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
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
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.


That approach doesn't seem to work for most people since everyone tends to take on the matched play rules though?

   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
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.


That approach doesn't seem to work for most people since everyone tends to take on the matched play rules though?


Because Matched play is in this dumb place where things are standardised but not quite. You're also doing that thing where you assume this change is done in a vacuum and nothing else changes.

What if Matched gets renamed to Advanced? Or Tournament? Does that make it easier to accept?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 13:55:22



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
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.


Thousand Sons have to gak out mortal wounds. The entire army is very short ranged and terrible at melee and good placement screens out the more deadly spells.

Heldrake hardly changed unless it melees an aircraft and it went from 140 to 165.

The Forgefiend? It sucked unless you popped Daemonforge, which is now gone. What's the math on that you ask?

7.2 damage then 6.4 damage now. A singular FF went down in damage. AND it used to be 150 points and is now 175! Helbrute used to be 102 and is now 120.

People complained and complained about strats making bad units good. So the made the bad unit good, removed the strat....and it's still a problem!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
What if Matched gets renamed to Advanced? Or Tournament? Does that make it easier to accept?


I dunno. I think most people have that psychological desire to "play it straight" and they'll want do what they think is the most rigorous rule set.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 14:04:53


   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
What if Matched gets renamed to Advanced? Or Tournament? Does that make it easier to accept?


I dunno. I think most people have that psychological desire to "play it straight" and they'll want do what they think is the most rigorous rule set.


So then whats the problem? If people want to do that they have to learn new LoS rules. Just like how when 8th came along we all had to learn the new systems for army building, CP, morale etc.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






...except they never make the bad unit good by making them tougher. They always make the bad unit good by making them deal 2x-3x the damage, and MAYBE they might bump the sv up by 1 pip or bump a unit up to 2w while also reducing the unit's defenses in some other area.

If you set up a board where there aren't significant blockers of line of sight but there is plenty of other forms of cover, the game will be functionally over in 2.5 battle rounds. That's a structural problem both in terms of 'the players get to make very few decisions with their units, so basically it just becomes a glorified lets just check our lists against one another' system, and also because who gets that critical third turn because they rolled off and got to go first gets a massive advantage. the maximum defensive boost you can get from the board state beyond 'cant target me at all' is 33%, and that's INCREDIBLY tricky to achieve, because you generally have to get every single model in a unit within 1" of a terrain piece and also behind a Dense terrain piece. And it's just straight-up impossible for vehicles bikers etc because they cant even claim light cover at all, it may as well not exist.

That's EXACTLY why without huge Obscuring cover the player who gets the first turn has like a 60% winrate. For most units theres almost no barrier between the beginning of the game and their ability to start chunking 1/3 of their opponent's army every single turn.

its like if you designed a fighting video game where a character dies in 2 punches or 1 kick, and then wondered 'hmm, i wonder why nobody seems to be picking the slow characters? I keep adding in mechanics for throwing, and new combos, and new special moves, why does it still seem like there's such a problem here?"

play any game with an older faction like Guard, Eldar, GSC or Nids without FW against a 9th ed book, the amount theyve escalated the damage consistency 9th ed units put out becomes immediately and glaringly obvious.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 14:19:34


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I will not deny any of the problems mentioned in this thread- I think they are legit, and they do exist. I even believe that some of the discussion that we've seen in this thread and others like it has been helpful, and has posed some viable solutions. And yes, in an ideal world, I admit that the base rules should be strong enough that we don't have to propose solution. But I admit, we may not be in that ideal world.

So, as a proposed solution that could work, and could increase the fun factor, without house-ruling terrain, is Theatres of War.

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another, but Scotsman went into detail about a game set on Fenris, and quite rightfully, he and his opponent didn't think that dense urban terrain was very fluffy. I suggested a "Snow Storm" Theatre of War. These rules have some problems, I'll admit.

1/ They don't solve any problems in Tournament Play; this is not to say they can't work with the Matched Play rules- they CAN. But putting them in an actual organized tournament could be problematic for various reasons.

2/ They DO genuinely lend themselves to narrative play.

3/ They aren't in the BRB or the dexes; I don't even think they appear in current Campaign books or Mission Packs, though it's been a while since I've looked. They are all over White Dwarf Flashpoint articles and PA books; they also appear in the three vs. boxes I've purchased (Blood of the Phoenix, Piety and Pain, Hexfire).

