plentiful unless you're playing Argen Shroud Sisters.

Right - 4 artificer SBs per Dom squad. At long range you get 2.7 MW and 0.9 regular wounds. At short you get 5.3 MW and 1.8 regular. So you're saying that when Dominions get within 12" they're as good as a Castellan? God god, man. You putting those in a rhino? Any ablative wounds? Or you know...activating a 5+++ MW shrug?

You really think that models that have the same "damage per point" in a vacuum are comparable when they are T3 3+ W1 or T6 4+ W12 and the Castellan is T8 W28?

It wasn't just the Castellan. It was the BS2 Levi with full rerolls and 20 shots. The Smash Captain with uber charges and rerolls. The over pumped CP. Mortis Dreads. Shining Spears. Trajann the the hover whatevers. Banana Bikes. RG Centurions.


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 02:00:26


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
macluvin wrote:
It’s hardly competent if there is a serious 3 page discussion about what we need to change to make more than 1 type of terrain relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half this discussion wouldn’t exist if they reigned in lethality of the game, oddly enough. So either fix every codex or make terrain relevant... and the terrain fix we are discussing is really just a patch for the underlying issue of an overly lethal IGOUGO system.


It's 3 pages, because we don't fully agree on that. Lethality is "bad" when you have a single unit stacking buffs. That's a single unit and that's the frame of reference everyone uses. And that single unit generally takes out another single unit. That or something from DE or Admech or some mathhammer in a vaccuum. There's some good suggestions about tackling some of the more obtuse issues, but not all of them are practical.

We had way more lethality in 8th edition and no one was complaining about that in the same fashion back then. Everyone was just talking about which particular unit/list was broken. Now we're in this position where the new books are pretty good and a few light to moderate taps would make things good, but lots of people seem to think it's like the Castellan days and it really doesn't feel like that at all to me.



All numbers here assuming T7 3+ target

Including Order of Companions (estimated):

Cawl’s Wrath: 14.6 damage
Volcano: 18.7 damage
Siegebreakers: 4.3 damage

605pts at the time of the castellan meta

.062 damage per point

Of note: this damage relies on AP-4 and AP-5 completely removing the enemy save to be put down. A 5++ reduces the damage of CW+Volc to 22 from 33.


I love that we’ve already poisoned the well against comparing to anything from Admech or Drukhari, that’s cute, wouldn’t be fair to compare the nastiest thing in the past competitive meta to the nastiest thing right now no sir so let’s go with something else, shall we?

Freebootas Wazbom Blastajet


2x tellyport blastas+1x smasha gun, 13.43 damage/190pts = .071 damage per point.

Hmm, that’s weird. How about Eradicators? We’ll give them zero auras, zero doctrines, zero auras and zero superdoctrines, just assume they outflanked onto the board (so theyre -1 to hit) and shot at something with their heavy melta rifles in range.

14.98 damage/150pts for the unit = 0.99 damage per point.

Oh, weird. That’s ALSO more than the old Terror of the Meta, huh?

What about let’s just get silly - sisters of battle. Let’s take a dominion squad, arm them with fething storm bolters, and point them at a tank with the ‘Blessed Bolts’ stratagem - how much can that possibly-
7.21 damage/(17x5pts) = .085 damage per point

Now - let's get the obvious counterpoint that daedelus is going to bring up here out of the way: The thing that made the Castellan meta bad, was actually the fact that the castellan is pretty durable and could at the time get up to a 3++ to protect itself, and it took a LOT to bring that beast down.

But that's not the claim that was made here: the complaint is that the game has, in general, gotten deadlier and that has pushed what was previously usually a 4-5 turn game into a 3-4 turn game with the 3rd and 4th really only happening if someone makes extensive use of reserves or has a big, Obscuring-filled tourney table.

I'm steelmanning here - using the restrictions daed laid out and nothing is from the Admech or Drukhari codex, nothing is relying on a billion...or any, auras, nothing is spending a billion cp, and i'm comparing to a model that has both a relic and an (at the time) 2cp stratagem on. What we're seeing is, when it comes to shoveling gak off the table, a bunch of units that are present in the meta but not particularly known to be top-table-terrors right now blow the old castellan away.


This is... not a great analysis. Eradicators are great...and they don't see play, because they die and they're hard to get into position. Time and time again people wax about melta and it just isn't plentiful unless you're playing Argen Shroud Sisters.

Right - 4 artificer SBs per Dom squad. At long range you get 2.7 MW and 0.9 regular wounds. At short you get 5.3 MW and 1.8 regular. So you're saying that when Dominions get within 12" they're as good as a Castellan? God god, man. You putting those in a rhino? Any ablative wounds? Or you know...activating a 5+++ MW shrug?

You really think that models that have the same "damage per point" in a vacuum are comparable when they are T3 3+ W1 or T6 4+ W12 and the Castellan is T8 W28?

It wasn't just the Castellan. It was the BS2 Levi with full rerolls and 20 shots. The Smash Captain with uber charges and rerolls. The over pumped CP. Mortis Dreads. Shining Spears. Trajann the the hover whatevers. Banana Bikes. RG Centurions.




yes - particular units with particular super-combos in the era of 20+CP were able to output massive damage.

Once, usually.

the difference is now, EVERYTHING deals more damage. Why do you think tables need to be denser now? the ability to hide your units is CRITICAL.

Even if a mid-8th smash captain could triple-attack to remove 1 model 2x-3x its points value, paradigm-shifting basically every competitive meta unit from ~0.025-0.035 damage per point to ~0.04-0.06 by layering on the two-rule chapter tactics and the 9th ed doctrine systems while simultaneously upping damage far, far more than you up durability in the new codexes has created this escalation. It's not just everyone else's imagination but you, Daed.

My buggies that used to tickle opponents now knock off 50% of their points value per turn easily. My wyches and hellions evaporate whatever they touch. My thousand sons gak out mortal wounds like it's going out of style, 20+ in a psychic phase if I decide to go on the offense with cult of magic.

A couple critical units in a codex get tougher, but other than that, the biggest difference between 9th and 8th is a removal of the spikey damage combos and a huge increase in the damage you deal consistently, especially with vehicles.

Heldrake more damage Defiler more damage Forgefiend more damage Maulerfiend more damage Rhino more damage, and the Helbrute got tougher (because he already got his more damage with the weapons update, lol).

When GW gives out durability, they give it out with drawbacks. T5 orks...but your 5++ is gone, your morale immunity is gone, your resurrect strat is gone.

But they just casually double the damage on every single buggy and plane, why not, no trade-offs there just make everything an increasingly absurd glass cannon.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User





It seems I understand the rules as written on page 260-263 in the big book different from quite a lot. We set up the terrain look at it and decide what it does.
Sometimes we say we just use the examples given and sometimes we define our own because we do not have just the pieces GW shows but our own terrain from the last 20+ years of 40K.
I am quite sure that IS the rules as written.

So what if you assign your Ork scrap yard that you build obscuring? Is there a rule in the BRB for that? I do not see it on Page 264-265.
Yes it is a further step but I think it is well worth in pick up games what the terrain does. In tournaments you are at the mercy of the TO

I agree that GW did something good with the current terrain compared to before but there are gaps that would need filling. Instead of all the rules for armies in campaign books a book with updated Terrain rules would go a long way.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Honestly I don't think 40k terrain will ever work well unless it ditches true line of sight. Its weird because the writers have abstracted so much of the game at this point but they doggedly stick with TLoS


 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




 Sim-Life wrote:
Honestly I don't think 40k terrain will ever work well unless it ditches true line of sight. Its weird because the writers have abstracted so much of the game at this point but they doggedly stick with TLoS


I read an old article that discussed why TLOS was a terrible concept. Basically at 28/32mm scale, rifles should be shooting other tables so range is already terribly inaccurate. Tanks and vehicles are only worse offenders. It would be more accurate to think of models as tokens rather than individual infantry and vehicles.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I definitely agree. I think the problem with LOS rules is they tend to be pretty fiddly for edge cases when in 90% of cases most players just eyeball it and agree with each other, but if you want a competitive game you run into problems with people arguing about it and so on. So if you're writing for a casual audience, it seems like a lot of space and complexity for no good outcome, and if you're writing for a competitive audience it's a lot to process and think about and will still result in some gamey edge cases sometimes.

So TLOS seems like a decent choice because it's straightforward and clear in most cases, or can be clarified with a laser pointer at least. But unfortunately it has negative effects on the game and make it (in my view) less fun than abstracted line of sight with a reasonable opponent.

   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Da Boss wrote:
I definitely agree. I think the problem with LOS rules is they tend to be pretty fiddly for edge cases when in 90% of cases most players just eyeball it and agree with each other, but if you want a competitive game you run into problems with people arguing about it and so on. So if you're writing for a casual audience, it seems like a lot of space and complexity for no good outcome, and if you're writing for a competitive audience it's a lot to process and think about and will still result in some gamey edge cases sometimes.

So TLOS seems like a decent choice because it's straightforward and clear in most cases, or can be clarified with a laser pointer at least. But unfortunately it has negative effects on the game and make it (in my view) less fun than abstracted line of sight with a reasonable opponent.


This is another case where GW could push the "three ways to play" stuff to make each more distinct and keep TLoS for Open and have a set of definite rules for Matched.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







If only (4th edition) there was some kind of abstract terrain rules (4th edition) that also incorporated TLOS (4th edition) but had clear and consistent abstractions (4th edition).

The only change I would make is having 5 unit sizes and 5 terrain sizes rather than 3, just because a Baneblade is bigger than a Land Raider is bigger than a Chimera is bigger than an Ogryn is bigger than a Guardsman.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If only (4th edition) there was some kind of abstract terrain rules (4th edition) that also incorporated TLOS (4th edition) but had clear and consistent abstractions (4th edition).

The only change I would make is having 5 unit sizes and 5 terrain sizes rather than 3, just because a Baneblade is bigger than a Land Raider is bigger than a Chimera is bigger than an Ogryn is bigger than a Guardsman.


I was going to mention in one of my posts height rules because they work for Malifaux but I don't think it would work for 40k anymore unless you REALLY abstract it to something like Horde (rippers, scarabs, grots), Infantry (everything from guardsmen to small vehicles like bikers), Vehicle (tanks and walkers), Super-Heavy (knights). But then where does that leave stuff like Ghaz who isn't as big as a tank but not as small as infantry? Or Riptides that are clearly taller than tanks but not as big as a knight?


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







4th edition had 3 levels because no LOW to no Riptides etc. So is why I suggested going to 5.

Ghaz is about as tall as a Chimera, so size 3. He isn't that small.

Riptides would be Size 4

Knights size 5

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 12:06:37


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Ghaz is about the size of a dread or carnifex.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Fwlshadowalker wrote:
It seems I understand the rules as written on page 260-263 in the big book different from quite a lot. We set up the terrain look at it and decide what it does.
Sometimes we say we just use the examples given and sometimes we define our own because we do not have just the pieces GW shows but our own terrain from the last 20+ years of 40K.
I am quite sure that IS the rules as written.

So what if you assign your Ork scrap yard that you build obscuring? Is there a rule in the BRB for that? I do not see it on Page 264-265.
Yes it is a further step but I think it is well worth in pick up games what the terrain does. In tournaments you are at the mercy of the TO

I agree that GW did something good with the current terrain compared to before but there are gaps that would need filling. Instead of all the rules for armies in campaign books a book with updated Terrain rules would go a long way.


the problem is, only a few terrain pieces on the scrapyard board were able to block line of sight. This is incidentally also the problem with the drukhari arena board, the eldar forest board, and the sector mechanicus board - theres a lot of terrain, and not a lot of terrrain that it makes sense giving the Obscuring keyword.

It should be possible to create a board where the armies start out mostly able to see one another that would not result in a massive turn 1 advantage due to the army that goes first being able to evaporate a solid quarter of the opposing force.

I should be able to make up for a lack of Obscuring using the other keywords, but I can not, because they are wholly inadequate. I could rule every barricade as Dense and light and every scrap pile as Light and Heavy and fill the deployment zones with them such that every model in either army was -1 to hit and +1 to sv and you'd still easily be able to scoop a big hunka chunk off the opposing army with very little trouble if you went first.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 12:54:09


"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: