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.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
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.

Perhaps GW should stop making joke rules then? I mean, it's not like any reasonable person can look at GW's LOS rules or the arguments they made in support of those rules and say "yes, this is a great idea". It is indeed a pretty good joke that GW authors are actually getting paid for the utter trash they keep publishing.

Or of course you could stop nitpicking whether the word "joke" is used instead of "terrible" or "badly written" or whatever, and deal with the substance of the criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
We do already have three game types.

We really don't. We have matched play, matched play with a different set of tournament-style missions, and some nonsense about "just play with your models and buy more space marines even if you play tyranids" that nobody bothers to pay attention to. And that's how it should be. Adding additional "ways to play" that are just bad versions of matched play is not improving the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
Perhaps GW should stop making joke rules then? I mean, it's not like any reasonable person can look at GW's LOS rules or the arguments they made in support of those rules and say "yes, this is a great idea". It is indeed a pretty good joke that GW authors are actually getting paid for the utter trash they keep publishing.

Or of course you could stop nitpicking whether the word "joke" is used instead of "terrible" or "badly written" or whatever, and deal with the substance of the criticism.

Deleted - not worth it.

Got to agree the 3 ways to play is just marketing bull crap. Since the launch of 8th I have never seen a single person at my store even use power points. I mean if you want a good example of how little it is used, look for how many people post here is my 200 power point list of nids.

GW is just wasting their time with power points instead of fixing the only rules that matter the point and matched play rules. The narrative and open play can best be described as "official house rules"

But back to LoS, it's a complete mess/joke in 8th. Almost every game I have played were we don't use the ITC rule of first floor blocks LoS terrian just becomes more of a pain in the ass to deal with then it is actually useful.

The lack of anyone using PL and non matched play is actually a problem. People are dismissing 80% of scenarios on the basis it's unfair and use the most symetrical. Leading to litlle variety and the same netlists winning all the time.

There has been no nerf to dark reapers, yet they are not winning massive tournaments. Why well because the LVO mission format favoured them so they won. Reduce variety and you get well reduced variety.

 Earth127 wrote:

The lack of anyone using PL and non matched play is actually a problem. People are dismissing 80% of scenarios on the basis it's unfair and use the most symetrical. Leading to litlle variety and the same netlists winning all the time.

There has been no nerf to dark reapers, yet they are not winning massive tournaments. Why well because the LVO mission format favoured them so they won. Reduce variety and you get well reduced variety.

It's also because power points are horribly broken and unbalanced as hell

As are points. Anybody pretending points aren#' horribly broken crap are kidding themselves

tneva82 wrote:
As are points. Anybody pretending points aren#' horribly broken crap are kidding themselves

The arguement is that power points are horribly balenced compared to points and points are badly balenced compared to... Well, nothing, because we don't have another system. So we use the best of a bad world, and look suprised when people want to use the worst of a bad world.

 Earth127 wrote:
The lack of anyone using PL and non matched play is actually a problem. People are dismissing 80% of scenarios on the basis it's unfair and use the most symetrical. Leading to litlle variety and the same netlists winning all the time.

It is not a problem at all, because using power points instead of the full point system adds absolutely nothing to the game. GW could remove power entirely and nothing of value would be lost. Likewise for things like getting to spam plasma command squads because it "isn't matched play". And of course open play is such an obviously stupid idea for anyone but their used car salesman retail employees that I'm amazed GW had the audacity to publish it in a book.

(Remember, mission choice in matched play is not limited to the ITC scenario pack, you can still use asymmetrical missions in matched play. And all of GW's so-called narrative missions are really just asymmetrical matched play missions.)

tneva82 wrote:
As are points. Anybody pretending points aren#' horribly broken crap are kidding themselves

Never said points weren't but power points are far worse.

Case and point, 20 genestealers are 16 power points. 10 rubrics all kitted with flame thrower and bolters because you can do that, with a reaper auto Cannon at only 14 power points, with a psyker in the unit as well. Gene stealers are 242 points, while the rubric squad is over 350 points.

Power points are WAY worse off then pointa

 Peregrine wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
The lack of anyone using PL and non matched play is actually a problem. People are dismissing 80% of scenarios on the basis it's unfair and use the most symetrical. Leading to litlle variety and the same netlists winning all the time.

It is not a problem at all, because using power points instead of the full point system adds absolutely nothing to the game. GW could remove power entirely and nothing of value would be lost. Likewise for things like getting to spam plasma command squads because it "isn't matched play". And of course open play is such an obviously stupid idea for anyone but their used car salesman retail employees that I'm amazed GW had the audacity to publish it in a book.