4/ Being story-based, they only work if you want the story flavour imparted by the rules. Snow Storm was appropriate for Scotsman's battle, cuz Fenris. But if you were trying to get the benefit of snow storm rules so you can minimize lethality, but your game is set on a hard-vacuum mining asteroid, that's not a very "feel-good" solution.

Anyway, just something that might help those who are looking for solutions. I'm not saying "you have to do this"; I'm not saying "you're playing wrong if you don't do this or don't want to do this" etc, etc. Just saying it might work for you if you want to play the game and tackle an identified issue using published source material.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 16:04:53


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






At least the book of rust had some pretty fancy theatres of war, the mission packs don't. Not sure about the other two campaign books.

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 ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

Here's my proposal after playing my first few games of 9th.

A model must be visible to be targeted. A model is visible if 25% of it can be seen by the model doing the targeting.

You cannot kill what you can't see, with the exception of blast, flame weapons, certain psychic spells etc

Terrain/cover comes in two types:

Soft cover and hard cover. A model must be in or behind the terrain piece to receive the benefits of cover.

Soft cover (trees, bushes, ramshackle fences, anything that will obscure but not offer protection): -1 to hit.

Hard cover (ruins, barricades, bunkers, anything that would offer physical protection to the target etc): -1 to hit and +1 to save.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:21:55


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

So basically cover vs concealment.
   
Made in us
Pile of Necron Spare Parts




I couldn't imagine playing without TLOS. Using "% visible" is too fiddly and just leads to contention. I always play on tables with lots of terrain at my LGS. Haven't seen a person lose turn 1 since 8th ed, unless they deploy bad with nothing hidden.
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

Racerguy180 wrote:
So basically cover vs concealment.


Exactly. Easy to parse out and identify terrain piece to terrain piece. With additive bonuses that can be easily remembered.

dewd11 wrote:
I couldn't imagine playing without TLOS. Using "% visible" is too fiddly and just leads to contention. I always play on tables with lots of terrain at my LGS. Haven't seen a person lose turn 1 since 8th ed, unless they deploy bad with nothing hidden.


% rule could be changed. Honestly I'd be fine with TLOS just without spikes, gun barrels, horns etc. That specific part of the game is absolutely absurd.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:30:15


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Las wrote:
Here's my proposal after playing my first few games of 9th.

A model must be visible to be targeted. A model is visible if 25% of it can be seen by the model doing the targeting.

You cannot kill what you can't see, with the exception of blast, flame weapons, certain psychic spells etc

Terrain/cover comes in two types:

Soft cover and hard cover. A model must be in or behind the terrain piece to receive the benefits of cover.

Soft cover (trees, bushes, ramshackle fences, anything that will obscure but not offer protection): -1 to hit.

Hard cover (ruins, barricades, bunkers, anything that would offer physical protection to the target etc): -1 to hit and +1 to save.


Great starting point for "Core Rules' type stuff, the only thing I'd add is "when determining if a target model is obscured, ignore additional models in either the target or attacking model's unit, and ignore terrain features within 1" of the attacking model if making a shooting attack." But its definitely an improvement.

Almost anything would be an improvement to the two terrain systems gw has right now - the completely abstracted and basically nothing system presented in the free Core Rules is both unimpactful (only +1 to save which is rarely that noticeable) and entirely relies on players being reasonable and playing by intent because it defines nothing at all, and then the full matched play terrain rules which are a hilarious wall of text defining a dozen-odd traits that almost never come up at all.

I can respect the intention behind it, but the actual effects of Difficult, Defensible, Heavy, Light and Dense cover are so wimpy and ephemeral that you could apply them almost universally across the board and the sheer mass of layered offensive rules everyone gets now would just effortlessly blow past them.

You could probably set up the game on an empty board and declare that every model would permanently benefit from defensible, heavy, light, and dense cover and still have 1 side tabled by BR3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dewd11 wrote:
I couldn't imagine playing without TLOS. Using "% visible" is too fiddly and just leads to contention. I always play on tables with lots of terrain at my LGS. Haven't seen a person lose turn 1 since 8th ed, unless they deploy bad with nothing hidden.


%visible IS true line of sight. its how most old-school wargames operate.

more abstracted line of sight is closer to what Kill Team does - draw a straight line between the closest point on the two models and see what terrain pieces that line crosses, and what rules they convey. Do not stoop down to try and 'see what your model can see' just go off the rules conveyed by the terrain and the relation between the models.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:34:11


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

I'd like if it was you need to see torso/hull/whatever to be able to hit them. Then it would only be on the specific model that is visible, not the entire unit(unless artillery/mortar/grenade).

