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.
The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
skarsol wrote: Not all vehicles. Plasma auto-kills Chaos vehicles cause Combi-weapons don't care.
I think the correct words would be "because Copy-and-Paste don't care." A lot of copy-and-pasting of rules without going back to review and edit them is probably the source of a lot of problems.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
If you can keep your head, while all about you are losing their's, then you have probably completely misunderstood the situation!
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
Space Marine index. Out of their 8! slightly different plasma weapons, one is for dreads and gets the 'heavy' to distinguish it. (there is also a twin heavy plasma cannon that goes on... something. Thanks to the terrible organization, some of these weapons are difficult to match to the unit that can actually take them).
But other armies can take 'normal' plasma weapons on non-infantry, and as a result they get wrecked outright.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 02:35:22
Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 02:18:44
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
And you see that with stuff like the ghostkeel, the whole fluff idea is its -2 to hit outside of 12 inches becasuse it's basically a giant stealth suit. The problem arises with the FW sicaran's new 8th ed rules. In 7th it ignored jink saves , the fluff being its a fast tracking weapon ideal for shooting at jetbikes and flyers and so on. Now it just ignores the ghostkeels -2 all together because the ghostkeel has the "fly" keyword.
Bespoke is great and all if its something truly unique and interesting while hopefully being as consistent as possible with the new rules. But when its stuff that basically infiltrate or deep strike, often either worded identically or in a similar way. It just seems lazy and pointless. It creates like fake distinctions and actual confusion.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Some of these rules are really counter-intuitive. A character with a familiar can't be picked out from a crowd, but once the character is dead the familiar is easier to stop than both of them together were?
Having a character nearby your plasma weapons letting you re-roll ones to hit makes it way less likely they will overheat. I guess I can kind of buy that an officer being there to point out targets and just inspire the men to do their best makes them better at shooting, but does his presence inspire the machine spirit of the plasma gun to not overheat?
Also, if you have +1 to hit, then your plasma weapons can't overheat because you'll never roll a 1? But if you have some negative modifiers to hit, it is WAY more likely to overheat, because the lowest you can get is a 1. So if you are -1 to hit, a roll of 1 or 2 will overheat.
As has been pointed out, if a character unit is the closest (or only) valid target, but there is a closer enemy unit engaged in combat, the character can't be picked out and fired at, even if they are nowhere near another of their own units.
The downside of a simplified ruleset is you get cases like this were stuff just doesn't make sense. Its unfortunate, but the (idea is) rules as a whole are better off having a dozen or so weird things than having to include extra rules to cover all of them. Personally I think its worth it, especially considering the sort of non-sense we overlook anyways.
Though for what its worth, in the case of the character granting re-roll 1's I could totally see him pointing at a guy about to overheat his weapon and shouting 'hold trooper!' to prevent that from occurring.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 03:58:58
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
And if GW had done that people would be ceaselessly whining about how they didn't change enough or didn't fix X or didn't address Y. Sorry that 8th wasn't exactly what you wanted.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about. When someone decides that they are not going to like something then they will see a bad release no matter what.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 06:16:24
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
HH was an entirely different game, using tweaked rules. Not even close, considering it was only marines and IG with some ad mech, and then sprinklings of flavor for the marines. Really easy to balance a ruleset around 1 army.
Those ideas do not apply to 40K. Henceforth, why it was never done, and even the most 'balanced' go at it (ITC) was still a laughable affair from a competitive standpoint.
Complete rewrite was needed, because anything less would simply be the same as what the last 3 editions had been - a bandage on a gaping wound.
And we've been told codex's are on the way, and that they are a high priority. Not sure where you're getting your info.
Played 10+ games of 8th so far. It is by and far a better game than 7th was. Took me 10 minutes to teach a 6 year old how to play, and got 3 more games finished in two hours. I definitely would like more flavor in the army, but seeing as how they are taking they're design queues from AoS, I'd say that the battletomes are a clear indicator of what we are getting.
Neronoxx wrote: Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
Tweaked 7th. 7th ed could be fixed easily. HH already fixed like 95% of the issues. Complete rewrite was not neeed and created rules that makes no sense breaking suspension of disbelief.
And placeholders that are going to be in play for a long time. And funny how people are all the time "just wait for X" with the X changing for more and more distant future all the time.
And if GW had done that people would be ceaselessly whining about how they didn't change enough or didn't fix X or didn't address Y. Sorry that 8th wasn't exactly what you wanted.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
Would you rather play 7th or 8th?
This stuff can be fixed easily, and in some cases is a non-issue entirely.
Besides, we all know these are just place holders. If these rules appear in the codexes, THEN we have problems.
TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about. When someone decides that they are not going to like something then they will see a bad release no matter what.
Fair point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 06:21:20
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
You speaked too agains't Bespoken degradation tables and those are all good, even making things like vehicles become better in meele as they loose wounds for being angrier.
So it has nothing to do with the "bespoken" nature of the rules. Is about with how well they implement it. They could to the same mistakes with a central armoury.
In fact, they HAVE done the same mistakes with USR and a central Armoury (5th, 6th and 7th as a proof)
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about.
That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
I think he has a point. The point of the fact that we aren't entitled for GW to make exactly the game/miniatures/universe we wan't. One should be reasonable and expect things to not addapt 100% to his tastes. And if they don't offer reasonable value for them, to not pay for it. Sweet and simple capitalism.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 11:52:13
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
you are right, HH was balanced because it was predominately 16 legions vs each other, they got lucky with militia, solar auxilia and did an alright job with those but custodes, mechanicum, space wolves and thousand sons has thrown that balance right out the window. To the point where the mechanicum player in our gaming group brings 2500 point lists to 3000 point games just to keep it fair.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Some might say that bespoke rules perhaps caused these issues, and that having a central armoury rather than trying to rewrite (READ: copypasta) the rule every time it's presented might have been a better idea...
It's almost as if exactly what some of us said would happen with these rules has happened. What a twist!
You speaked too agains't Bespoken degradation tables and those are all good, even making things like vehicles become better in meele as they loose wounds for being angrier.
So it has nothing to do with the "bespoken" nature of the rules. Is about with how well they implement it. They could to the same mistakes with a central armoury.
In fact, they HAVE done the same mistakes with USR and a central Armoury (5th, 6th and 7th as a proof)
EDIT: HH is a much better balanced game because... is basically 18 slightly different versions of the same army over and over again, with some deviations like Custodes, Adeptus Mechanicus, etc...
The problem is that people want for 40k to have all the "fluff adderence", all the "variety of factions", etc... and still be a fast and balanced game... but what they are willing to give to gain that?
Did you wan't a fast game? A fluff simulation game? A balanced game where all the hundreds of options of 40k are viable? Decide because many of those philosofies of game desing drink from totally opposite sources.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF there is absolutely nothing GW could have done that would not have HBMC complaining about.
That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
I think he has a point. The point of the fact that we aren't entitled for GW to make exactly the game/miniatures/universe we wan't. One should be reasonable and expect things to not addapt 100% to his tastes. And if they don't offer reasonable value for them, to not pay for it. Sweet and simple capitalism.
By the same token people are not entitled to have their opinions agreed with, and should be reasonable and not expect every poster's views to 100% match their taste. If they find they don't like a poster's views, they can simply ignore them. Sweet and simple politeness.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Elbows wrote: The silliness ramps up when a plasma weapon which supercharges can roll a 1 and kill an entire vehicle, etc. The plasma overcharge really should have been something along the lines of a mortal wound suffered or something similar.
It already works like this for vehicles in fact.
Where is that from? Because its not on any plasma-toting vehicles I own.
Space Marine index. Out of their 8! slightly different plasma weapons, one is for dreads and gets the 'heavy' to distinguish it. (there is also a twin heavy plasma cannon that goes on... something. Thanks to the terrible organization, some of these weapons are difficult to match to the unit that can actually take them).
But other armies can take 'normal' plasma weapons on non-infantry, and as a result they get wrecked outright.
Twin Heavy Plasma goes on the storm Raven. I think it's actually a steal because it's only 35 points I believe and it doesn't suffer -bs for moving and shooting due to machine spirit. Best weapons platform we have IMO.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Moving and supercharge-firing heavy plasma of any variant seems pretty darn lethal with "can never be modded lower than 1" rule. Especially multishot weapons..
I did not mean it as a personal attack; I was commenting on the nature of the criticism. Because he will respond negatively to any development the logic behind that is questionable. Is the point of criticism a legitimate problem or is it just confirmation bias talking? In all fairness it isn't worth responding to the latter with logical debate. Considering the number of "GW White Knight" comments he has made over the years I find it a bit hypocritical to take offense.
Verviedi wrote: To be fair, white knights do exist, and seem to have doubled in presence since 8th was leaked.
I agree, and (to my knowledge) pointing out people behaving as such has not historically been considered a rule #1 violation. If I am wrong about that I am happy to have my comments removed.
Going off that somewhat, I feel 8th is a mixed bag of more positive developments than negative. There's a lot of discussion to be had, especially on where GW goes from here. I think we got a bit of insight into the developer's mindset with the recent FAQ. From that and other comments they've made elsewhere it seems like they want to stick with where the rules are now so that people can get used to it (and get over knee-jerk responses both positive and negative we have mentioned) before determining a direction. Now that everyone has their hands on the rules (and let's be honest; has for a couple weeks now) what are actual tabletop results telling us about where issues might be? What do we expect to see FAQ'd in the next few months?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 15:41:15
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's not "being fair". That's a "personal attack". I believe that's against the board's rules, so cut it out.
H.B.M.C. don't like personal attacks. He is completely right, of course. I just hope he remembers it not just when someone else make one .
Pot and kettles…
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Verviedi wrote: To be fair, white knights do exist, and seem to have doubled in presence since 8th was leaked.
Or, it's more likely that "White Knight" is a label used to undermine someone's opinion without actually addressing it said opinion.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
6,000pts
5,500pts
3,500pts
2,500pts 
Orks
GreyKnights
Admech
