Switch Theme:

I miss the days of scatter bikes and D weapons.  [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
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).
You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Seabass wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Those were the days man - if they rolled a 6 you lost 1 model in a unit. Now days...you spend 1 Cp and you lose a whole unit.

Shoot at a unit of scatter bikes and they jink to get a 4+ save and hit on 6's the next turn and can't really hurt you. Now...you shoot at a unit of chaff infantry and they get 2+ saves.

Man this game totally blows now.


arent you one of the dudes that bitches about imbalance a lot? Like, the whole 100% win with admech vs anything infantry? Seems like you only miss imbalance when it blatantly favors your armies.

But, that's the rub with balance, we all love it as long as it happens to the other guy's army.

Well I play about half the armies so..

Yeah - I played scatter bikes and D cannons but I did so against formations of tau and daemons and gladius. It was all OP. Nothing really touches invisibility deathstars though - anything that could deal with those (d weapons) was good for the game. Right now nothing can fix the game short of removing / nerfing stratagems 2 or 3 fold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).
"

Xeno, I'm not a fan of Jidmahs, but that dude has forgotten more stuff about Orkz than you will ever know. Orkz did get formations, none of them were worth a damn. Even the aforementioned green tide formation (which got removed before the end of 7th) wasn't even good, it was just a psychological shock. But Jidmah was saying none of the formations orkz got were worth taking, especially compared to the super formations that Marines, Tau, Eldar and Necrons got. And you are wrong again, Those 4 factions I mentioned had formations equally broken, which doesn't even cover super friends.

It was better than nothing.

Hammer of wrath for all your units and waaagghh every turn is really good.

True it's no skyhammer formation.


D weapons and even stomp didn't "Deal with" Deathstars anymore than bolter shots did. Which is why by the end of the edition Tau and Eldar actually started to fall off because they just couldn't keep up with post Angels of Death/Whatever-the-chaos-equivalent-was-called psychic stars anymore. Ynnari was a flash in the pan that was obscenely OP for about 5 minutes until the deathstars figured out how to play against them.

There was no such thing as 'good for the game' by the end of 7th. That edition was irrevocably fethed.

Well - ITC literally nerfed D weapons...so you know what we call that? House rules...I don't care about your house rule games at all man. Literally every game during 7th edition ITC can be completely ignored due to the D weapon nerf - D weapons were actually fantastic at killing deathstars for those of us playing by the rules. Esp stomps.

In my group we played the actual game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 14:09:22


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.

7.5 was crazy but fun. The core rules were fine though. Really it was just the psychic trees and character rules that were out of touch with the rest of the game.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.


The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

You still had:

Useless AP system, Terrible Psychic system, terrible vehicle terrain interactions, terrible character rules, terrible vehicle damage charts, firing arcs that generally only work on square or rectangular vehicles, AV facings that again only really work on square of rectangular vehicles, ambiguous blast templates, the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice.

7th was a jenga tower of iffy design decisions. 30k did a good enough job on codex design that you can kinda ignore a lot of it, but it's one major misstep from falling apart just like 7th did.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/22 19:46:49


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







ERJAK wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.


The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.



Can you pick out a thing in the core rules other than Invisibility that wasn't fine? (I ask because the usual litany of complaints about 7th (D-weapons, scatterbikes, too much cover-ignoring, flyers, free transports, etc., etc.) are almost universally things that were statted wrong in the Codex, not something the core rules got wrong. I know 7th wasn't perfect and there are things I'd change if I could but I'm curious what other people would pick out as actual flaws with the core rules.)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 19:58:47


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/22 21:41:08


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 AnomanderRake wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.


The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.



Can you pick out a thing in the core rules other than Invisibility that wasn't fine? (I ask because the usual litany of complaints about 7th (D-weapons, scatterbikes, too much cover-ignoring, flyers, free transports, etc., etc.) are almost universally things that were statted wrong in the Codex, not something the core rules got wrong. I know 7th wasn't perfect and there are things I'd change if I could but I'm curious what other people would pick out as actual flaws with the core rules.)


I won't say they weren't fine because I had fun with all those things in previous editions, and I'm someone that somehow enjoyed 7th, but I'm glad they removed: Initiative, re-rollable invulns, arc facings, AV system, "all or nothing" AP, blasts/templates, challenges, multiple units being unable to join the same transport. Just the first things off the top on my head.


 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Plus there is extra stuff. Lets say you don't spend your time on forums. Opponent shows you their book, you look at a succubus, you see the stats you see the rules. He strife, and then durning the game you get the expiriance the rules he had for her in another book. Which drastically up her damge.

I don't even know what someone maybe thinking about GK, besides them being bad, if they just got the codex to see for them, and didn't know they still run on an OOP book from prior edition. Which they may not even know about, if they started in 9th.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 kirotheavenger wrote:
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

Uh, I'm not too solid on 30k, but in 6-7th you definitely had those things as well, just that instead of auras and stratagems those things were found on psychic powers, relics, special wargear options, upgrade characters or independent characters joining units.
Nothing about the 7th edition guard platoon datasheet or rules page told you that it would turn into an fearless melee murderblob when you added a bunch of characters with the right USRs and abilities.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:21:40


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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







ERJAK wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I intensely disliked 7th.

The core rules were fine, but the codexes jumped the shark.

It's when I picked up 30k, and I've been in love since.


The core rules aren't fine but 30k had the benefit of only needing to balance 1 army for most of its run so I can see how they'd be able to sweep issues under the rug.

Interestingly, I play 5 different 30k armies, none of which are marines, and there's one non-marine army I don't even play! Therefore, they don't actually have the advantage you assert they do.

ERJAK wrote:
You still had:

Useless AP system, Terrible Psychic system, terrible vehicle terrain interactions, terrible character rules, terrible vehicle damage charts, firing arcs that generally only work on square or rectangular vehicles, AV facings that again only really work on square of rectangular vehicles, ambiguous blast templates, the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice.

A lot of that - in fact, all of that - sounds like opinion or badly misconstrued facts... or indeed, things that depend on codex/miniature design rather than core rules design. The only things I think that are valid is "the inherent ambiguity of scatter dice" which I won't objectively argue with, but also hasn't been a problem in all the events I've run since 2017. It usually takes some discussion to sort out, but that's it. No different than all sorts of ambiguity built into the current 40k rules - for example, the pre-FAQ'd "eligible to fight last" vs "fight last" confusion, or the confusion between dense and obscuring terrain ("is it any line from any point on the model or one line from one point on the model?" etc).

If you REALLY wanted to nitpick the rules, you could instead go with things objectively bad like how the Apocalyptic Barrage template works with multi-shot ApocBarrage weapons (*shudder*) or the length of unfun time it takes to resolve multiple small blast Barrage templates (e.g. the old Quad-Gun). That said, they've worked around this by improving unit design somewhat, so the unit design is working deliberately to overcome very real shortcomings in the core rules.

But, I suppose it's easier to complain about stuff you just don't like, rather than identifying real problems.

ERJAK wrote:
7th was a jenga tower of iffy design decisions. 30k did a good enough job on codex design that you can kinda ignore a lot of it, but it's one major misstep from falling apart just like 7th did.

I think what you consider an "iffy design decision" is stuff you just don't like. I don't think you'd like any of the same games as me, and that's allowed, but it doesn't make those games objectively bad. Chain of Command, for example, you'd probably not touch with a 10-foot pole, but in my opinion it's better than 30k!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/23 13:40:29


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.


I have to disagree. I don't want to say that 7th/HH or older editions are extremely complex or whatever. But I really believe people is overstating how complicated 8th and 9th rules are to understand. Theres a reason this editions are much more easy to understand and play. Knowing 9-10 popular stratagems for your opponent army is really not complicated.

Really, the biggest difference I see between the two design paradigms is how much clearer and how better of a layout 8th/9th have for their rules. How the information is presented for you.

And I disagree about the datasheet, I mean, in HH you have stuff like warlord traits that apply to units, psychic powers, Rites of War, special upgrades for X units, attached characters that give unit X rules, vexillas or banners with auras, etc... I mean, the +1 to wound when red is no different that all the specific legion rules+rites of war rules.