   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

I also wouldn't mind adding "gone to ground" rules for certain infantry units into the game. ie: if its lore-friendly, have a unit that doesn't move in the movement phase automatically gain the benefits of -1 to hit. Hell, make it cumulative with soft/hard cover.

Guardsmen would hit the dirt if they're out in the open, while Khorne Berserkers, cultists, most marines wouldn't etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 17:47:35


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




I’m about to start copying Scotsman’s thread comments and sending them to that faq feedback email...

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




San Jose, CA

It would evoke the lore. A human needs to hit the deck, your walking tank doesn't...
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

Racerguy180 wrote:
It would evoke the lore. A human needs to hit the deck, your walking tank doesn't...


Exactly, put it on the datacard or whatever:

Goes to Ground: If no model in this unit moved during your movement phase, models targeting this unit suffer -1 to hit in addition to any other bonuses offered by terrain features.

Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Racerguy180 wrote:
I'd like if it was you need to see torso/hull/whatever to be able to hit them. Then it would only be on the specific model that is visible, not the entire unit(unless artillery/mortar/grenade).



I think generally, youre going to need to have a split between 'open/narrative play Terrain' which can have a lot of 'talk it over with your opponent and play by intent! Remember that the models posed heroically as your miniatures cant perfectly represent how the soldiers would actulaly be on the field of battle' etc and Matched Play Terrain, which can be rigidly defined closer to its current state.

Personally, if you put me in charge of Open Play/Narrative Play, I'd put in a few rules:

1) "units can only draw line of sight from a reasonable point on the model. For most models with traditional bodies, this should be the model's head. For vehicles, by default you should use a point roughly at the front and towards the top of the model, though you should talk to your opponent and you may make certain allowances for vehicles with turret weapons for that weapon to be able to target units assuming a 360 degree rotation."

2) "when drawing line of sight to a target, banners, antennae, weapons, bases or other scenic features not a part of the model's main body or hull should not be considered a valid point to target. In general however, it should not be possible to achieve a situation where a model cannot be targeted, but can still draw line of sight to a target unless it is firing a weapon that can explicitly ignore line of sight rules. "

And for matched play where everything is hyper-defined, I'd have the designers put out a CAD file for any given model, stuck somewhere on the datasheet with the 'sighting point' marked as a blue dot and 'untargetable bits' marked out as red. Heroscape had this gak figured out perfectly in like 2008.



"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Terrain is the “3rd army”. Who’s playing two opponents for it to be the third???

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





When you start talking about measuring to specific parts of models it results in stuff like crouching wraithlords and provokes "modelling for advantage" discussions. I always preferred the base-to-base/column style of LoS as it keeps things simple.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Sim-Life wrote:
When you start talking about measuring to specific parts of models it results in stuff like crouching wraithlords and provokes "modelling for advantage" discussions. I always preferred the base-to-base/column style of LoS as it keeps things simple.


...which would, theoretically, allow you to target NO part of the model, right?

Like if I had a model that was smaller than its base, and my opponent could target part of my 'imaginary cylinder' with part of their 'imaginary cylinder' wouldnt that result in MORE not LESS of the confusing negative player epxeriences mentioned here?

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
When you start talking about measuring to specific parts of models it results in stuff like crouching wraithlords and provokes "modelling for advantage" discussions. I always preferred the base-to-base/column style of LoS as it keeps things simple.


...which would, theoretically, allow you to target NO part of the model, right?

Like if I had a model that was smaller than its base, and my opponent could target part of my 'imaginary cylinder' with part of their 'imaginary cylinder' wouldnt that result in MORE not LESS of the confusing negative player epxeriences mentioned here?


Actually... that’s not a terrible suggestion. Add a keyword for grots for example to be size small, marines and guard to be medium, and terminators to be bulky, etc... then write for how the terrain interacts with the sizes. Grots may be out of line of sight when terrain that provides cover bonuses to marines is in the way, for example. Basically define the cylinder height by key word and define height by terrain type.

Now, I admit that this may be clunky inefficient and overly complicated. It may warrant thinking outside of how we currently understand war games rules though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or simply use the infantry/bike etc. keywords to define how the models interact with the terrain and just lump grots to terminators in the same size category, etc....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 18:28:02


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







*people ITT deriving 4th edition terrain rules, with units in size categories and terrain in size categories...*
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Las wrote:
Goes to Ground: If no model in this unit moved during your movement phase, models targeting this unit suffer -1 to hit in addition to any other bonuses offered by terrain features.
The issue with this is that it would encourage even more static play.

The game needs to have choices, and things that are mutually exclusive. 9th introduced the concept of Actions that units could take (raise banners, psychic actions, etc.). I think this type of thing, moved to the underutilised Command Phase, would be a great way to add more choice to the game.

So, 'Go to Ground', would be something you choose for units not engaged in melee during the Command Phase. A unit that has Gone to Ground cannot move, advance or declare charges, but has +1Ld and maybe this acts as a 'Defensive Stance', that allows a unit to choose between Overwatch or being -1 To Hit in melee (rather than tying that to confusing and bloated terrain rules).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 22:25:54


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

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

The command phase is where stuff like this SHOULD happen. The Sgt. ordered them to get down(insert James Brown emphasis), Lieutenant said be more effective with your shots/attacks, etc...

Currently it's basically just another motion to go thru that other than regaining a CP could be forgotten.
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Las wrote:
Goes to Ground: If no model in this unit moved during your movement phase, models targeting this unit suffer -1 to hit in addition to any other bonuses offered by terrain features.
The issue with this is that it would encourage even more static play.

The game needs to have choices, and things that are mutually exclusive. 9th introduced the concept of Actions that units could take (raise banners, psychic actions, etc.). I think this type of thing, moved to the underutilised Command Phase, would be a great way to add more choice to the game.

So, 'Go to Ground', would be something you choose for units not engaged in melee during the Command Phase. A unit that has Gone to Ground cannot move, advance or declare charges, but has +1Ld and maybe this acts as a 'Defensive Stance', that allows a unit to choose between Overwatch or being -1 To Hit in melee (rather than tying that to confusing and bloated terrain rules).



I see your point and I agree in principle when it comes to choice and the underutilization of the command phase. However, in this example what would functionally separate this choosing to go to ground from a stratagem? If the answer is “it doesn’t cost cp”, would we then have effectively two tiers of stratagem?

To me, it feels like it’s far easier to clean the terrain rules and put something like this in there rather than to do so to stratagems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/21 23:42:40


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Las wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Las wrote:
Goes to Ground: If no model in this unit moved during your movement phase, models targeting this unit suffer -1 to hit in addition to any other bonuses offered by terrain features.
The issue with this is that it would encourage even more static play.

The game needs to have choices, and things that are mutually exclusive. 9th introduced the concept of Actions that units could take (raise banners, psychic actions, etc.). I think this type of thing, moved to the underutilised Command Phase, would be a great way to add more choice to the game.

So, 'Go to Ground', would be something you choose for units not engaged in melee during the Command Phase. A unit that has Gone to Ground cannot move, advance or declare charges, but has +1Ld and maybe this acts as a 'Defensive Stance', that allows a unit to choose between Overwatch or being -1 To Hit in melee (rather than tying that to confusing and bloated terrain rules).



I see your point and I agree in principle when it comes to choice and the underutilization of the command phase. However, in this example what would functionally separate this choosing to go to ground from a stratagem? If the answer is “it doesn’t cost cp”, would we then have effectively two tiers of stratagem?

To me, it feels like it’s far easier to clean the terrain rules and put something like this in there rather than to do so to stratagems.


It would be a core rule, presumably, and no more a stratagem than declaring a unit to Advance, or even Shoot.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That's it. And it would be universal.

The game would/should have a list of basic Actions that can be performed during the Command Phase, everything from 'Raise the Banners' to 'Go to Ground' to 'Covering Fire' to 'Sprint*' to 'Rend the Veil**' and so on.

I'm just throwing everything at the wall at the moment - I have a spreadsheet of random 40k ideas I've been adding to every day after my walk covering everything that is at around 350 lines by now - so not everything has coalesced yet, but I think that the core problem of all GW's rules - great idea/terrible execution - is something that can be fixed easily enough.

*Give up shooting to roll an extra D6 for Advance.

**Give up casting psychic powers to make it easier for friendly psykers to cast.

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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Sim-Life wrote:
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.


Ok, take the bitch/moan/hope approach. Let's take a bet on how that'll work out for you come 10e. And 11e. And 12th+....
Meanwhile, in the here & now that matters (assuming you actually play the game), you've got a problem. And GW isn't going to solve it for you. What are you going to do about it?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ccs wrote:
What are you going to do about it?


Houserule it when playing with friends, have poor pick-up games and organized events where houserules are not permitted, complain on the Internet because it's still a problem.

Maybe complain a little extra when folks trot out this particular flavor of apologism masquerading as pragmatism.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: