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.

We don't know a lot about the game at the moment.

Anyone who is making assertations on the game's design based on what little we do have are barking up trees that don't have any squirrels.

It's valid to have concerns, but let's not pretend the concerns are based on facts or evidence until we actually have facts and evidence to base them on,

 streetsamurai wrote:

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

when your doing game design, its easy to assign points values to things you design when they have numeric values.

example

A unit with t3 is worth 5 points, bump to t4 and its worth 10, t5 and it becomes worth 25. Add a wound for 15 points, 4+save, 5 points, 3+ 8 points, 2+ save 15 points.

Make a model have MV 4, 1 point. mv 5, 2 points, mv 6 4 points.....

You can have a chart in the design studio that says how much a model is worth when it has 10 wounds, x save, x toughness etc etc... You cant really assign a value to keywords.

This is why design is so balanced in games like X wing and STAW, the costs are married to the stats and gear. Models that have keywords make it harder to keep a balanced design.

You asked for ONE REASON why this way might be preferable, well there it is. I could probably come up with more, but I dont want too and won't because I dont think that the cant target models with less than 10 wounds is good, nor do I think its bad.... but Im excited to see it work in a game.

Heh??? That's simply not true. You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.
Beside that, the fact that passing the 10 wounds threshold make the characger targetable has to be taken into account when pricing the character, so it would result in exactly the same thing as giving a certain point cost to the keyword

not in a balanced game you can't (you can't really for specific stat values either), being able to hide say Magnus is worth a hell of a lot more than hiding a primaris psyker

 streetsamurai wrote:
You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.

No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.

Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?

Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?

Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?

Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.

Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.

It's cool. We're all a little heated at this point. I'll try remain optimistic about this and hope they rebalanced Kroot stat line so we can get our guys up on the frontline again.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.

No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue

If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?

You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.

Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.

Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.

Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

My point in regards to Ratlings and Rough Riders is not that "I don't like people having fun with things they own" but rather I would have gotten a newly designed unit that actually addressed some of the issues in play.

The continued existence of Ratlings and Rough Riders hasn't stopped them from creating new units.

The only "new" units for the Guard of late have been the two Taurox variants as far as I recall. Most of the rest has been split offs(Bullgryn from Ogryn, Armored Sentinels from the general Sentinel profile, etc), dredging stuff up from Epic(Deathstrikes), or renames(Scions).

Ratlings, to me, have felt shoehorned into being the Guard equivalent of the "Scout-y unit with Sniper Rifles" when it really could/should have actually been an option for Veteran Squads. Or an Elite option ala the Detachment 99 Sniper Teams(a spotter with a NV scope that had special rules and a sniper working in tandem) rather than snipers for Guard being limited to Special Weapon Teams(where it's effectively the D99 setup just without the special rules that actually make the D99 Sniper Teams something you might consider taking) or models in squads tacked in there.
Ratlings could have been a far more interesting unit than they are currently, given that a big part of their lore is that they are the cooks and effectively quartermasters of the Regiment. Think Jokaero in terms of things that the Ratlings could have been given.

I agree. I think there should be dedicated Guardsmen sniper teams as well as Ratlings, and Ratlings should be given some unique traits of their own. Shoot Sharp and Scarper is an attempt at that, but I think they could go further.

Like I said; think of Jokaero and the randomized buffs they give out.

Ratlings aren't "just" snipers. They effectively become a kind of regimental mascot/"alternative procurement specialists".

And Rough Riders? They're just a mess. I posted an idea in another thread as to how I would redesign the unit, but they currently suffer from a mixture of issues.
a) Fluff. They're either described as being part of a regiment(Death Korps and Tallarn) or as a separate regiment in and of themselves(The Attilan Rough Riders). Removing the "Rough Riders" label and instead doing "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" would solve some of those issues.
b) Competitive slot. They're part of Fast Attack meaning they compete with the Hellhound variants, Sentinel variants, and Valkyrie variants.
c) Role. They're a counter-charge unit(supposedly) that isn't really built for counter-charging, and what's more isn't really built for close combat in general.

That's why, personally, I would rather see Rough Riders removed.

a) I disagree; I think Rough Riders is a good generic name that covers multiple origins, while your suggestion pidgeonholes them a bit. Either way, it's pretty inconsequential to their role.

Which is, to an extent, why I think it needs to go as a name. Elysia isn't raising Rough Rider Squads for their armies. Cadia isn't doing that. Vitria isn't doing that. Harakoni, Catachan, Valhalla, etc etc.

It's always been that specific kinds of world were generally talked about raising Rough Riders(feudal worlds, feral/death worlds, or for whatever reason...Krieg?). By doing a "Feral World Cavalry Auxiliary" that opens the door for expanding it a bit more later on.

Start with Feral World Cavalry ala Attilla's horse troops then build up to things like the ornithids that got mentioned in "Straight Silver"(a kind of velociraptor chicken mount native to a basically World War One tech level planet) or even stuff like the xenos mounts we saw in WD back in the day.

b) and c) Are both fixable issues, given that we're rebooting the whole rule set. Maybe give them a platoon option like stormtroopers, or more wargear options to suit their role.

Platoon option for Scions was a huge mistake in my opinion that, hopefully, they're correcting. At least when we're talking about the Guard book proper.

There really isn't much more wargear that you can give them to "suit their role" though. They have Hunting Lances, Pistols/CCWs, and all the Grenades. There's not a whole heck of a lot more I can think of that would fit wargear wise.

Special rules are where you can really help them out, and I even went into that elsewhere today.

All of that is pretty small beer issues compared to the idea of removing a classic unit and invalidating armies.

I kind of feel that calling Rough Riders a "classic unit" is a bit overselling it. It's a unit that's been around for awhile.
Same with "invalidating armies". Have we ever been able to take a purely Cavalry mounted army? HWTs, SWS, Ratlings, Stormtroopers, yadda yadda yadda?

 Gamgee wrote:
It's cool. We're all a little heated at this point. I'll try remain optimistic about this and hope they rebalanced Kroot stat line so we can get our guys up on the frontline again.

To our Kroots, personally, I think the vision of squads of Kroots snipers in the terrain, killing enemy characters is ultra cool. And if they use this "Bespoken" mindset to give Kroots some kind of canibalizing rules? Like: "If your kroot unit kills a unit with the Ork keyword, they can spend a movement pase eating them and they gain +1 to T" for example.
So fluffy and cool!

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.

No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.

Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?

Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?

Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?

Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.

Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.

Heh,???
By using binary variable you can easily put a keyword into a regression. In fact, the jump from 10 to 11 would be as 'complicated' to implement into a regression formula used to determinate the point of a model. and this is coming from someone who has a master in BI and has done more than his share of regression analysis

 davou wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
You can full well have a certain point value for a certain keyword.

No you actually can't, and when you try you complicate the design process hugely.

Take Eternal warrior; should it be worth 10 points for a 1 wound T10 monster? What about for a 25 wound t1 mook?

Hows about fearless? How much should fearless be worth on a 10 point IC that can join up with any unit in an ork army? what about on a LD 10 MC that can't join squads?

Or jink? Should a model that has no guns pay the same for jink as a gunboat?

Sure you have to account for the 10-11 jump, but its something you can keep track of when you do design, and if you REALLY wanted to get dedicated, you can do regression analasys to figure out which stats should compliment each other.... but you can ONLY employ those tools to keep your game design tight, if you stick tightly to things that can be acted upon with math. Stats are in, keywords are out.

Keywords will still exist in these types of games, but they become a chokepoint where ballance has to be guessed at rather than figured out.

Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).

Never said they were the same exact thing, just a valid and feasible alternative.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, because personally? I don't think they're anywhere in the same ballpark.

It's like saying that being able to take a Combi Weapon/Heavy Weapon in a unit of Tactical Marines is a valid and feasible alternative to Sternguard or Devastators.

 streetsamurai wrote:


Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).

Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.

 En Excelsis wrote:


Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.

What he's saying is that it's impossible to just glance at a rule and assign a static cost value to it in a vacuum. At least, if you want to make it balanced.

I feel like I'm getting 5th ed Grey Knight levels of painful deja vu reading the last couple pages.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).

Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.

Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.

No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue

If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?

You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.

Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.

Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.

Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

Your attitude about this has not spoke towards it being treated as a "minor issue".

And you know, maybe it's intentional that models that were designed with ten wounds or less won't be targetable. You assume that they'd intentionally design something that should be targetable at 10 wounds or less but hide it with the rule.

Guess what: the same thing could apply with keywords only instead we could have some untargetable 15 wound monster.

The arguement can swing both ways.

 En Excelsis wrote:
Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.

The survey was ran in spring of 2016. The biggest problem at that time was the in-balance of 7th edition. That is the focus of GW's 8th edition, which is great. It means they are listening to the player base.

 En Excelsis wrote:
If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.

That would be so awesome.

 En Excelsis wrote:
After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.

I could not agree more. I was looking at the Catachan Jungle Fighters kit earlier today, and could not bring myself to buy it because the models just don't look good when compared to the newer sculpts.

 En Excelsis wrote:
Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.

I didn't say that their point cost mattered, or matter anymore... Samurai asked for ONE reason why doing it with wounds rather than keywords is preferable, so I provided it. Seems like he didn't want "just one" reason though, looks like he wanted to argue for its own sake and puff his chest

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which still doesn't make it the same thing.
A unit of purely snipers(Ratlings) is not the same thing as a unit of Guardsmen with some snipers in there(Veterans, Command Squads, or Special Weapon Squads).

Never said they were the same exact thing, just a valid and feasible alternative.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree then, because personally? I don't think they're anywhere in the same ballpark.

It's like saying that being able to take a Combi Weapon/Heavy Weapon in a unit of Tactical Marines is a valid and feasible alternative to Sternguard or Devastators.

I don't play IG (sorry, Astra-whateverthehell) because I personally don't like the look of the models. I would probably invest in them in the future if they made a Vestroyan or Elysian version of all the models but... who are we kidding right?

Anyway, if I were to play them, and I needed a dedicated sniper unit like ratlings, I'd just sub the models out for something like veterans with sniper rifles... 'counts as' and looks much more fitting. Why take the long way around and try to use a different unit to perform the role of a unit that already exists.

 En Excelsis wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...

A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.

Spoiler:

Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.


Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.


Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.

Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.

Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.

If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.

I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.

Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...

After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.

There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?

Now there you'd have something, but i'll bet money that won't exist. Nurgle will have some ignore mortal wound stuff.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
For those defending gw on this, could you give us one reason why this method is preferable to using a keyword?

I already have: if it applies to all models then the keyword method is useless. We need the full rules to know more. Fresking out now does no one any good.

No it aint, and we already gave you reason why. But then, you seem to prefer to ignore the issue

If it works the same for non character models than what is the point of making a keyword to do something that you can just assign a rule for? Especially if the units in question will be the same regardless?

You've latched onto this idea that the only way this can work is through keywords and reject any other stance. This is not being open to discussion, it's an attempt to brow beat everyone else into submission.

Discussing how GW "should" do something isn't really on topic anyways. They made the choice they did, it was playtested and apparently didn't horribly fail and now we have it. Claiming it's broken when we only have two models as an example (one of which only reachers the other's knee) is hyperbole. Claiming they "should" have done it a different way without the full list of the models actually effected is frankly just as bad.

Discussion is good. Even discussion on why you don't like something is good. Brow beating everyone with how you want it because it doesn't fit your world view of how the game mechanics for an edition you can't even play yet and don't have all the rules for is hardly acceptable. We can save roasting GW's design team for after the release. This is a thread for the new edition, not how we think they should have wrote it to make the new edition we don't have better.

Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

Your attitude about this has not spoke towards it being treated as a "minor issue".

And you know, maybe it's intentional that models that were designed with ten wounds or less won't be targetable. You assume that they'd intentionally design something that should be targetable at 10 wounds or less but hide it with the rule.

Guess what: the same thing could apply with keywords only instead we could have some untargetable 15 wound monster.

The arguement can swing both ways.

Yes but in this case, you'll have a key word that contradict a general rule, which introduce more bloat than simply having a single keyword.

As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

tneva82 wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:
If they give a new character 11 wounds it seems like they'd still be better off to me than the numerous monstrous creatures and walkers that we've been playing with.

But worse than W6-W10 characters...Don't you think that's just a wee bit illogical? Being punished for getting extra wound...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lessthanjeff wrote:
He has 9 and gets to hide and I can't think of another character that would have more wounds but should still be allowed to hide.

I can think potential characters that could have been created that match those criteria. Too bad with these rules they won't work. For no benefit over keywords.

It's no more illogical to me than the current state of Monstrous Creatures has been that they can't join units when others can. Hell, daemon princes had the same number of wounds as wolf lord cavalry but the cav got to join and daemon princes didn't.

If they feel the need to make this hypothetical 11 wound character that should get to hide, what stops them from just putting the rule on that one data sheet? That way they aren't adding to the core rulebook for a situation that doesn't even exist in the game as of now. Keeps the main rules shorter and more simplified.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).

Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.

Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?

But Daemon Princes aren't ICs? They have never relied on hiding in units, why would they now?

 davou wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
Hold on a sec. What does it matter what a USR like Eternal Warrior or Fearless is worth in points. Not only are USRs gone in the coming edition, but even in previous editions you didn't get to purchase them with points. Special characters that had had those rules were given a point value with those rules already taken into consideration.

I didn't say that their point cost mattered, or matter anymore... Samurai asked for ONE reason why doing it with wounds rather than keywords is preferable, so I provided it. Seems like he didn't want "just one" reason though, looks like he wanted to argue for its own sake and puff his chest

yeah, but your reason was not valid, and only shown that you never did any relatively 'complex' mathematical models

I'd bet a doughnut that DPs have 12 wounds.

 Ir0njack wrote:
Oh god, I just realized... If SM still get cheap squads of scout snipers...

RIP my poor IG characters XD

I really like the idea of having snipers in each army now for a reason.

 streetsamurai wrote:


As I said, it is a minor issue, but the GW can do no wrong crowd just can't admit it that i this case they didn't chose the optimal choice

Is it that? Or are people trying to over complicate the issue to prove a point that doesn't exist?

Breng77 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

 En Excelsis wrote:
I don't recall ever presenting 'derisive criticism' for these folks. All I am saying is that the coming edition will including rules born of their bias. And I bring that up to illustrate that their bias is the bias a very small minority. I suspect (and could be wrong but...) a large portion of the 40k playerbase are not in fact large scale tournament/event organizers.

This is the undefinable argument about trying silent majorities and vocal minorities. I think it's fair to say that the majority of 40k players are hobbyists, and only a very small few (by %) have turned that hobby into a profession. the nature of that profession, i.e. hosting tournaments and other events, will create a natural bias to make those parts of the game better as the cost of other parts of the game. To be a store owner or event organizer you are almost forced to be more vocal in the community than a hobbyist who plays occasionally with friends at home or at their FLGS. Hence the vocal minority...

A poll was ran a few years ago asking that very question (along with a myriad of others) While some of the meta has changed since the poll was ran, other questions are fairly static.

Spoiler:

Most of the players have played in and enjoyed competitive play.


Most players seem to think that organizations like the ITC add value to 40k.


Most players seem to think game balance and updating old rules are the most important things GW should be doing.

Very cool info, thanks! I have no doubt that lots of players participate in competitive play, but my point was more about the organizers (store owners, tournament managers, etc.) and less about every player who has ever or will ever be a part of those events.

Still the info is interesting. I am a little concerned about the results. The fact that 'adding model diversity and updating old or out of print models' was not only first rank but totally absent from the list is just... well it just makes me sad.

If I had one wish of GW it would be that they add more models (plastic). I'd love to have a full lineup of guard options in plastic. Mordians, Tallaran, Valhallans, Vestroyans, etc. More updates for SoB, Space Marine models that aren't 'ultra' version of everything. It would be pretty amazing to see an honor guard for the Salamanders or White Scars for example. Black Templars could also use some love.

I truly believe that the game would benefit more from model additions than to a complete overhaul of the rules.

Who knows, maybe once this overhaul is out of the way GW can finally get to those old models...

After all, what value is there is making old army's more competitive or balanced if the models are so hideously out of date that no one wants to play them anyway.

There are very few armies full of hideously out of date. But yeah they should be updated. As for sub-faction specific units with full line ups. I think it would actually hurt the company by and large or at least the LGS as a means to sell models. Where shelf space is at a premium having a ton of SKUs hurts. I'm all for updating old models, but as the owner of a bunch of them it ranks far behind having good rules for the models I already own.

I respectfully disagree.

Rules are rules and are only important in the context of competitive, regulated games. If I only ever played in those situations I would probably have a different point of view, but as it stands now I play 1 competitive game for every 20 beer and pretzels game I enjoy casually with friends. In the abstract sense I would still love for the rules to be more consistent, but not if presented with the choice of having better rules or better models.

Now, from the perspective of a small business owner, I can understand the concerns about shelf space and the premium there, but that is easily resolved by having establishing a store standard, and webstore alternatives. GW could easily work with gaming stores to provide them with the highest selling models to fill their shelves, and leaving the less popular models as webstore exclusives. I don't know that I'll be convinced that a world exists were more player choice is bad thing.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:


Cause now it is impossible to create a large character with less than 11 wounds that is targetable. (thought it is true that it would be possible to give a bespoken rule to such a character, but it would bloat the game for no good reason)

And who said anything about it being broken? All was said was that it is a rather minor issue, but it is a bad design

I'm still having a hard time conjuring what such a character would be outside of some artificial construct one-off that couldn't be handled with a bespoke rule (I know, the horror).

Most man sized characters will quite clearly be under the limit. The ones that will toe the line are RG and Cawl (obviously not man sized). The rest are quite a bit larger. Daemon Princes will probably make it under the line.

Wouldn't it be funny if Daemon Princes were 10W, and Mark of Nurgle granted an additional Wound instead of Toughness?

But Daemon Princes aren't ICs? They have never relied on hiding in units, why would they now?

They talk about things that are labeled characters as having the ability to be unable to be targeted if something else is closer...provided you have 10 or less Wounds.

So while now Daemon Princes might not be able to hide in units, they'd likely be protected under the new setup.

Characters
Q: > Guilliman standing further away than a single guardsman.
> Enemy cannot target the huge dude that towers over vehicles, because single Guardsman is closer.
Makes sense.
A: If your army can't kill that one Guardsman first, what exactly were you going to shoot at Guilliman that was going to worry him?

That's a wonderful example of 'missing the point' right there. Why would you waste time shooting at a single guardsman when there's that great, hulking Primarch standing right behind him?

No more independent characters magically intercepting an entire armies shooting on their tiny stormshield.

That's a plus. But was only a thing to begin with because of 6th/7th's stupid casualty removal rules.

In the new Warhammer 40,000, we tend to find characters used to accompanying units, advancing alongside the main battleline, possibly flanked on either side by squads, which looks great on the tabletop.

That might happen in casual games. Sounds like a great way to get your characters sniped, though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
You know what's a good way to solve the deathstar problem? Not allowing deathstars to form! This method is literally 90% the same as it used to be, other than not getting unitwide buffs which were the entire problem to begin with. You still get units as ablative wounds. You still pass on effects, sometimes, now, in a more logical aura too, as opposed to only buffing 1 unit. The only real change is that this prevents deathstars and makes positioning more important.

Not allowing characters to join units doesn't prevent deathstars if you replace the benefit of joining a unit with a ranged aura...

What I think will be interesting to see which characters retain the "character" keyword.
Currently Wraithlords and DreadKnights are characters and judging from the profile of the Dreadnaught and Guiliman, neither is likely to exceed 10 wounds.
I'd be willing to bet that both lose the 'character' keyword, otherwise it will be ridiculously easy to game the system and keep them hidden,

I'm excited for Daemon Princes though. They are likely to stay under 10 wounds as well, which will be nice since I also don't think "hard to hit" will be a thing anymore.

 insaniak wrote:

Not allowing characters to join units doesn't prevent deathstars if you replace the benefit of joining a unit with a ranged aura...

I had a similar thought too. But luckily, it looks like most Auras will only apply to units with certain keywords. So no more Superfriends at least

-