This is not a "7th/HH bad 8th good" post. But after reading the HH books with my group (that we all have been playing 8th and 9th for years, and most of them started warhammer with 8th), the game is much more complicated to understand, learn, and just see where each rule is. Much more book fliping. I have to hard disagree with anybody that says 8th and 9th are more complicated or armies are harder to understand how they function. I mean, just compare any 8th or 9th weapon to each HH one, 80% of the weapons have 2-3 special rules many of them unique that you have to keep referencing until you become used to them.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/23 14:22:50


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 Xenomancers wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).
You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.
Right the stats of 8th edition and up you tossed at me. What exactly was the point of this breakdown report that doesn't represent 7th that we were talking about?
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno's actual opinion on 7th:

Drop pods OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/632112.page
Land speeder storm OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/633401.page
Warp storm table OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/638472.page
Daemons OP https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/698196.page
So, not so different from his opinion on 9th

From what I can tell from a quick glance at his post history during 7th, he essentially started with eldar and switched armies multiple times to GK, tau and marines. Considering this, it's somehow unsurprising that he doesn't feel like 7th was a bad edition.
9th's vastly improved balance no longer allows you to just buy the most recent hot stuff and start winning games despite a total lack of skills, so I guess he just misses the time when his original army - eldar - were good.

So, I honestly wish you good luck in getting an eldar codex that allows to have fun playing your army again. You'll still have to work for your wins though.

That was some serious effort to dig up some history buddy.

Just so you know. Demonic incursion Daemons were probably the most broken army in the formation age (next to ynnari ofc). Coming out near the end - it didn't last long...Index 40k was right around the corner. I don't expect you to know that considering you didn't even know orks got formations in 7th edition (they got several).
You really don't have any standing when it comes to balance. You are wrong on the Orks currently. Wrong on future topics, and pretty much wrong when it came to balance the past.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report
LOL. The stats speak for themselves.
Sorry to break it to you. Daemons are currently really strong right now too. Let me guess - you think gladius was the strongest formation...LOL.
Right the stats of 8th edition and up you tossed at me. What exactly was the point of this breakdown report that doesn't represent 7th that we were talking about?

8.5 daemons PA made them a top 3 army. 7.5 demonic incursion made them a top army. If you are in denial about 1 you are probably in denial about the other.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







I find it's a half-full/half-empty sort of affair with 6th-7th, versus 8th-9th.

Like, I liked the fact that the majority of Psychic disciplines were there in the corebook. You knew that Divination gave mean buffs, Invisibility was all-around dirty, and Pyromancy and Telekinesis were relatively gimped, but you also knew how the powers would work regardless of which codex was using them.

That individual codexes continually 'crept in' their own special and increasingly goofy disciplines undermined that some, yet it would have been relatively easy to streamline some effects/powers.

There were way too many USRs (Over 80) to the point of idiotic bloat; I always like to reference how "Missile Lock" did not exist for the first half of 7th edition, despite multiple codices having their own bespoke rules to represent "missiles locking onto stuff."

That said, removing it altogether and replacing them with "fluffy-named rules" does not feel like much of an improvement. Knowing that "Deep Strike" is "Deep Strike" as opposed to "Subterranean Strike" or whatever...

On another note, one aspect I've felt aren't in favor of the the current editions is the 'non-interactivity' with enemy positioning/inability to effectively 'snipe' out specials. It's one of those things that at times feels like a nit-pick, but bear with me.

7th had "nearest models in range and line of sight to the weapons fired". I found that when dealing with small enough units (mainly, 5-man Tactical Squads with a single Grav-Cannon), that it made it fairly simple to 'concentrate' firepower on a narrow frontage to snipe out said units. 5th edition provided similar options in a different manner via the Torrent of Fire rule, such that if you threw a lot of wounds on an enemy unit at once (say, via massed Shootas, Devourers, Bladestorm Catapults, etc), wounds had to be 'allocated' before saves, such that you had a chance to snipe out hidden meltaguns, sergeants, etc. Even 4th had the idiosyncracies of range-band/LOS "Lash-sniping", so-to-speak. Now, the defender tends to have near-perfect control of casualty allocation, such that the special and sergeant will almost always be the last to die no matter what.

Likewise, even if a melee was not necessarily in your favor, it was at times worth charging an enemy blob from a flank in order to force them to 'pile on', especially if it could kite them away from objectives.

Other than the defender 'choosing' the closest models to remove in order to negate an odd charge, there really isn't much of a focus over 'where/what' you are shooting, versus where the board opens up, and I imagine the 'control' over which models choose to pile-in (and in what order) was one of the reasons that 9th updated its coherency rules for large units.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

TBH I like that I don't have to carefully position each single special weapon in every squad in a 3k point game.

But at the same time I come from Fantasy and his "when models die you remove the ones in the back because they are assumed to take the position in the front" and the champion, musician and banner bearer were always the last ones to fall because if they are killed another one can take the special equipement.

So if my plasma gun tactical dies, for another to take his gun doesnt seem a problem for me.

In our HH we are also using 8th and 9th wound rules of "no more than one wounded model in the unit" with the exception of attached characters.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Galas wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
 Galas wrote:
After entering HH with my friends I really miss all rules being explained in each character datasheed. I cannot understand how people says one cannot understand what a unit does in 8th or 9th when in older editions you don't even have the stats of each weapon unless it is unique in each datasheet.

I mean, just a primarch has something like 10-15 special rules and like, only 2-4 are in his datasheed. The amount of back flipping and cross referencing is really tiresome (Thank god battlescribe, but when looking at army lists in the books is more difficult)

Good game tought. We changed challenge rules for basically 2nd edition combat rules and it works great.

Firstly, "just a primarch" seems a bit of an unfair starting point, that's an extreme example. Regardless, those 10-15 special rules are universal special rules. I know what they do because I have the same ones in my army.
When a unit has 10-15 it's likely there's a few niche ones I don't quite know, but the concept is certainly sound for the lesser units.
Additionally, once you've seen his datasheet, that's it. You know everything that applies to that model. You don't have to especially about him popping a stratagem to suddenly double his damage output or anything. You're unlikely to miss the fact that he actually gets +1 to wound in melee when he's painted red either, or that he gets extra AP on certain game turns hidden elsewhere in the book. You might not realise that if they're near that character, that psyker, and pop that other strat, they suddenly jump to a reliably 30" charge range or whatever.

The datasheet format of 8/9th is undeniably better, and it'd be great if that was also used in HH. But the thing people are referring to when they say they can't understand units in 9th is all the buff stacking and stratagems and stuff.


I have to disagree. I don't want to say that 7th/HH or older editions are extremely complex or whatever. But I really believe people is overstating how complicated 8th and 9th rules are to understand. Theres a reason this editions are much more easy to understand and play. Knowing 9-10 popular stratagems for your opponent army is really not complicated.

Really, the biggest difference I see between the two design paradigms is how much clearer and how better of a layout 8th/9th have for their rules. How the information is presented for you.

And I disagree about the datasheet, I mean, in HH you have stuff like warlord traits that apply to units, psychic powers, Rites of War, special upgrades for X units, attached characters that give unit X rules, vexillas or banners with auras, etc... I mean, the +1 to wound when red is no different that all the specific legion rules+rites of war rules.

This is not a "7th/HH bad 8th good" post. But after reading the HH books with my group (that we all have been playing 8th and 9th for years, and most of them started warhammer with 8th), the game is much more complicated to understand, learn, and just see where each rule is. Much more book fliping. I have to hard disagree with anybody that says 8th and 9th are more complicated or armies are harder to understand how they function. I mean, just compare any 8th or 9th weapon to each HH one, 80% of the weapons have 2-3 special rules many of them unique that you have to keep referencing until you become used to them.


To me, they're both equally painful, but one is easier to memorize.

In the HH rules, several units have It Will Not Die. I have it on my Gargantuan Daemon, other people have it on their Primarchs, a couple Mechanicus magi/upgrades have it, Robots can get it, etc. They do the same thing in all cases.

