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.

Hey, my army went from 2+ rerollable saves for almost every model to god knows what. Most likely just a +1 save modifier. Am I mad about it? Not until I get stomped out in a one-sided battle against something else that has become cheesy in its place, and I'm hoping that won't happen.

I'm very glad they're willing to make hard and unpopular calls if they deem it necessary for game balance.

I sympathise with those losing access to matched play with their army. However, none of us deserve to play in matched games with an army the designers judge unable to be balanced. Robust balance is only going to come if GW forces needed sacrifices on us.

This is the GW you asked for every time my scatter lasers hurt someone.

bladeace wrote:
I'm very glad they're willing to make hard and unpopular calls if they deem it necessary for game balance.

I sympathise with those losing access to matched play with their army. However, none of us deserve to play in matched games with an army the designers judge unable to be balanced. Robust balance is only going to come if GW forces needed sacrifices on us.

This is the GW you asked for every time my scatter lasers hurt someone.

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Frankly after reading the last six pages I have to say I saw a lot of hurt feelings. Now while I understand why some people may be feeling upset, but at the same time I,m not sure if anyone thought that this was unexpected.

Now I just want to point out that "Matched Play" is for, you know, playing matches. AKA tournaments. And in playtesting they found that allowing alpha strike style deployments was unfair and unbalanced. So it's gone. I know many want to hide behind the shield of fluff on this one, but the fact is they,ve clearly said that if you're looking to play a competetive game matched play is the place for it, and with that come restrictions (just like MtG restricts or bans specific builds in their tournaments even if you can justify the fluff of whatever nonsense you invented).

For competition purposes this is perfectly fine.

Now if you aren't looking to play in a competition, try out a new tournament list, or generally don't care about that sort of thing there is narrative play which has looser rules about things like alpha striking. This is because to play narrative games you are expected to come to an agreement with your opponent about what you'll be playing instead of having the format dictated by a third party. You're more involved in how the game is set up and you can make it as beer and pretzels or as hardcore WAAC as you want. You can use power, or stick to points. Whatever you and your opponent agree to goes.

Now while many want to blast the whole "play narrative" statement, and I can agree at least the tone sometimes is rather overbearing, the point is correct: narrative is your casual/pick up game option going forward. Only if you're playing in an event, or perhaps have a weird fetish for game balance, should match play be your first choice in your casual gaming.

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

What stops you from deploying half of your drop pod army at the beginning of the game? Yes you would have to do it in your deployment zone, but this proves that your army is not invalidated. It just won't be as good as before, and it still works in matched play.

bladeace wrote:

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

bladeace wrote:

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.

You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.

Earth127 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

bladeace wrote:

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.

You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.

Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.

I'm going to jump into the drop pod debate and posit the way drop pods work in game is not fluffy. If you were strategically competent, and had access to that kind of delivery system for super-soldiers, you wouldn't drop them in to wage an even fight vs a company of the enemy's soldiers. You'd drop them in to wipe out an army corps' strategic command post. That wouldn't make much of a game for matched play, so games aren't played that way, but a truly fluffy drop pod assault would have the enemy set up in the middle of the board, probably with fortifications, and the game starting with the drop pod assault coming in Turn 1. The attacking army's objective would be to, say, kill 3-5 characters and their command staff. The defenders' objective would be to fight off the attackers or get the objective characters to escape by falling back off any of the board edges.

I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.

Second, breathe. Matched play is a strict set of rules that both parties understand before coming to the table. Black and White. Narrative is adding a little story/purpose and trying to have fun. Think of MLB and back yard baseball. Both are fun. MLB has a strict set of rules, where as in back yard baseball the mailbox is second base. Your still hitting a ball and running around either way.

The ambiguity left by the open CAD is one of the reasons for imbalance. The matched play format is the closest GW can get to balance the game while letting you personalize your army.

I would recommend you grab 2 players, the first is your favorite opponent/ good friend. The second being one of the most experienced 40k players you know. Let the experienced player GM the game, ie: set the mission, add fun rules, whatever. Your friend is your opponent. Then just let go and enjoy.

If you don't have many friends in the hobby try to join a local gaming group and play everyone to try to find like minded players.

I would have more sympathy if the complaint was I can't take my list to LVO! I've worked on this for 3 years! Instead, I'm hearing I can, but won't play.

If a narrative game of 40k is played in a basement, are dice still rolled and people having fun(tree falling in the forest make a sound?)?

TremendousZ wrote:
I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.

Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Earth127 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

bladeace wrote:

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.

You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.

Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.

Except you have no idea if any of the crap you just pulled out of your butt is even true, so let's go point by point shall we? 4 rhinos spacing out to prevent deepstrike is called 'zone control' it's part of this thing called 'tactics' which I know disn't come up much in 7th. No one bothers to move block vehicles because A) it's hilariously impractical, you never get that close with anything that isn't just going kill the vehicle anyway and it's not like a small unit is even that much of a roadblock. Seriously Tank-shock was basically just a fun way to get your tank meltabombed in your movement phase and B) No one gave a gak about blocking vehicles because it was so much easier to just kill them. As for the land speeder thing, charging a land speeder into devs to try and disrupt backline shooting is again, Tactics.

As for the builds, do they work? Have you seen the dataslates? Point costs? What if warp spiders lost 9 inches of range? Or deepsrike? Or flickerjump? Or are 150 points per? What if the Tau'nar sucks? What if it' 2200pts now? What if deathwing knights have 4 attacks S10 ap -4 and a 3d6 charge after deepstriking? We have no idea how any of those things work. The entire game got rebuilt from the ground up, nothing is the same and comparing them to 7th is apples and oranges.

7th was broken because it's most basic systems (ap, cover, SvT, AV) were broken. Any 'successful iteration' of 7th would have been drastically different just on the basis of those systems.

Reading you rlist Magic juggler:
The models aren't being invalidated , no clue on the hqs wargear.
You do need multiple detachments if we're only going
All combi weapons are buffed as per GW so that should work.
Terminators have been given an extra wound.
Dreadnoughts have gotten a massive increase in durability.
No clue on cultist.
You will have to pay points to summon your demons but still be able to control their wargear.



How is this list nerfed since 7th? It's a fun list but not going to win any WAAC games, my eldar currently laugh you off the table.

Also lasagna is layered only while your cooking it. It becomes a big mess as soon you try to eat it (or play a game with 40k rules).

ERJAK wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Earth127 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

bladeace wrote:

I never asked for this. And I play Word Bearers.

Those who asked for thorough game design and an emphasis on robust balance were essentially asking for tough calls like this to be made.

However, you fairly point out that this wasn't everyone. Our game is being divided and this is going to be a painful process. Those who don't want a thorough persuing of balance are going to be hit the hardest because they won't benefit from the big gains that are hopefully going to result.

The ideal outcome would be an acceptance of the three ways to play. We're being divided and I suspect it's because we've been trying to play different games all along anyway. The divide between the ways we try to play this game are now being formalised.

There are ways to fix balance besides intentionally Balkanizing your game system and player base though. Give real fixes to the core issues rather than the illusion of fixing them.

As an example, the winning 2016 LVO List was Warp Spider spam. 9-something units of Warp Spiders, a Skatach Wraithknight, Autarch and 3 Jetbike units, a Farseer and 2 solo D-Cannons. With 8th ed reserve rules...the only difference is that only 8 out of those 9 units could reserve. In exchange, they don't scatter, arrive when you want, and the special 8th ed "overwatch nearby units within 9 inches" ability doesn't work because Warp Spiders are Range 12 on their Deathspinners. Instead of a reserve cap, why not fix Overwatch?

Likewise, Summoning itself wasn't the problem by itself; "extreme summon" armies were an annoyance for most games, but the real threat are armies that use Summons as a supporting element for mobile shooting, or those that can summon at exactly the right point to cause the most trouble. I never worried about Daemon factories for example. I was more threatened by, say, Serpent Spam with a Mantleseer with the Spirit Stone. The real threat with Summons is they're unpredictable and they provide both a Material and Positional advantage.

So an alternate to making summons a "point cap" would be restricting Summoners from making *any* movement on a turn they wish to sunmon. Aka, no "Fly-By" summoning, among other things.

A more pressing issue is Deathstars. Rather than using keywords to innately restrict allies, why not a core rule that states "Invulnerable Saves that did not start as a 2++ may not be modified to better than a 3++". So a Shadow Field or Armor Indomnitus would work as intended, but you couldn't create a 21+ Screamerstar, or have Smashfucker take Cataphractii Armor+Stormshield with a Sanctic Librarian buddy.

You are making the exact mistakes GW made for decades. Band aiding the most extremely abusive cases and stacking special rules on tip of eachother like layers of lasagna.
In the end everything is such a convoluted mess no one can figure anything out.

Once again the community is already split. It's a divide that is never going to heal because of the variety in ways people play this game. In chess or bridge every player know he's playing a highly competiitive game, in Cards against humanity or superfight no one is stupid enough to think that. In W40K both sides of that coin exist and the bigest issues crop op when you try to have both. Segregate that stuff in the base rules of the game or there will be issues.

Layers of lasagna is a bit generous. A lot of 40k reads like a tangle of spaghetti. A USR is a USR in 40k: Furious Charge is Furious Charge, etc. The problem is there are a lot of rules which "should be USRs" but aren't, USRs that are copies of one another (Stealth vs Shrouded), or those which really don't add a whole lot except slowing the game down (Strikedown, Soul Blaze, etc).

It's possible to develop an incremental iterative fix to 40k but 8th is performing shotgun surgery with all sorts of bizarre side-effects. Remember Warp Quake from 5th edition? Due to the removal of DS within 9", it's now possible for 4 Rhinos to space out just enough to render an entire table quarter immune to Deep Strike and thensome. Due to the removal of Tank Shock, it's possible for a unit of Gretchin to move-block a Land Raider, Baneblade or other big vehicle, or the inverse where a Land Speeder just bogs down enemy movement/Devastators while everyone else blasts away...

...Meanwhile, builds like the aforementioned Spider List work relatively unaffected while armies like Deathwing get the shaft, and you now have the option for Battleforged Triple Tau'nars, or whatever else gets baked up in Apocalypse-Land. Splitting up the game system without fixing the core rules first creates a game that won't work for either playerbase.

Except you have no idea if any of the crap you just pulled out of your butt is even true, so let's go point by point shall we? 4 rhinos spacing out to prevent deepstrike is called 'zone control' it's part of this thing called 'tactics' which I know disn't come up much in 7th. No one bothers to move block vehicles because A) it's hilariously impractical, you never get that close with anything that isn't just going kill the vehicle anyway and it's not like a small unit is even that much of a roadblock. Seriously Tank-shock was basically just a fun way to get your tank meltabombed in your movement phase and B) No one gave a gak about blocking vehicles because it was so much easier to just kill them. As for the land speeder thing, charging a land speeder into devs to try and disrupt backline shooting is again, Tactics.

As for the builds, do they work? Have you seen the dataslates? Point costs? What if warp spiders lost 9 inches of range? Or deepsrike? Or flickerjump? Or are 150 points per? What if the Tau'nar sucks? What if it' 2200pts now? What if deathwing knights have 4 attacks S10 ap -4 and a 3d6 charge after deepstriking? We have no idea how any of those things work. The entire game got rebuilt from the ground up, nothing is the same and comparing them to 7th is apples and oranges.

7th was broken because it's most basic systems (ap, cover, SvT, AV) were broken. Any 'successful iteration' of 7th would have been drastically different just on the basis of those systems.

Hey, let's keep it civil. We can disagree about whether certain aspects of 40k are tactical or not (you know, like turbo-boosting Screamers in front of a Gladius train for Death or Glory/hemming the enemy in), but that's besides the point (not to mention that Meltabombs are a "nice-to-have upgrade" rather than a "must-take" like combi-weapons).

As for point-costs, we know Marines are 13 pts instead of 14, so we have this to work off. I seriously doubt the game will hard-reset the points costs that Assault Marines cost 25 points again, Bikes are 35 points, etc. Again, these are initial guesses grounded in what AOS did, what has been teased at with each trailer, and general trends of point levels gradually going down rather than up as it becomes less of a shock for people to ask "can I bring multiple super-heavies".

Zones of control exist in 7th too. It's called bubblewrap.

@MagicJugglar in your post about 8th you paint a picture with a limited palette and claim it to cover every nuance. Your point about deep striking vs the LVO16 winner isn't per say wrong, but it assumes the best units in the game remains unchanged. To have a go at balance the elder units needs a thorough combing, and I have faith in the pro scene playtesters to catch this. Rules changes, pointchanges, statchanges will fix warpspiders etc.

The next step is many others factors needs to be looked at, to build a healthy competitive game. SM, daemons and necrons are high on the list too, right below eldar. We don't need playtesting done for that, it's simply to look through tournament results from 7th ed, which has been done already. Multiple damage weapons and changing vehicles rules to have many more wounds is one way of changing the effect of gauss and grav weapons, as well as scatterlasers.

Along the way null deployment and daemon summoning got looked at too. To me it sounds good, as daemons all over the place felt odd, and null deployment makes for a dull game start.

HaussVonHorne wrote:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool.

Thanks.

I no longer have to read your BS.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

TremendousZ wrote:
I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.

Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812

And what exactly are you losing beside hellcult? NOTHING. And the hellcult boons may as well be reinforced by the new legion special rules which we know are going to be a thing in eighth edition.

 kronk wrote:

HaussVonHorne wrote:

1) Is there anybody who considered Narrative a real thing? Personally I consider it the shallow kiddie pool.

Thanks.

I no longer have to read your BS.

I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.

Waaargh wrote:
@MagicJugglar in your post about 8th you paint a picture with a limited palette and claim it to cover every nuance. Your point about deep striking vs the LVO16 winner isn't per say wrong, but it assumes the best units in the game remains unchanged. To have a go at balance the elder units needs a thorough combing, and I have faith in the pro scene playtesters to catch this. Rules changes, pointchanges, statchanges will fix warpspiders etc.

The next step is many others factors needs to be looked at, to build a healthy competitive game. SM, daemons and necrons are high on the list too, right below eldar. We don't need playtesting done for that, it's simply to look through tournament results from 7th ed, which has been done already. Multiple damage weapons and changing vehicles rules to have many more wounds is one way of changing the effect of gauss and grav weapons, as well as scatterlasers.

Along the way null deployment and daemon summoning got looked at too. To me it sounds good, as daemons all over the place felt odd, and null deployment makes for a dull game start.

External balance is one thing, internal balance another. It's not "codex A > codex B" as a whole, so much as a certain subset of units/formations/combos within a codex (or collection thereof) that makes the army that much deadlier. I don't even mean in a "if Eldar are OP then how come Footdar doesn't win" sort of way, so much as there's actually relatively little variance within individual power builds for a given codex.

If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Eldar, then how come there was no description about how D-weapons work in the Eldar Faction Focus? We know that Mortal Wounds ignore Invulnerable Saves due to the article about the Psychic Phase. How come there was no discussion about the trouble units besides Scatbikes in the same article that "Mandiblasters now do Mortal Wounds"?
Why not talk about the army design issues that stem from half the army being stuck in that design phase of "do only one thing", the other half being "(un)reasonably do everything". Why not talk about the fact Eldar armies almost always used Forgeworld to plug holes in their army? For example, I seriously doubt a pure Eldar force would have done as well in many of these events were it not for Hornets with cheap Pulse Lasers, the Skatach Wraithknight providing cover-busting crowd control, or the Warp Hunter providing unparalleled hard target elimination.

If Games Workshop was as keen on fixing Marines, why simplify Heavy Weapons to be a flat -1 to-hit on the move? The Skyhammer may be gone, but this rule change means that formation won't be needed anymore. GW has had two weapons articles and Q&As to clear up whether Grav will still rule over everything else, but they haven't given any hint that such weapons will be nerfed, and a cap on which units can start on board won't actually stop people from drop-podding Grav-devs when the main penalty is hitting on 4+ instead of 3+, and you no longer have to take an Assault Marine tax. Add additional restrictions to reserves and it will be harder to actually reserve your own guys to protect against said alphastrike. Maybe Grav is prohibitively expensive, maybe it isn't but based on initial speculation it doesn't look as promising.

If Games Workshop was so keen on fixing Daemons, the first thing they could have focused on was "we noticed every Daemon player uses the Grimoire of True Names" or some other variant of "because the Daemon Army generally doesn't shoot, fight, etc, they won by stacking numerous defensive buffs, stealing objectives and not dying." Turning Tzeentch saves back to 4++ instead of 5++ & reroll all 1s is simpler in the long run and worked fine enough for the 4th ed list (that list had its own issues but that's another story), but focusing on Summoning misses the bigger picture when it's actually debatable based on numerous individual battle reports whether it was summoning that won games (as opposed to Masque movelocking Deathstars, Fateweaver granting really important re-rolls, individual Daemon units just refusing to die, or even the odd "honest mistake" like forgetting that a Soulgrinder does not have It Will Not Die, unlike a Defiler).

Maybe it's the fact the development was relatively sudden and there wasn't an open beta ("templates: yay or nay", etc), but it's little things like that which make my have my doubts. I am ready to eat my words if in fact things do end up being more playable in the long run, if point costs go back to 3rd ed values for non-infantry units, etc, but most things that have been teased at aren't giving me that much confidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

TremendousZ wrote:
I want to start by asking the OP, what is your list that's being invalided? We can judge the difference between fluffy and game breaking.

Not the OP, but this one is my main list. This is the second time I put a Word Bearers list together (the first time was Codex: Eye of Terror, prior to the Gavdex) and is a mix of "Word Bearers are *the* real Chaos Space Marines" and wanting an unorthodox build. It's fairly Word Bearers as far as I can tell: Mixed marks, lots of cultists, and Daemons. Your call if it's a game-breaker.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725931.page#9365812

And what exactly are you losing beside hellcult? NOTHING. And the hellcult boons may as well be reinforced by the new legion special rules which we know are going to be a thing in eighth edition.

Summoning. Movement after psychic powers (and chances are Crusader is also going). Universal Obsec + Crusader. The Scrolls of Magnus. A sufficiently large selection of powers. Palanquin and Disc HQs probably since neither model has an official GW model. Chances are that Chaos Boons (which are actually worth fishing for after with the Chaos Warband, and the FAQ clarifying that it works by killing a character via any means) will be rolled back in the universal interest of streamlining things; the Chaos Faction Focus would have been an excellent place to talk about whether such mechanics would even remain in the game, but all that article gave was "Daemonforged stuff and Berzerkers are going to be great" while we know Tau get 3-weapon Suits with innate Hit and Run.

It's that omission of detail or concrete enthusiasm that really has me wondering if Reece and Frankie are the right people to showboat factions.

Disregard this post. Accidental double post.

 Purifier wrote:
, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you.

Where have I done this? Or are you speaking to a generic "you" and not to me specifically?

I prefer matched play. Most (90%) of my games will be matched. However, I also enjoy a fun/fluffy themed game from time to time. Kill the baneblade, Stop the orks from completing a Stompa, Assault the fortress.

To call those games and gamers "kiddy pool" in the OP is just BS.

I just noticed that the Original poster has 13 posts, and hasn't bothered to reply in this troll bait thread. He'll be staying on ignore.

To call narrative games "kiddy pool" is to knowingly insult players that enjoy narrative games and is likely trolling.

 kronk wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you.

Where have I done this? Or are you speaking to a generic "you" and not to me specifically?

I prefer matched play. Most (90%) of my games will be matched. However, I also enjoy a fun/fluffy themed game from time to time. Kill the baneblade, Stop the orks from completing a Stompa, Assault the fortress.

To call those games and gamers "kiddy pool" in the OP is just BS.

I just noticed that the Original poster has 13 posts, and hasn't bothered to reply in this troll bait thread. He'll be staying on ignore.

Generic you. I'm agreeing with the specific you.

 Purifier wrote:

Generic you. I'm agreeing with the specific you.

Yay! We're in our own "Club You"!

Actually that warp spider list did take a big Nerf( Assuming you mean Alex Harrison'm list)

1)Warhost of Pale Courts is gone.
2) Reserves is half your units max (units not points)
3) S6 guns took a big Nerf, almost all his guns had it.
4) 3+ armor took a Nerf.
5) D. Weapons are gone.

So yes the list was nerfed to hell and back.

 Purifier wrote:
I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.

Then again narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance if you so wish so if you value balance in games you should be looking for narrative games. Takes more time to set up than matched which is quicker for pick up games but allows you to get closer toward the unarchievable you say you value highly.

 Gloomfang wrote:
Actually that warp spider list did take a big Nerf( Assuming you mean Alex Harrison'm list)

1)Warhost of Pale Courts is gone.
2) Reserves is half your units max (units not points)
3) S6 guns took a big Nerf, almost all his guns had it.
4) 3+ armor took a Nerf.
5) D. Weapons are gone.

So yes the list was nerfed to hell and back.

1) We don't know the other detachments. Whether there are any "one LOW" slots remains to be seen.
2) I used that list because it specifically had enough MSU scoring units to offset the "half in reserves" requirement. It would be nerfed less compared to, say, Lictorshame.
3) Debatable. The change to the wounding mechanics mean that the only targets S6 are worst against this edition are T4 models; they're just as effective vs T3, T5 and T7 as last edition, while being even deadlier vs T8. Considering this, you could argue that Deathspinners and Scatpacks will get *better* because let's face it, when was killing T4 an issue?
4) Debatable, especially with cover involved and a non-binary save system protecting against stuff that normally wouldn't grant saves in the first place.
5) Destroyer may be gone but Mortal Wounds exist, which are arguably worse. You don't get Deathblow, but you now consistently ignore Invulnerable Saves. GW had the opportunity to explain D-weapon changes, but they didn't.

tneva82 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I mean, I can sort of understand that sentiment. I consider it a lesser version of the game, as I value balance very highly. But if you think like me, then you have to accept that things will change, and lists will be invalidated. If instead you think playing the narrative is how to really have fun, then that's fine, but then you can't whine that matched play isn't catering to you. It just sounds insane to me that people will argue the narrative play angle and still call the play mode made specifically for them "the kiddy pool." There is just no pleasing you.

Then again narrative is the game mode that you can get closer to the unarchievable balance if you so wish so if you value balance in games you should be looking for narrative games. Takes more time to set up than matched which is quicker for pick up games but allows you to get closer toward the unarchievable you say you value highly.

... like... how?
There's a reason I don't trust random people making up balance: they don't know sh*t.
Things need to be balanced through playtesting and math. Not through "well I think it'll be pretty balanced if I have three times the amount of points, and you have a stronghold and defensive position."

No. What you're saying is just straight up wrong. Throwing in a narrative is the opposite to achieving balance. It will always be inferior for balancing and is only there to allow you fun games with a rough balance.

I'm excited for the changes, no more op full reserve armies unless you are going to be playing a narrative game, should help keep things balanced.