(Remember, mission choice in matched play is not limited to the ITC scenario pack, you can still use asymmetrical missions in matched play. And all of GW's so-called narrative missions are really just asymmetrical matched play missions.)

And I bet people don't play them because of that. The scenario spinning some rules on its head can make everything go topsy turvey and make for a more enjoyable if unbalanced experience.
Worse than a mission where I realize I can't win on turn 2 is a mission I realize I can't win when I unpack my army or an opponent that believes he can't win when I unpack my army. Twists in the mission scenario can break spam lists since they turn what is good on its head. If the twists are more or less wel made and not kneejerk TAC lists should perform better.

No people don't play power points because the balance in them is far worse then matches points.

It's not about the mission, it's that PL is not a good balancing system


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's look at another example, a predator tank, with just an auto Cannon, 9 PL. A predator tank with twin laz cannons, laz cannons on the side, a hunter killer missle, and a stormbolter, still 9pl that's 70 points of free very powerful gear.

 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

Wings used to be excluded but you've always been able to shoot a model where you could just see a hand or a foot.

 Scott-S6 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

Wings used to be excluded but you've always been able to shoot a model where you could just see a hand or a foot.

True true

 Backspacehacker wrote:

GW is just wasting their time with power points instead of fixing the only rules that matter the point and matched play rules. The narrative and open play can best be described as "official house rules"

I use power level all the time and I haven't noticed anything amiss. So long as you take all upgrade options available (sponsons, cybork bodies etc...) the power to points difference isn't even that big. Plus it's easy to do an asymmetrical game for a bunker assault or something.

Also, with your predator example: sure you may be down 70 points, but going full lascannon might be worse than autocannon+bolters for a scenario (eg lots of infantry) so those 70 pts are actually meaningless.

Well sure anything can be worthless if you do the whole pick and choose what your fighting but the point still stands I can get 70 points of free gear. Or with rubrics over 100 points of free gear.

The issue with saying just choose not to use some matched play rules is that nobody does that. People don't pick and choose which to keep, other than missions thanks to ITC. Not that I've ever seen. Either you play matched play and use all the adjustments or you don't play matched at all (which also barely anyone does). There is no cherry picking.

Wayniac wrote:
The issue with saying just choose not to use some matched play rules is that nobody does that. People don't pick and choose which to keep, other than missions thanks to ITC. Not that I've ever seen. Either you play matched play and use all the adjustments or you don't play matched at all (which also barely anyone does). There is no cherry picking.

Then you need to take better control of the game you're playing and set better expectations with your opponents. This is simply a matter of not being willing to have a conversation about the type of game you're interested in.

I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

cmspano wrote:
I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

Personally would like cover to be wildy variable

say the benefit of a forest would be a -1 to hit, ruins is a stock +1 to armor saves, swamps reduce speed, razor wire and traps hand out mortal wounds on 6s, fortified terrain +2 cover.

then i play my imp fist and ignore all of that for raisins

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Well sure anything can be worthless if you do the whole pick and choose what your fighting but the point still stands I can get 70 points of free gear. Or with rubrics over 100 points of free gear.

But those 70 points really mean nothing at that point. Especially since most weapons costs are all over the place anyway.

cmspano wrote:
I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

That is exactly like it work right now, be 50% obscured (by enemy models, your models, scenario elements, whatever) and you get the cover bonus, as long as you have a toe in a scenario element and you are not infantry.

Gaining cover in 8th is incredibly easy as is.

Spoletta wrote:

cmspano wrote:
I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

That is exactly like it work right now, be 50% obscured (by enemy models, your models, scenario elements, whatever) and you get the cover bonus, as long as you have a toe in a scenario element and you are not infantry.

Gaining cover in 8th is incredibly easy as is.

With issues like WYSIWYG and modeling for advantage issues at hand, GW needs to develop a TLOS system based purely on base-to-base, sell proper bases for vehicles, become more strict with base sizes for competitive play, sell laser pointers for determining TLOS (the line tool and the point tool).

The game needs an objective criteria for TLOS.

 skchsan wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

cmspano wrote:
I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

That is exactly like it work right now, be 50% obscured (by enemy models, your models, scenario elements, whatever) and you get the cover bonus, as long as you have a toe in a scenario element and you are not infantry.

Gaining cover in 8th is incredibly easy as is.

With issues like WYSIWYG and modeling for advantage issues at hand, GW needs to develop a TLOS system based purely on base-to-base, sell proper bases for vehicles, become more strict with base sizes for competitive play, sell laser pointers for determining TLOS (the line tool and the point tool).

The game needs an objective criteria for TLOS.

We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

 skchsan wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

cmspano wrote:
I like 8th so far, but it definitely has issues. Overall better than 7th IMO. I think 8th is a good framework to make a very good 9th edition.

Toning down alpha strike would help. Imagine only being allowed to put 1 unit per detachment in reserves. That might suck, but it's a possibility.

I would like to see cover go back to being an alternative save and have AP be worse against it or something. Like reduce all ap by 2. An infantry unit in ruins gets a 4+ save and shots against them are 2 less AP, so plasma would knock it to a 5+ save. It would give a reason for lightly armored units to take cover, and wouldn't give a massive benefit to 3+ armored units unless they're getting shot with high AP weapons.

Or even just a flat save that's not modified by AP like it used to be. I would also like to have 50% obscurement give cover for everything again. It would make LOS matter more. Screening units providing cover for back line stuff, etc.

That is exactly like it work right now, be 50% obscured (by enemy models, your models, scenario elements, whatever) and you get the cover bonus, as long as you have a toe in a scenario element and you are not infantry.

Gaining cover in 8th is incredibly easy as is.

With issues like WYSIWYG and modeling for advantage issues at hand, GW needs to develop a TLOS system based purely on base-to-base, sell proper bases for vehicles, become more strict with base sizes for competitive play, sell laser pointers for determining TLOS (the line tool and the point tool).

The game needs an objective criteria for TLOS.

Eh its mostly for the balls to the walls "competitive" crew and the once in a blue moon disagreement. 99% of the time its not actually an issue.
though it certainly could use a well defined criteria.

Spoletta wrote:
We need a criteria for LOS, i agree with that, but going to the warmahordes levels of "You could play with the bases alone" doesn't seem like a good idea.

Well technically requiring actual physical models are tournament rules. May I ask what's more objective than model bases?

 Desubot wrote:

Eh its mostly for the balls to the walls "competitive" crew and the once in a blue moon disagreement. 99% of the time its not actually an issue.
though it certainly could use a well defined criteria.

I'd argue that I fall into that competitive category and even I don't see the issues with LoS. I normally just discuss with my opponent prior to moving if it is feasible to block LoS with the move and we agree and move on. That said cover does need a re-work.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Eh its mostly for the balls to the walls "competitive" crew and the once in a blue moon disagreement. 99% of the time its not actually an issue.
though it certainly could use a well defined criteria.

I'd argue that I fall into that competitive category and even I don't see the issues with LoS. I normally just discuss with my opponent prior to moving if it is feasible to block LoS with the move and we agree and move on. That said cover does need a re-work.

Yeah honsetly. a comprehensive rework or codex:terrain would be nice.

every game ends up being exactly the same. need to spice things up and the easiest way is to have terrain do things.

tneva82 wrote:As are points. Anybody pretending points aren#' horribly broken crap are kidding themselves

PL is perfectly fine, out of my games in 8th(I little over 40) I've probably used PL for 10-15 of them and never had a problem with list inequality. 100pl of Salamanders and 100pl of nids are roughly equivalent. one might be a little more shooty vs stompy than the other. Last time I checked war isn't fair.

All GW points/power/whatever is unbalanced. There are far too many moving parts and far too many types play to balance across them all. I firmly believe GW doesn't care if it is (I feel the same way).

I'm all for GW coming up with an actual tournament ruleset. Like missions, a specific amount of command points(everybody has same #), and all the special minutia that competitive players love. They just really need to leave 8th alone and worry about making dope models

Racerguy180 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:As are points. Anybody pretending points aren#' horribly broken crap are kidding themselves

PL is perfectly fine, out of my games in 8th(I little over 40) I've probably used PL for 10-15 of them and never had a problem with list inequality. 100pl of Salamanders and 100pl of nids are roughly equivalent. one might be a little more shooty vs stompy than the other. Last time I checked war isn't fair.

All GW points/power/whatever is unbalanced. There are far too many moving parts and far too many types play to balance across them all. I firmly believe GW doesn't care if it is (I feel the same way).

I'm all for GW coming up with an actual tournament ruleset. Like missions, a specific amount of command points(everybody has same #), and all the special minutia that competitive players love. They just really need to leave 8th alone and worry about making dope models

PL is a lot like points in the fact that if you just look for the stuff that is costed incorrectly - you can make a much more powerful list. PL issues to me though seem more problematic - because it encourages only units that have lots of upgrades - it makes units without upgrades useless.

That's the point of PL. Devestors are another good example that comes to mind.