Similarly, in 9th edition, you have Infernal Regeneration / Infernal Augmetics / Fleshmetal Exoskeleton, each of which does the same thing (regenerates wounds).

The problem is:
In HH, the rule is the same regardless of the model it's on. It can be found in the USR section of the rulebook.

In 40k, Infernal Regeneration happens in the movement phase while Infernal Augmetics happens in the command phase, and Fleshmetal Exoskeleton happens at the beginning of your turn. Furthermore, if you needed to look up what they do, one is on the datasheet for a regular unit, one is on the datasheet for a Legends unit (pdf only, no app or book), one is a relic in the original Chaos Space Marine codex - and it's an Iron Warriors only relic, which you could take alongside a relic from Psychic Awakening, also Iron Warriors, in a different book...

... or actually, the regenerating wound thing might be a CSM Warlord Trait, and the 2+ armor save is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton? Or the Warlord Trait gives 6++ and +1 wound, which I think is actually the truth. Anyways.

I recently built an army of Daemon Engines for both 30k and 40k and I'll tell you that in 40k I must:
1) Remember the applicable stratagems, stretched across 3 books (CSM, Psychic Awakening, Vigilus (using narrative stuff, so vigilus detachments are allowed)).
2) Remember the applicable special rules and warlord traits, stretched across 3 books, an FAQ, and the Legends PDF.
3) Remember the applicable 'shenaigan's across the detachment (unlike other armies, my vehicles don't get Legion Traits, but they can benefit from the slaanesh daemons aura in another detachment to get +1 strength, charging, whatever, and can benefit from psychic powers).
4) When moving, make sure all my auras on 3 different characters are kept together close enough.
5) Remember that 6s on attacks explode (Daemonsmith warlord trait from PA) and explode again, but this time with a to-hit roll that I have to roll (DTFE, which isn't elaborated on the datasheet).

With 30k, I generally have to remember the unit type and what special rules/movement rates it has therefore (standard across all units of the same type), what special rules it has (USRs, so again, standard across all units that share the same rule and pretty easy to remember for the common ones), and wargear.

Wargear is the hardest one, and the only one that improved for 8th/9th I'd argue, though it's a HUGE improvement I'll grant.
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The problem is:
In HH, the rule is the same regardless of the model it's on. It can be found in the USR section of the rulebook.

In 40k, Infernal Regeneration happens in the movement phase while Infernal Augmetics happens in the command phase, and Fleshmetal Exoskeleton happens at the beginning of your turn. Furthermore, if you needed to look up what they do, one is on the datasheet for a regular unit, one is on the datasheet for a Legends unit (pdf only, no app or book), one is a relic in the original Chaos Space Marine codex - and it's an Iron Warriors only relic, which you could take alongside a relic from Psychic Awakening, also Iron Warriors, in a different book...

... or actually, the regenerating wound thing might be a CSM Warlord Trait, and the 2+ armor save is the Fleshmetal Exoskeleton? Or the Warlord Trait gives 6++ and +1 wound, which I think is actually the truth. Anyways.

I think this is an excellent point. When I first read that 8th was getting rid of USRs it raised an eyebrow. Sure there were a lot of USRs, but universal abilities are pretty handy when it comes to understanding a game. Making them universal means you know what the effect is. I was hoping 8th forward just meant that the rules stayed the same but the flavor and the title might change.

Unfortunately, the rules just got sloppy instead. As you point out in that example even if all these special abilities have the same net effect they may occur at different times or they may have different trigger or they may have a marginally different bonus effect. So now the average player can longer go, "Oh it's that rule" instead it's "oh it's like that rule". The special abilties and effects are similar but there's enough minutia between each one of them it makes it harder to remember what does what off the top of your head, not only your own rules but also your opponents. It gets further complicated when these are spread across different books and in different formats and of course juggling the errata.

I didn't love everything about USR's but the primary purpose at least was a good one. It was much easier for you and your opponent to be on the same page, and also easier to remember what your models did and how it worked without needing to look it up. Casting down USRs opens up flexibility in the design space to tweak things but in my opinion it's not worth the cost. I would have greatly preferred USRs with name changes for each faction and then use the design space on unique rolls for unique models or factions.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: