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.

1 results in -3 to hit alitoc so guard, tau etc can't hit them.
Natural six hit, helps worse shooting units disproportionately.
2 ok so I'll hold my deepstike till turn 2 and drop it all at once anyway.
3 thats a lot of randomness to be adding and is yet more rolling in a game beset by having too many buckets of dice
4 To be honest the flat -1 to hit for nlos weapons would be enough
5 Yes tue LOS is way to hard to get cover from unless your using boxes for terain.
6 makes playing cityscape terrain insainly difficult, but for tournaments with minimal terrain fine
7 making it S6 S7 overcharge and not 2d would solve the issues with plasma, making more wounds from overheat just premotes cheap disposible troops spaming plasma over expensive more elite models even considering it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The solution to alpha strike is to implement Star Wars Legions suppression mechanic (or a derivation thereof). Said mechanic introduces the concept of diminishing returns to the game, so focus-firing units off the table is an inherently less efficient strategy, which in turns make precision targeted alpha strikes less efficient and thus less effective.

I really, really, really love this idea. The problem with Alpha Strike is the ability that Player 1 gets to simply delete Player 2 most annoying unit in one go with no reaction allowed.

Age of Sigmar circumvented this lately by giving Morathi a maximum number of wounds she can lose in a turn, but it feels a bit artificial. The old "Going to ground" rule was nice and having something similar (maybe at the cost of CPs) would be great.

Going to ground, 1 or 2CP : use it before rolling for saves in the Shooting phase. For the remainder of the Shooting phase, this unit gains a bonus to its armor save equal to the number of wounds it has suffered this turn (a roll of 1 is always a failure). During its next turn, you can only choose to activate this unit in one phase (Movement, Psychic, Shooting or Charge / Fight).

 Nym wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The solution to alpha strike is to implement Star Wars Legions suppression mechanic (or a derivation thereof). Said mechanic introduces the concept of diminishing returns to the game, so focus-firing units off the table is an inherently less efficient strategy, which in turns make precision targeted alpha strikes less efficient and thus less effective.

I really, really, really love this idea. The problem with Alpha Strike is the ability that Player 1 gets to simply delete Player 2 most annoying unit in one go with no reaction allowed.

Age of Sigmar circumvented this lately by giving Morathi a maximum number of wounds she can lose in a turn, but it feels a bit artificial. The old "Going to ground" rule was nice and having something similar (maybe at the cost of CPs) would be great.

Going to ground, 1 or 2CP : use it before rolling for saves in the Shooting phase. For the remainder of the Shooting phase, this unit gains a bonus to its armor save equal to the number of wounds it has suffered this turn (a roll of 1 is always a failure). During its next turn, you can only choose to activate this unit in one phase (Movement, Psychic, Shooting or Charge / Fight).

Not sure why we need every action tied to CPs. Its nice having certain core gameplay actions being free and always available but as a trade off. 7th's jink was generally a good trade off between boosting that durability at the cost of shooting firepower. Same with going to ground to improve that cover save but at the cost of being forced to snap shoot, no movement, and no overwatch.

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure why we need every action tied to CPs.

Well, in this very case the goal is to prevent the ennemy from over-focusing one particular unit. If you could go to ground with multiple units, with the restrictions I set, horde armies would be too strong. Most of them would just go to ground and then choose to activate during the Movement phase (with Advance), in order to set-up turn 3 charges.

What about the beta rules, character targeting and smite mitigation, are they likely to be approved?

 Nym wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure why we need every action tied to CPs.

Well, in this very case the goal is to prevent the ennemy from over-focusing one particular unit. If you could go to ground with multiple units, with the restrictions I set, horde armies would be too strong. Most of them would just go to ground and then choose to activate during the Movement phase (with Advance), in order to set-up turn 3 charges.

You can't if its a strategem. 1 per phase. You would just bait out the strategem then focus down another unit.

Ugh. No, we do not need to add more -1 penalties to shooting on turn 1. That just makes long-range armies worthless, you can't hit anything on turn 1 and then you get mass charged, locked in combat, and wiped off the table before you ever fire a meaningful shot. Nor do we need more absurd CP mechanics, or whatever other artificial limits you can think of. What we need is two things:

1) Reserves go back to 5th edition. Roll to get them (4+/3+/2+/auto on turns 2/3/4/5), roll some kind of scatter/mishap chance/etc if you deep strike. No more turn-1 alpha strike delivered anywhere you want without any chance of failure, if you want the massive power of deep stirke you have to pay for it with a high chance of failure.

2) Fix the broken LOS mechanics. LOS through terrain gives cover, ruins block LOS entirely even if you can see a fingertip of a model through a tiny crack in the wall, etc. And play with more than a token tree or two. This prevents long-range alpha strikes from dominating, with significantly limited ability to draw LOS to the opposite deployment zone you can't just sit back and roll dice until you remove their entire army.

Yes, IG artillery still gets to deliver shots on turn 1. No, this is not a problem, despite the irritating IG hate from people who seem to expect us to be nothing but easy wins for the glorious space marines. The big guns are lucky to get 2-3 wounds per turn, and the mortar spam is much less impressive against anything that has good durability or ever gets to draw LOS to them. You are going to take some damage from IG shooting, deal with it. It's the one thing they're supposed to be good at.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ugh. No, we do not need to add more -1 penalties to shooting on turn 1. That just makes long-range armies worthless, you can't hit anything on turn 1 and then you get mass charged, locked in combat, and wiped off the table before you ever fire a meaningful shot. Nor do we need more absurd CP mechanics, or whatever other artificial limits you can think of. What we need is two things:

1) Reserves go back to 5th edition. Roll to get them (4+/3+/2+/auto on turns 2/3/4/5), roll some kind of scatter/mishap chance/etc if you deep strike. No more turn-1 alpha strike delivered anywhere you want without any chance of failure, if you want the massive power of deep stirke you have to pay for it with a high chance of failure.

2) Fix the broken LOS mechanics. LOS through terrain gives cover, ruins block LOS entirely even if you can see a fingertip of a model through a tiny crack in the wall, etc. And play with more than a token tree or two. This prevents long-range alpha strikes from dominating, with significantly limited ability to draw LOS to the opposite deployment zone you can't just sit back and roll dice until you remove their entire army.

Yes, IG artillery still gets to deliver shots on turn 1. No, this is not a problem, despite the irritating IG hate from people who seem to expect us to be nothing but easy wins for the glorious space marines. The big guns are lucky to get 2-3 wounds per turn, and the mortar spam is much less impressive against anything that has good durability or ever gets to draw LOS to them. You are going to take some damage from IG shooting, deal with it. It's the one thing they're supposed to be good at.

The issue with IG isn't that it can be devastating first turn, but that you have no means of retaliating against well placed manticores until turn 3 or 4. As the rules stand, the manticores can literally be put into closed boxes and it'll still shoot without any penalties. But again, IG LOS artilleries are the one of the least of worries in alpha strikes.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Nym wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Not sure why we need every action tied to CPs.

Well, in this very case the goal is to prevent the ennemy from over-focusing one particular unit. If you could go to ground with multiple units, with the restrictions I set, horde armies would be too strong. Most of them would just go to ground and then choose to activate during the Movement phase (with Advance), in order to set-up turn 3 charges.

You can't if its a strategem. 1 per phase. You would just bait out the strategem then focus down another unit.

Of course that also makes it very unscalable rule and those are generally not good game design.

 skchsan wrote:
The issue with IG isn't that it can be devastating first turn, but that you have no means of retaliating against well placed manticores until turn 3 or 4.

But why is that such a problem? "I can't delete a unit on turn 1-2 no matter where it is" is hardly a major problem. You can take LOS-ignoring weapons of your own, you can take fast units that can get around terrain to draw LOS (hi flyers, you might be useful here), you can take your chances with the reserves roll and bring some deep striking threats, etc. Or you can just accept the not-terribly-impressive shooting they're putting out and win the game elsewhere on the table. Manticores are hardly game-breaking.

Adepticon taught us one thing - Adepticon is not an accurate measure of the hobby. It's a tournament, not a game between friends for fluff purposes but rather a load of people pretty much out to win regardless of how they do it. Not to say there aren't some nice people, but it's not representative of the wider hobby.

Tournaments need to fix this themselves with their own restrictions and adding random missions so that people field balanced armies rather than ones good at the one mission you give them.

Ice_can wrote:
1 results in -3 to hit alitoc so guard, tau etc can't hit them.
Natural six hit, helps worse shooting units disproportionately.
2 ok so I'll hold my deepstike till turn 2 and drop it all at once anyway.
3 thats a lot of randomness to be adding and is yet more rolling in a game beset by having too many buckets of dice
4 To be honest the flat -1 to hit for nlos weapons would be enough
5 Yes tue LOS is way to hard to get cover from unless your using boxes for terain.
6 makes playing cityscape terrain insainly difficult, but for tournaments with minimal terrain fine
7 making it S6 S7 overcharge and not 2d would solve the issues with plasma, making more wounds from overheat just premotes cheap disposible troops spaming plasma over expensive more elite models even considering it.

With the T’au example, they’d hit exactly the same as every other faction (bar Custodes) when shooting at an Aliatoc flyer from more than 12” away, and slightly worse than Marines when it isn’t a flyer. Sure, it helps those armies that hit on 5+s more than it helps an army that hits on 3+s, but I must admit that I find it odd that this is an excuse to not apply a “6’s always hit” rule.

Dropping it all turn 2, I don’t have a problem with. By that time I’ve potentially dropped half my reserves in and moved my units in such a way that you’re deep strike is now extremely limited. Sure, not all armies can do this, but a lot can. I’m not bothered by your deep striking Scions if they are practically dropping into your own deployment zone. That, or it gives you the opportunity to claim objectives and/or remove some of the “on board” priority targets. Unless you’re running Scouts or Nurglings etc, if you go 2nd vs a deep strike heavy list you’re always giving up table control from the very start.

I agree that it adds randomness, but I must admit I kinda miss the days of random, misshaping deep strikes. Right now it’s a case of, “I’ll have all my deep strikers setup to shoot and suicide”, or “I’ll drop in so many units that I’m bound to roll some 9+ charges”. It adds in the risk of your Scions suddenly ending up 13” away from their target and unable to rapid fire etc. Still – prob not the best fix though.

While the flat -1 for non LoS weapons would likely be enough, it doesn’t affect all the LoS alpha strike weapons. The plasmas and meltas etc. The T’au and Marine missiles – the Obliterator spam. It changes the options for players. Sure it might just delay everything for 1 turn, but you then have to factor that lost turn into your game plan and list building. Sure, turn 2 could still see massive beta strikes, but it does allow for a more tactical early game.

Cityscape games are usually played over several levels though right? And often with “full” buildings. Could simply make a change for the “Cities of Death” ruleset, stating that LoS blocking aspect is removed for that particular game type.

Sumilidon wrote:
Adepticon taught us one thing - Adepticon is not an accurate measure of the hobby. It's a tournament, not a game between friends for fluff purposes but rather a load of people pretty much out to win regardless of how they do it. Not to say there aren't some nice people, but it's not representative of the wider hobby.

Tournaments need to fix this themselves with their own restrictions and adding random missions so that people field balanced armies rather than ones good at the one mission you give them.

Games Workshop itself disagrees with you so.... no.

The terrain being essentially save boosting see through smoke is a big issue. I dislike the whole 'Can I see through it? I can shoot/charge through it' thing immensely. This was brought home to me in my first game of 8th edition (actually my first since my 2nd ed days bar 1 game in 5th and 1 game in 3rd). Laid out the table which included a 2 foot wide wood, with trees that were both removable and spaced to allow infantry to be placed between them.
Set up the army, then the AM player opposite opened fire straight through the wood informing me that as it didn't block the players table level LOS it didn't block the models either... Really I build scenery to be played on, not for my models to have to move through like actual humans so it tends to accommodate their bases and the like!

Something like 12 inches of scenery blocks LOS to anything beyond it would be a good rule...

Sumilidon wrote:
Adepticon taught us one thing - Adepticon is not an accurate measure of the hobby. It's a tournament, not a game between friends for fluff purposes but rather a load of people pretty much out to win regardless of how they do it. Not to say there aren't some nice people, but it's not representative of the wider hobby.

Tournaments need to fix this themselves with their own restrictions and adding random missions so that people field balanced armies rather than ones good at the one mission you give them.

Adepticon is a convention of nemerous events, not a single WAAC tournament. The vast majority of participants are there for the hobby and not to win the Championships.

The Team Tournament, the largest event of the con, scores paint, theme, presentation and sportsmanship. All categories that are hobby focused and not game result focused. That event alone is double the size of the Championships. There are even more events beyond that one on smaller scales that are hobby focused as well. Add in all the modeling and painting seminars and your blowing the doors off the purely competitive mindset group of people that your referring to. 4,500 attendees total. 256 played in the Champs. Let that sink in.

Champs are what get all the attention here, but they are by no means the focus of that convention.

On internet forums dedicated to gaming, the championships are what the forums will always focus on, so thats a good point. Forum and facebook conversations can be misleading in that it would seem everyone is only concerned about waac and wiinning the tournament, but thats rarely the case.

The championships should get all the attention because that's where good game design is tested. A game that is balanced and designed well enough to handle the highest levels of competitive play will work at lower levels of competitiveness, and be a better game as a result of that balance. The opposite is not true, however, you can't assume that your rules are finished just because someone played a low-competitiveness game with them.

I still feel that there are changes that should be applied to tournaments, but NOT affect all of Matched Play (which generally seems to mean "using points instead of power level"). However, this is something GW themselves seems unwilling to do in that they change all of Matched Play because they seem to equate Matched Play with "competitive".

Things like this I feel ITC should handle rather than GW (or the specific tournament, but ITC is widely recognized enough that they could get away with it) just so you don't see restrictions meant to "fix" tournaments affect everyone who wants to use Matched Play versus Open/Narrative.

Wayniac wrote:
I still feel that there are changes that should be applied to tournaments, but NOT affect all of Matched Play (which generally seems to mean "using points instead of power level"). However, this is something GW themselves seems unwilling to do in that they change all of Matched Play because they seem to equate Matched Play with "competitive".

Things like this I feel ITC should handle rather than GW (or the specific tournament, but ITC is widely recognized enough that they could get away with it) just so you don't see restrictions meant to "fix" tournaments affect everyone who wants to use Matched Play versus Open/Narrative.

It would be nice to see GW release a set of true "advanced rules" to be used for competitive plays.

The new 8th ed ruleset is really good for bringing new players in because of its simplicity and ambiguities of wording where it engages both players in discussion, teaching & learning the game. In a competitive setting, it's a mess.

Sumilidon wrote:
so that people field balanced armies rather than ones good at the one mission you give them.

Taking armies that are good at the mission should be what everyone is doing, including fluffy narrative players.

If you know you're going to be playing maelstrom rather than eternal war (even if you don't know which mission specifically) why wouldn't you be adjusting your army to suit?

Wayniac wrote:
I still feel that there are changes that should be applied to tournaments, but NOT affect all of Matched Play (which generally seems to mean "using points instead of power level"). However, this is something GW themselves seems unwilling to do in that they change all of Matched Play because they seem to equate Matched Play with "competitive".

Things like this I feel ITC should handle rather than GW (or the specific tournament, but ITC is widely recognized enough that they could get away with it) just so you don't see restrictions meant to "fix" tournaments affect everyone who wants to use Matched Play versus Open/Narrative.

Because Matched Play is the 'competitive' ruleset? The Matched part kinda gives it away imo.
If you don't want to use the full 'competitive' ruleset your free to houserule out any part your group disagrees with.

Terrain, deepstriking, alphastriking... all of these things aside. At least Adepticon did show them that the balance of the flying hive tyrant was a bit off. Maybe a lot of the other HQs are not underpowered and thus not represented as much when observed externally, and fixing the tyrant may show that. But when you have something clearly superior to everything else (hello Dark Reapers), a sense of everything else being underpowered is created.

All of the other parts of the recipe can be handled individually, and hopefully GW is looking at them all together and in isolation. That way they can fix the Flying Hive Tyrant for all games, casual and competitive. I imagine those lists would be all the more unforgiving versus lists that are more fluff and casually oriented. They can actually look at what caused those results (was it the model, the tabletop, the scoring, a combination?) and start making positive headway into fixing a lot of the problems with the edition.

I don't even play Dark Reapers in a casual setting anymore. There is the negative stigma against them for very good reason. Fortunately, at lower numbers, the problem isn't as pronounced, but I totally believe the problem is with Ynnari and not as much Dark Reapers. But, we have to wait and see how GW fixes them.

And that is what Games Workshop wanted to see. Break their game, show them what is wrong so they can correct it. Most of the fixes have been points changes, but who knows how they'll choose to fix this. 1 Flying Hive Tyrant may not be skewing the balance as terribly as 7 on the same battlefield, but the fact is... it is still having an affect. So while this does proliferate down to "casual" play, it is still a problem, and it is still a good fix. Besides, if the fix sucks so much... you're in casual play... why do you care? Just ignore it. When my wife's Dark Eldar heavy Ynnari army got slapped with the changes over the fall, we chose to ignore the changes to Soulbursting for the duration of our narrative campaign to help lessen the tabletop performance of her army versus ours. She ended up winning the narrative campaign with a Soulburst of all things. But it was casual, and we decided to ignore that rule change.

But look at it from the positive side of things:

At least they're looking, and trying. Which is a lot more than what happened over 7th edition where they just kept adding more ways to deathstar or 2++ reroll instead of fixing the problem of deathstars and 2++ rerolls. They've seen things over the past few months that they want to address, and they're doing it without a total rewrite of all of their books.

Imagine how much time and effort is destroyed by an edition change. Now think of how much expansion they could have done if the edition just lasted longer.

I am not advocating for going back to 7th. Nostalgia glasses are not rose-tinted in this case. Overall, 8th has been an improvement. Better in many areas, weaker in some.

What I would really like to see is assault armies getting a +1 or something. Freely disengaging after sinking resources into simply making it to melee seems a bit powerful for the corner-dwelling armies of the edition. We may start playing where the unit being disengaged gets to take a swing at the retreating unit as if it were the fight phase. Sure, they still get obliterated by the shooting. But at least the screen doesn't get to freely screen again after the guys with swords just politely watched them turn their backs and leave.

Terrain still seems to be the most potent fix to a lot of the problems. I'll try to talk my group into doing things like no firing through a dense cover fixture like a forest and building, and we already play with enough other fixtures to really hurt alpha striking and force players to work on positioning early in the game. Maybe that is another take-away from Adepticon that at least the community can agree on: a 6'x4' playing surface with largely nothing to obstruct line of sight disproportionately weights the game on the roll to go first. The more terrain present, the less valuable that roll to go first becomes. There should be a a trade-off where going first is still advantageous, but not insurmountable for the person who goes second. I'm sure the bean counters out there can find a proper terrain balance to make that happen.

Real LOS blocking terrain should be used. The entire "true LOS" has always been an issue with any of GW's games.

Institute a silhouette system like Infinity has. It's not difficult.

Then make Forests and buildings actually block LOS.

The next issue is durability, but that's not a discussion I care to have ATM

 Peregrine wrote:
Ugh. No, we do not need to add more -1 penalties to shooting on turn 1. That just makes long-range armies worthless, you can't hit anything on turn 1 and then you get mass charged, locked in combat, and wiped off the table before you ever fire a meaningful shot. Nor do we need more absurd CP mechanics, or whatever other artificial limits you can think of. What we need is two things:

1) Reserves go back to 5th edition. Roll to get them (4+/3+/2+/auto on turns 2/3/4/5), roll some kind of scatter/mishap chance/etc if you deep strike. No more turn-1 alpha strike delivered anywhere you want without any chance of failure, if you want the massive power of deep stirke you have to pay for it with a high chance of failure.

2) Fix the broken LOS mechanics. LOS through terrain gives cover, ruins block LOS entirely even if you can see a fingertip of a model through a tiny crack in the wall, etc. And play with more than a token tree or two. This prevents long-range alpha strikes from dominating, with significantly limited ability to draw LOS to the opposite deployment zone you can't just sit back and roll dice until you remove their entire army.

Yes, IG artillery still gets to deliver shots on turn 1. No, this is not a problem, despite the irritating IG hate from people who seem to expect us to be nothing but easy wins for the glorious space marines. The big guns are lucky to get 2-3 wounds per turn, and the mortar spam is much less impressive against anything that has good durability or ever gets to draw LOS to them. You are going to take some damage from IG shooting, deal with it. It's the one thing they're supposed to be good at.

This. The big problems we have right now is that there are literally zero draw backs to taking stuff in reserves to be deep struck. And terrain needs to be fixed badly.

Much to the shagrin of people, GW needs to bring back the 50% obscure gets cover, and if you can only see like a hand, wing, or foot of a model thats not grounds to shoot at it. I know GW removed those to "Try and speed up the game," Or "To reduce arguemetns," but it does not because you will still have Gak players that will try and argue everything. As it stands the LoS rules are a joke

Wayniac wrote:
I still feel that there are changes that should be applied to tournaments, but NOT affect all of Matched Play (which generally seems to mean "using points instead of power level"). However, this is something GW themselves seems unwilling to do in that they change all of Matched Play because they seem to equate Matched Play with "competitive".
Things like this I feel ITC should handle rather than GW (or the specific tournament, but ITC is widely recognized enough that they could get away with it) just so you don't see restrictions meant to "fix" tournaments affect everyone who wants to use Matched Play versus Open/Narrative.

I think this is semantics. Matched play IS competitive play. Open play isn't. There's already 2 separate sets of rules. Open play is basically a free for all. You CAN use points in open play. Nobody's gonna stop you. It seems you don't like a specific few rules GW implements to balance competitive play. That's fine. When you ask someone for a casual game just say "Hey I don't like this rule. Any chance we could avoid using it this game?" Though I suspect GWs competitive adjustments have a reason for existing. "Hey I don't like how GW limited the number of tau commanders I can bring. Can we ignore that? My list has 12" probably won't go over so well.

You're asking for THREE separate rule sets. Casual, Sort of Competitive, and Competitive. Lets not.

njtrader wrote:
Real LOS blocking terrain should be used. The entire "true LOS" has always been an issue with any of GW's games.

Institute a silhouette system like Infinity has. It's not difficult.

Then make Forests and buildings actually block LOS.

The next issue is durability, but that's not a discussion I care to have ATM

This! I like 8th, but the terrain rules are absolute garbage. I've never been a fan of TLoS.

ThePorcupine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I still feel that there are changes that should be applied to tournaments, but NOT affect all of Matched Play (which generally seems to mean "using points instead of power level"). However, this is something GW themselves seems unwilling to do in that they change all of Matched Play because they seem to equate Matched Play with "competitive".
Things like this I feel ITC should handle rather than GW (or the specific tournament, but ITC is widely recognized enough that they could get away with it) just so you don't see restrictions meant to "fix" tournaments affect everyone who wants to use Matched Play versus Open/Narrative.

I think this is semantics. Matched play IS competitive play. Open play isn't. There's already 2 separate sets of rules. Open play is basically a free for all. You CAN use points in open play. Nobody's gonna stop you. It seems you don't like a specific few rules GW implements to balance competitive play. That's fine. When you ask someone for a casual game just say "Hey I don't like this rule. Any chance we could avoid using it this game?" Though I suspect GWs competitive adjustments have a reason for existing. "Hey I don't like how GW limited the number of tau commanders I can bring. Can we ignore that? My list has 12" probably won't go over so well.

You're asking for THREE separate rule sets. Casual, Sort of Competitive, and Competitive. Lets not.

Like like... Open... Narrative, and Matched.

Huh.
We do already have three game types.
And Apocalypse? Wow.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Much to the shagrin of people, GW needs to bring back the 50% obscure gets cover, and if you can only see like a hand, wing, or foot of a model thats not grounds to shoot at it. I know GW removed those to "Try and speed up the game," Or "To reduce arguemetns," but it does not because you will still have Gak players that will try and argue everything. As it stands the LoS rules are a joke

This has to be my favorite Dakka buzzword - 'joke'. Anything someone doesn't like, doesn't agree with, doesn't support is a joke. Maybe instead of a joke it's a system that needs work? Maybe it isn't where you'd like it to be and you think it could be drastically improved. Honestly calling things a joke cheapens your argument.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Like like... Open... Narrative, and Matched.

Huh.
We do already have three game types.
And Apocalypse? Wow.

My point was what people seem to be asking for is really nebulous. There's one or two rules they're not fans of, or one or two rules they came up with that they want implemented, and want the whole thing in its own separate rules category of "kind of competitive but not really."

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Much to the shagrin of people, GW needs to bring back the 50% obscure gets cover, and if you can only see like a hand, wing, or foot of a model thats not grounds to shoot at it. I know GW removed those to "Try and speed up the game," Or "To reduce arguemetns," but it does not because you will still have Gak players that will try and argue everything. As it stands the LoS rules are a joke

This has to be my favorite Dakka buzzword - 'joke'. Anything someone doesn't like, doesn't agree with, doesn't support is a joke. Maybe instead of a joke it's a system that needs work? Maybe it isn't where you'd like it to be and you think it could be drastically improved. Honestly calling things a joke cheapens your argument.

I think the "doesn't support" is the key distinction there. I'm pretty sure many people who play athletic sports consider e-sports a 'joke'. I consider Warmachine tournaments 'a joke'. Heck, I even consider 40k tournaments 'a joke'. But that is my own individual opinion after having attended and experienced many of those things. I do believe the people who participate in those events though, many of them do not consider it a joke. It is actually nice to see them being given some love and consideration.

What's the worst that could happen? They help balance the game for me way down here in casual-land? That'd be a tragedy. I was just about to give my local group a new list that uses 7 Flyrants as a tyranid force, I like big bugs! This is casual-land, different rules for balance down here! They won't be nearly as overpowered!

I do agree, dogging people's passion as a joke is probably not a way to advance change and win friends. Regardless of how you perceive the endeavor.