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.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th

You mean we don't have to keep rolling loads of or indeed no dice to have respectively total or zero influence - oh no.... Rolling loads of dice is not "deep"

IMO the 6th ed system worked fine - with the exception of a few broken powers - which of course they screwed up and then gave us a whole new tedious dice game and of course Invisibility.

The new system looks like you make informed choices as part of a streamlined system that is part of the main game framework - not a entire sub game that only some of the players can take part in.

tneva82 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
Regarding characters, for those that want the targetable/untargetable thing to be governed by a keyword instead of by wounds: it's already governed by a keyword, it's just in addition to the wound count rather than instead of it. That keyword is "character". This doesn't lock out any design options, and makes for cleaner rules IMHO where rare outliers can get an exception rather than the rules for everything having to accommodate them.

Yes it does. It prevents 11+ wound untargetable character.

You know wounds does not have to be in direct correlation with physical size...

Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.

And there's literally zero drawback in having simple keyword to do it without relation to wound count...

And there's literally zero drawback with the method they've chosen without adding an additional keyword.

Honestly either method is perfectly viable, and anything that could be accomplished with one could easily be accomplished with the other. Any flaws that can crop up with implementation of one could crop up with implementation of the other as well. 11+ wound guy that should be untargetable but isn't? Wound system didn't add an extra rule, keyword system added the wrong keyword. Bad implementation is bad implementation in either system, and either system implemented well will work identically in practice.

The difference between them is semantics and aesthetics, where each has its strong and weak points, but there is no end result difference between the two.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th

the 7th ed convoluted psychic phase is roundly considered crap. You might think it's the best thing ever and that's fine however just becuase someone likes a piece of crap doesn't mean it is good and many people have complained on the time wasting, I'll concieved, over convoluted hot mess of 7th ed psychic phase nonsense that produced an all or nothing approach to it. If you didn't go all into 7th ed psychic you might as well ignore it. Because your one psycher did jack shat in a game vs a psycher army and certain armies drowned you in warp dice. The 7th ed psychic phase was time consuming useles and the worst edition of psychics ever and you can google the amount of articles complaining about it.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.

Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.

gungo wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont see a risk reward analysis as tedious, and saying 8th edition psychic phase is not shallower is just bizzarre. You might think that it is a good thing, but it is a lot less complex and you have much less decision to take than in 7th

the 7th ed convoluted psychic phase is roundly considered crap. You might think it's the best thing ever and that's fine however just becuase someone likes a piece of crap doesn't mean it is good and many people have complained on the time wasting, I'll concieved, over convoluted hot mess of 7th ed psychic phase nonsense that produced an all or nothing approach to it. If you didn't go all into 7th ed psychic you might as well ignore it. Because your one psycher did jack shat in a game vs a psycher army and certain armies drowned you in warp dice. The 7th ed psychic phase was time consuming useles and the worst edition of psychics ever and you can google the amount of articles complaining about it.

You can find many people complaining about pretty mcuh anything, so it is not much of a point. Was 7th edition psychic phase perfect? No, it could have used a few tweaks. But it is a much more interesting system than the extremely shallow and boring one 8th has. If you like simpler mechanism, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but I tend to prefer more complex rules

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.

Ah yes more bespoken rules...

That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.

but there is no end result difference between the two.

Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.

Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.

As previously mentioned - risk analysis and resource management.

Right now with this psychic phase there's... not really a lot of choice involved apart from deciding which spell you're going to try and cast first. That's it. There's no real resource management involved since they will all use the same resources - 2d6 that magically pop out of the Warp to be used by the psyker. Hell right now with this system they could have merged it back into the Shooting phase and call it a day. Say "Oh yeah and you can only cast spells during the Shooting Phase unless otherwise noted. Whatever dude". Done.

And there will still be players "not allowed" to take part of it - Tau, for instance. Unless they suddenly decide that Ethereals were psykers all along *cue dramatic music*.

double post

Also, please note that I am not defending the 7th ed psychic phase rules or saying they were perfect - they were flawed. but they could've been fixed.

But this change made the psychic phase far more shallow indeed.

ERJAK wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

ERJAK wrote:


This is a bit disengenuous, what he actually said was that their part in 8th was very small, yes, but the context of the comment was to underscore the mammoth size of the task at hand rather than simply gw not taking their feedback, or them not giving much feedback.

Disingenuous--how ironic.

I didn't mean 'simply gw not taking their feedback' or 'them not giving much feedback.' Here it is for you once again; 'that a lot of their feedback/suggestions weren't considered by the design team at all.'

My comment has nothing to do with how large a project 8th has been to develop, or because it was such a large project that the amount that Frontline put in was a minute part, but rather that the impact of Reece and Frankie as play-testers has been overblown.

I don't like 7th either that's why my group uses a significantly different ruleset. But by all means, continue to misinterpret comments while you're peeing.

You misquoted Reece and completely ignored the context of the comment, you were being disengenuous, if you can't deal with that maybe you should try being correct in the future.

May I ask you one question oh great one? Now please give this a honest think over and a honest answer. In this new edition of 40k that is coming out, do you think that the armies are going to be more or less equal and that the playing ability of the general (ie You and your opponent) is going to be the determining factor in who wins or looses? Or do you think that this is going to be like EVERY other edition of Warhammer 40k that we have gotten and that there will be one book ( ie codex) that is head and shoulders better then most of the other books out there and that the most optimized list will be made from that Codex and that is what 90% of the people will play?

I love the way GW is going. I love the fact that they gutted 40k and started from AOS. I am glad that GW is more open with its customers now. I love the snide and snark in their previews. I love this level of communication. I am not a huge fan of the newish models and ascetics that GW is going down ( I don't like the huge plastic model with more stuff on it like Gulliman and Magnus). I love the FW look tho. I love the Heresy look of models. I love the FW Gulliman model. I don't like the plastic monstrosity we got in 40k.

But can you sit back objectively and say that this edition of 40k will be Perfect and that everything will be viable? That within a week or two of the 'dex's dropping that they wont be listhammered into the optimized army list and if you basically are not playing that list/those few viable list's that you are handicapping yourself ?

I am so glad that they took 7th edition out back and put a bullet in its brain, it's been a mercy killing that has been needed for a long while, I agree with you there. Believe me I agree there. But maybe you are letting your enthusiasm cloud your judgement there a little? You like Aos, I dislike Aos...cool story bro. I am willing to give 8th a chance based on the game itself not with what rules/mechanics it shares with AoS.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.

Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.

You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.

In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)

gungo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.

But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.

As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off

Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The multiple overwatch and the new SvT table are changes that i will need time to evaluate, but for the rest i like what i see.

yea from the rules we see I don't see how 40k is less tactical as it opens up a whole new realm of tactics. The only tactical loss I see is the fact vehicles don't have side or rear armor and outside of a imperial knight with its 1 sided shield it doesn't matter what side you hit most vehicles. However 8th edition opens up more options through the fixing of many poor mechanics in 7th. I don't think 8th is perfect because even with as little as we know I already see tiers of effectiveness making certain units more competitive then others. For example an 11 wound character is already objectively worse then a 10 wound character. Str 6 rend 2 weapons Will likely be he sweet spot for best weapons in game (can't wait to see the stats on hotshot volley guns). I'm sure many more things will pop up as he rules are released.

You have the same old people complaining. They would have complained whatever happened. Don't lose sleep about it.

I'm quite dissappointed with the new character rules. Although the "closest unit only" rule for protecting them is nice, it's quite jarring considering my entire 40k experience has been about having my awesome leader heading up a Terminator or Assault Squad.

Apart from the personal reasons, I find it dissappointing that their solutions for Deathstar spam was not to balance armies and units so that Deathstars aren't ungodly unbeatable, but rather, simply to blanket ban characters joining units and punish those who played within the spirit of the game and didn't have a rolfstomping Grav-Bike-Shield-Eternal-Librarian Conclave or whatever the flavour of the month-star is.


Summary: I don't like for personal reasons, also that they decided to ban deathstars instead of fixing it properly.

tneva82 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.

Ah yes more bespoken rules...

That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.

but there is no end result difference between the two.

Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.

"This one is better because it's better"
You're arguing for one form of bloat over another.

Bloat to add a special core rule for a keyword that works in addition to and in conjunction with a second keyword (character) that has it own special rule, and to add that keyword to a large number of units that already have the "character" keyword
VS
Bloat to add a line to a special core rule for a keyword that already has special core rules so it interacts with a characteristic already inherent in the system, and to add a bespoke rule to a small number of exceptions.

You're arguing aesthetics and personal preference, not objective benefits/flaws of the rules.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what character models do you believe should have 11+ wounds and still be small enough to hide behind other units?

 Deadshot wrote:
I'm quite dissappointed with the new character rules. Although the "closest unit only" rule for protecting them is nice, it's quite jarring considering my entire 40k experience has been about having my awesome leader heading up a Terminator or Assault Squad.

Apart from the personal reasons, I find it dissappointing that their solutions for Deathstar spam was not to balance armies and units so that Deathstars aren't ungodly unbeatable, but rather, simply to blanket ban characters joining units and punish those who played within the spirit of the game and didn't have a rolfstomping Grav-Bike-Shield-Eternal-Librarian Conclave or whatever the flavour of the month-star is.


Summary: I don't like for personal reasons, also that they decided to ban deathstars instead of fixing it properly.

If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.

 Rippy wrote:
If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.

Except there will be more cases of the character and unit fighting separately so that rather than character leading his loyal retinue into combat you have only one of them being involved.

Not to mention visuality(yes some people care about that). Rather than leading up front they are now back rear. Fits for some(though they would be leading from back in 7th ed as well), less so for others.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.

Ah yes more bespoken rules...

That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.

but there is no end result difference between the two.

Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.

"This one is better because it's better"
You're arguing for one form of bloat over another.

Bloat to add a special core rule for a keyword that works in addition to and in conjunction with a second keyword (character) that has it own special rule, and to add that keyword to a large number of units that already have the "character" keyword
VS
Bloat to add a line to a special core rule for a keyword that already has special core rules, and to add a bespoke rule to a small number of exceptions.

You're arguing aesthetics and personal preference, not objective benefits/flaws of the rules.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what character models do you believe should have 11+ wounds and still be small enough to hide behind other units?

No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.

Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.

You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.

In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)

no your only decision In 7th was list building an army with total control of the psychic phase or ignoring it completely. If I wanted to play an army with Cortez in it I'd pray to the dice gods to get the power I want if not I had a crap power, if I was lucky to get a power I wanted I had to to pray I didn't face an army like Magnus because I might as well have thrown any psychers i bought into the garbage because I was never going to get a power off. And that is the end of 7th ed psychic phase. There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.

But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.

As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off

Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".

Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.

Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?

Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.

While i dont think what you ve said is a good reflection of the reality, even if it was, these problems could be solved by tweaking 7th edition psychic system, rather than completely replace it by a much more shallow one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.

But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.

As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off

Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".

Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.

Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?

Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.

It only speak of your ignorance of other game system if you think aos is not shallow

gungo wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I really hope the psychic phase moves along. In 7th I was super motivated to kill psykers ASAP, not because they were so powerful, but just so I could finish games. And the pregame garbage was worse.

It changed. It's shallow like in aos now, unfortunately

It changed. its playable and not wasting time and effort with a tedious version of the old WFB magic system.

different viewpoints.

They pretty much boiled it down to "Roll 2d6 for the spell you want to cast and hope to the gods that you're not unlucky." If that isn't shallow I don't know what is.

No its a simply mechanism that allows tactical choice within the confines of the system - the mechanism I would argue should not be complicated unless your aim is to make it a sub game as they did in 7th - a game which was deeply flawed and only allowed some players to take part.

Oh and why was rolling loads of dice (or indeed none) so very "deep" in 7th Ed.

You had a lot of decisions to take in 7th edition . If you really want to get a power off, you could allocate a lot of dice to it, but doing so, you increased the risk of getting a petil of the warp. You also had to determinate which spells you would prioritize, by allocating more dices to them.

In 8th, it's now a simple dice roll off. It is a lot more shallow (which, again, might be a good thing for you, if you like simpler faster rule)

no your only decision In 7th was list building an army with total control of the psychic phase or ignoring it completely. If I wanted to play an army with Cortez in it I'd pray to the dice gods to get the power I want if not I had a crap power, if I was lucky to get a power I wanted I had to to pray I didn't face an army like Magnus because I might as well have thrown any psycher s in bought into the garbage because I was never going to get a power off. And that is the end of 7th ed psychic phase. There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice in the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.

You're going to the extremes and completely ignoring the point of what he was saying. But hey the other side can do extremes too! Right now if you're bringing a heavy psychic phase army (say GK or Tzeentch) then you will either: dominate the phase if GW decides the Dispel rolls must roll much higher than your cast rolls or risk it being a waste of points and time if the dispel rolls just need to match yours - which effectively makes you dependent on luck since your strategy has just been reduced to a game of "win the 2d6 roll off"... while still chucking about huge amounts of dice.

List building abuse WILL exist in 8th as it has existed in every single edition before it. We're talking about the mechanics of the psychic phase itself. You're trying to divert the conversation to list building to suit your viewpoint. That ain't happening.

gungo wrote:
There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.

Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.

guys the bickering is really making this thread difficult to follow.

 streetsamurai wrote:
While i dont think what you ve said is a good reflection of the reality, even if it was, these problems could be solved by tweaking 7th edition psychic system, rather than completely replace it by a much more shallow one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I dont think 7th was a bad edition initially. Sure it wasnt perfect, but the psychic rules were much more interesting than before, and the removal of model from the front, while flawed, forced you to think tactically once in a while.

But 7th edition was ruined by the bloat, especially the continual additons of formations, and the bad balance between codexes. Im not sure GW will be able to avoid theses pitfalls with 8th edition.

As for 8th, initially, the thing that will make it or break it imo is command points. So far, a few of the rulres are great, and a few are cringe worthy, but the game in itself seems a bit boring, and like AOS, lack tactical depth (though to a lesser degree). If command point forces you to make some meaningful and fun decision, then all will be good, and the game might turn out to be better and more tactical than 7th. If not, it will not be much more than a glorified version of AOS. Weirdly enough, im rather optimistic and think that they will pull it off

Well, considering that everyone in my area that switched from 40K to AoS agrees that AoS is extremely more tactical than 40k, this is shaping out to be the best edition ever of 40k, in the form of an "AoS +1".

Utterly anecdotal, ergo pointless. Saying that "my area believes X or Y" doesn't mean jack gak.

Because his saying "AoS is shallow, Period" does REALLY make his arguments stand out, right?

Honestly it only speaks of his ignorance of the game system from which the new 40K is being taken.

It only speak of your ignorance of other game system if you think aos is not shallow

except that was the reality and all 7th ed psychic phase added was bloat and excessive time consuming. You might as well be arguing how death from the skies is the best system ever because it adds more complexity because that's about how useful the 7th ed psychic phase was. More complexity does not make it better. There was no fixing 7th ed psychic phase as the entire concept of warp dice pools was not designrd well.

tneva82 wrote:

gungo wrote:
There was nothing tactical about it. Chucking dice on the table isn't tactical. There was no planning and tactics just list building and luck.

Well not that 8th ed is much better. You just select power and roll a dice. Biggest difference is number of powers cast explodes per psyker. Hopefully spells gets toned down or 8th ed will be known as age of psychic domination.

Biggest difference in 8th is selecting powers and planning a tactic regarding specific powers and being able to cast more powers thus allowing you to even form a tactical psychic phase.
7th was always about luck and list building to mitigate ther luck.
Right now 8th ed doesn't seem to require you to invest heavily into list building a psyker army to get off the powers you want or to simply ignore the psychic phase.
And I agree just like in every edition I hope none of the psychic powers are overpowered.

 streetsamurai wrote:
No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though

Both solutions force the adding of or to a core rule, and both solutions force adding an exception to a general rule.

Keyword solution adds the general rule for the keyword, which is an exception to the untargetable general rule. It then adds a keyword indicating the exception to a moderate number of units.

Wounds solution does not add a separate general rule, but adds counting wounds as a requirement of the untargetable general rule. It then adds a bespoke rule exception to a small number of units.

The bloat is just in different places. One has the exception in the main rules, and then an indicator of the exception on units, the other has a more restricted main rule, then a fully spelled out exception on the units.

Time to take the comparative philosophy of pyschic phases elsewhere; it's derailing the general thread. If you must continue it, go have a 40k Discussions thread.

Anyone have any idea how artillery will work?

tneva82 wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
If it makes you feel better, a character heading up a squad was still just a dude standing near a bunch of dudes who were standing next to each other; nothing has changed. This mind set has helped me accept and even enjoy the changes.

Except there will be more cases of the character and unit fighting separately so that rather than character leading his loyal retinue into combat you have only one of them being involved.

Not to mention visuality(yes some people care about that). Rather than leading up front they are now back rear. Fits for some(though they would be leading from back in 7th ed as well), less so for others.

For one, it suits the fluff more where the leader breaks off and takes on another powerful dude, or even lots of dudes every so often.

And for two, if you had your IC leading from the front before, nothing will stop you now; it was stupid in 7th, and now stupid in 8th.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
No, hes right. Having only a keyword saying you're targetable, consist of only a single rule (ex char with the untargettable keywords are not targetable) while your solution forces you to add a general rule and an exception to that rule. Hence more bloating. The difference is rather minimal though

Both solutions force the adding of or to a core rule, and both solutions force adding an exception to a general rule.

Keyword solution adds the general rule for the keyword, which is an exception to the untargetable general rule. It then adds a keyword indicating the exception to a moderate number of units.

Wounds solution does not add a separate general rule, but adds counting wounds as a requirement of the untargetable general rule. It then adds a bespoke rule exception to a small number of units.

The bloat is just in different places. One has the exception in the main rules, and then an indicator of the exception on units, the other has a more restricted main rule, then a fully spelled out exception on the units.

That is if you add a bespoken rule to a model, IE you implement a human sized model stronger than a primarch! Probably they have no intention to create exceptions to that rule.