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.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The "we don't have a plastic box labeled "unit X", therefore unit X is not allowed" attitude from GW. The push to single-loadout/single-pose units. People saying "It's GW's responsibility to fix all the things, I must assume that every game I play is a hardcore tournament game in which I have no ability to talk to my opponent about what I'd like to play and no responsibility for adjusting lists, tables, or the mission, because it's obviously GW's fault I'm not having fun." People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face. And people who try to impose their interpretation of the fluff on other peoples' armies.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Then that is the errata. " If your playing Matched play Battleforged is based off your Chapter (or equivilent) and what currently counts as battle forged is allowed, but does not give you battle forged +3 cp"

The overall scale creep of the past few editions.

Reemule wrote:
Then that is the errata. " If your playing Matched play Battleforged is based off your Chapter (or equivilent) and what currently counts as battle forged is allowed, but does not give you battle forged +3 cp"

You could also just write "A player gets -3 CP if all the units in their army do not include identical faction keywords" and call it a day.

And it's still broken because in Imperial Guard, Tech-Priest Enginseers do not have <Regiment> and have <Forge World> instead, which means (by both your and my rewritten definition) that any guard player who brought one would lose 3 CP, and in your Errata, a Mechanicus Player could bring Astra Militarum Enginseers and preserve the +3CP, but Astra Militarum itself couldn't.

I doubt that is intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
The overall scale creep of the past few editions.

Do you mean in model size or game size?

Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

Another thing that bugs me is stratgems from different codex that do the exact same thing for the exact same command points - but one has extra restrictions to the other. It inspires much anger.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

I think you should be able to deny anywhere on the table but the further away you are it's -1 for the wc value and if you deny it the original caster would suffer 1 mortal wound. not sure what the distances would be but I could see this working.

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

"Maslow tells us that self actualization is ultimately as important to us as breathing and eating."

Forums, and folks who say stuff like this on forums.

Seriously...anyone who forgets this is just a game for everyone involved except GW, who is trying to make a profit off you, and is not always gracious or considerate of their customers when they do it.

 Aetare wrote:
This thread is so therapeutic

Oh, glad it's helping. Can I have your address so I can. Mail you a therapist bill?

The existence of the Tau - or, if that is too extreme, the existence of the Tau Big Stompy Robots of Stupidity after the rather cool initial background where they saw such things as a waste of resources, instead using combined arms to deal with big targets.

The online community.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The online community.

There's an online community IN 40k?

That ones new to me. I presume they enjoy that show My Little Thunderwolf and their fave food is Grox tendies.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The online community.

There's an online community IN 40k?

That ones new to me. I presume they enjoy that show My Little Thunderwolf and their fave food is Grox tendies.

I'm making a distinction between the people you see face to face in FLGSs or the like and the people on sites like this. No one in my group moans about 8th at every chance or refuses to talk about anything except top tier competitivness so it's unfair to lump them in together.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

It also doesn't help that some players don't seem to want to have to think in order to play, or want to play against units which are interesting to use and interesting to face and counter. Look at how much hate the JSJ mechanics of Tau got. You would see people complaining that it meant that units which could JSJ were untouchable. But a Crisis suit could move 6" in the movement phase and would average 7" in the assault phase (I think it should have stayed at a flat 6", neither player would be caught out by a skewy roll rendering their plan useless). It was possible to hem Crisis teams in and trap them with nowhere to escape to through move and countermove. Actually making movement important beyond just getting your guns into position is what has been seriously lacking in 40K for a while and it is only getting worse.

Eldar jetbikes, on the other hand, were certainly broken with JSJ, as they had such high potential movement that hemming them in was next to impossible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

But not everyone only plays OP lists, in fact it's probably a large minority that does. The internet just assumes that every opponent is TFG.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
The hurricane bolters on the sides of the Storm Raven bug me because when facing forwards the bottom two guns would be pointed into the vehicles own armor. Likewise I have never been a fan of the Leman Russ Tanks because of its lack of any suspension.

It's just modelled with the suspension fully depressed. The Leman Russ does that when digging in to fire their main cannons to 1) lower their target profile and 2) protect the more vulnerable working parts.

You're welcome!

“That guy who is just a little too into Nazis” being at the friendly local game store and actively making people uncomfortable.

People complaining that Armies that aren’t Top Tier need to be nerfed. Because they play better than previous editions.

Soup being a thing. I’d like to know if Blood Angels actual won a tournament not that someone took Ultramarines and then allied in 10 Blood Angels. Also how other armies are at a disadvantage because they can’t. IE. Xenos except Eldar who do have soup.

Plastic Sisters not being out yet.

As a fan of Epic I was annoyed that apocalypse killed off Epic. GW being a business shifted their focus into making the Epic models into 28mm scale as they were more profitable.

Flyers, super heavy vehicles, and gargantuan creatures have no place in 40k, it makes the scale of the game rules a bit odd on places and dilutes the focus of the rules. Detailed rules for pistols and detailed rules for titans weapons, all the while limited by a D6 system.

However having said all that they do make great center piece models.

 Desubot wrote:
The players

100% this.

Some people I had to play with before I stopped playing with non-friends.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Psychic denial is my biggest complaint about the core rules.

Psychic support spells with 18-24 inch range will never be denied by an opposing psyker because all you have to do is move out of the range of the denier but still within cast range of the target you want to buff. Drives me bonkers.

This is why I love Thousand Sons. There are few places you can be out of range of my psykers and with an extra 6" there is little you can do to stop me most of the time.

Racerguy180 wrote:

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

Not getting into CC, and not getting to move, is pretty bad. The unit eats a round of overwatch for just standing in place and is going to be shot at close range and/or assaulted by the enemy. Isn't that bad enough? Should there be a penalty for missing an attack or failing to wound?

1. The lack of firing/armor archs on tanks/monstrous creatures.
2. The janky cover/terrain rules
3. Mortal wounds, nice idea needs a tweek
4. 3++ or better saves
5. "Perfect" deepstrike
6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.
7. The detachment system, should be tailored for each type of play, overlap is fine, but supreme command should not be available in competitive play. Tau commander spam and the piss poor index was a great example of why.
8. Single Lords of war under 3k, fliers under 3k. I just think it is silly. The full detachment is fine.
9. The rerolls, all the rerolls... can we dump the miss/fail to wound rerolls - change them to a +1 on the dice roll. Leave the reroll 1s as the only model based rerolls. While keeping CP based rerolls.

clownshoes wrote:

6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.

I'd like to see the player that uses lasguns to bring down tanks instead of lascannons.

clownshoes wrote:
1. The lack of firing/armor archs on tanks/monstrous creatures.
2. The janky cover/terrain rules
3. Mortal wounds, nice idea needs a tweek
4. 3++ or better saves
5. "Perfect" deepstrike
6. Weapons can damage something that is more than double it's power. This severely devalues quality weapons infavor of volume of dice.
7. The detachment system, should be tailored for each type of play, overlap is fine, but supreme command should not be available in competitive play. Tau commander spam and the piss poor index was a great example of why.
8. Single Lords of war under 3k, fliers under 3k. I just think it is silly. The full detachment is fine.
9. The rerolls, all the rerolls... can we dump the miss/fail to wound rerolls - change them to a +1 on the dice roll. Leave the reroll 1s as the only model based rerolls. While keeping CP based rerolls.

1. 40k is abstract. I like the idea of a tank firing on the move and at some point during it's move from point A to B it was rotating turrets and firing.
2. Agreed, terrain and cover in general needs a rework at the moment.
3. This was the answer to death stars. IMO a mechanic like this is needed as a counter for the really nasty units. Problem is that it is far too common now. I remember in early days of the 8th previews they said that MW would be "rare but powerful"
4. This is why we have MW. Besides nothing has better than a 3++ save that I'm aware of. I think GK can have a model with a 2++ in combat only and even then it's "meh" in the current meta.
5. I like it this way. Scatter was a pain. Only change I would make is to remove the ability to deepstrike turn 1 - or at least make it a 3+ turn 1 and then automatic from turn 2
6. In theory. When was the last time you saw basic weapons do anything to vehicles. Lascannons (or equivalent) are still the anti-tank go to and hasn't changed. I still remember everyone freaking out how lasguns "could kill a land raider"
7. Nothing wrong with them IMO. They support varied play styles and are actually implemented well. Tau Commander spam was a result of the index, not because of detachments. They were spammed because everything in comparison was 'trash' - this is now moot anyway as new codex has removed commanders - max 3 in matched play (assuming 3 detachments).
8. sorry, don't agree. CA pretty much killed off all FW heavies in matched play anyway due to massive price increases.
9. Sort of agree. 8th is definitely becoming "herohammer" with big blobs supported by characters. Rerolls from characters have always been a thing to some degree, but used to only effect one unit. They could use some work but I like the changes IMO

A squad of marines or even 3 should inspire fear....in the lore they do....in game not so much.

The eldar are a dying race....yet all their tech involves throwing lots of eldar lives away with in your face fighting?

Both of those factions should be represented the lowest of all model counts.

1 to 3 eldar in a squad..but it is a b-ass squad with tech that is nuts.

10 Marines....is the anchor to any battle line toughest unit in a game to kill..

Would love to see an edition where they cost 100 points a model but are sooo worth the price.

Hundreds of Guard....check
Hundreds of Nids....check
Hundreds of Orks.....check
15 marines......omg that is OP
a dozen eldar....this is going to be tough!

Pink Horror wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

I also think that if you fail a charge, the unit being charged should get to fire overwatch a 2nd time but hitting on 5s instead. currently there is no downside to failing (besides not getting into cc) and that just seems weird.

Not getting into CC, and not getting to move, is pretty bad. The unit eats a round of overwatch for just standing in place and is going to be shot at close range and/or assaulted by the enemy. Isn't that bad enough? Should there be a penalty for missing an attack or failing to wound?

No, since charging is completely optional (I guess shooting is but not really). but maybe if you fail the charge you should be forced to move the actual distance you rolled? I just look at it as if you are trying to charge but fail to make the distance you need, you're put into a more dangerous position of being left out in the open. or maybe have a penalty in the next shooting phase?

Why stop at charging? If you shoot at something in the Shooting phase and miss, then why doesn't the unit become disorientated and can not do anything for the next turn? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Taking Overwatch is already a risk/reward for charging, and now in 8th with units being able to overwatch more than once is another consideration. I think it's fine as it is.

Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
People analyzing a unit on a linear spectrum of OPness rather than asking themselves whether it's fun or interesting to use/face.

The problem is some units/combinations are so OP that if you don't take your most OP units/combinations you will just lose. It doesn't matter that some units might be fun to use or face in very specific circumstances if in reality they will just die before you get to use them. Units with cool potential dying instantly isn't fun for the player using them or, short of someone who only enjoys themselves when they curbstomp, the opponent as it will feel cheap.

It also doesn't help that some players don't seem to want to have to think in order to play, or want to play against units which are interesting to use and interesting to face and counter. Look at how much hate the JSJ mechanics of Tau got. You would see people complaining that it meant that units which could JSJ were untouchable. But a Crisis suit could move 6" in the movement phase and would average 7" in the assault phase (I think it should have stayed at a flat 6", neither player would be caught out by a skewy roll rendering their plan useless). It was possible to hem Crisis teams in and trap them with nowhere to escape to through move and countermove. Actually making movement important beyond just getting your guns into position is what has been seriously lacking in 40K for a while and it is only getting worse.

Eldar jetbikes, on the other hand, were certainly broken with JSJ, as they had such high potential movement that hemming them in was next to impossible.

Let me expand: there are units that are "OP" that may be the only thing holding a Codex together (e.g. take away my Vertus Praetors and you can kite the rest of my Custodes until doomsday, they'll never get close enough to do damage), there are units that people claim are "OP" based on their personal experience of the unit that are simply having an incredibly good matchup (a Custodes player grumbling about Hellblasters would do well to consider that he's handing them a table full of optimal targets, if you put down an army that's got chaff and the ability to outrange them they're a lot less intimidating), there are units that may not be horrifically "OP" on numbers but are simply incredibly irritating to see on the table (corner-camping Manticore/Basilisk firebases). Assuming that everything exists in a binary state of "OP"/"not-OP" and that applying some kind of large/blanket nerf to the "OP" unit is necessary rather than trying to look at the situation as a whole is the problem.

As to your example the problem JSJ presents has nothing to do with how far the unit moves and everything to do with its ability to move to get line of sight, fire, and move back out of line of sight. The people who were complaining about JSJ were people whose Codexes nailed their feet to a gunline (ex. many Guard armies) who felt that the only efficient thing their army did was getting hard-countered (since the Tau were getting to blast them without giving them any ability to react or respond).

In this case as in the case of many "OP" units/armies/mechanics the problem isn't the "OP" unit, it's the limited/one-dimensional armies that they hard-counter. Changing the battlesuits would take away an interesting and characterful mechanic that discouraged gunlines and forced more mobile play, but to do that you need to take the Guard book that can't really do anything effectively other than a gunline and give it the ability to do more mobile play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

Don't worry. I know a guy who put both the sponsons on his Crusader on the same side because there was no rule telling him he couldn't and he wanted to make sure he'd get both sponsons' shots more of the time. You will never have the dumbest-looking Land Raider.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, I have to admit I own a Godhammer and Crusader, both with the sponsons on the back mount. Chalk it up to them being assembled back when they first came out, and I was young, eager, and dumb. Not to mention the setup is plastered all over official GW models.

Don't worry. I know a guy who put both the sponsons on his Crusader on the same side because there was no rule telling him he couldn't and he wanted to make sure he'd get both sponsons' shots more of the time. You will never have the dumbest-looking Land Raider.

I don't know why, but that would be hilarious to see during a game of pre-8th constantly spinning in a circle so it could get both mounts firing.