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.
2018/04/17 19:53:04
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 19:53:27
"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?"
2018/04/17 20:00:18
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
I apologize if you feel like I've attacked you - that's not my intention.
You're being intellectually dishonest (unintentionally) about what it means to be a FAQ released in March. We can split the difference (and hairs) at 30 days, but calling it 45 is representative of your narrative and goals.
So why am I bothering with this? Because I see a lot of arguments based on heavily skewed reasoning and I think it's hugely detrimental to a good discussion where we accomplish something that moves the game forward.
2018/04/17 20:21:56
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
honestly i remember a lot complaining about the chances to build a massive alpha strike force (and we just had indexes), with codices and stratagems that thing became clearly abusive but was already clear during index era, but lot more was saying shhhhh you are wrong you understand nothing Gw PLAYTESTED the rules, now after some months who's right? btw regardless this another time GW shows how it works.
Talking about clairvoyance:
And many things will remain OP that for sure i can bet 1000$, you will see for example tau suits , someone really think 5-6 tides will disappear from play? dream on....
one of most embarassing units in whole chaos index are obliterators, now they cant do just NOTHING in melee, they have no melee weapons, ridicolous.
You actually were arguing that hordes were the defacto lists:
i noticed that heavy based infantry armies have great advantages, in particular the ones who can spam cheap models, like guard tyr and demons (tz in this case with 2pt brimstones). I guess this will be the edition of massed bulge of infantry, less and less (often overcostly) MC easily targetables
You even struggled with berzerkers against screens.
Korne gets in turn 1.... just to charge some cheap screens unless ur opponent is a lobotomized monkey.. then you explode under fire and countercharges (for example a chaos with 12-15 oblys+Abbadon, just to make an example), scouts might mess any kind of 1st turn charge, you just need a capable opponent, we already testing Korne "bombs" and doesn't work all alone, you need support, Tz is the best support for Korne, with horrors and/or flamers removing screening units.
Korne alone could work fine against armies which cant have an appropriate number of expedable screening units or mediocre medium/short range fire. Last time we tested against a whole mechanized guard (5 LR,pask some cheap infantry squads and so on) with plasma squads in AiP, and the slaugher wasn't for Korne... this is at least in ETC high competitive environment .
See this singular statement tells me so much about you and how much weight I put on your input.
It’s factually correct whatever way you swing it, the March FAQ dropped mid April and was lack lustre at best and the trial rules range from good to terrible.
Funnily enough your statement tells me very little about you, guess you can’t jusge someone based on one line of text from an overall statement eh
Factually correct from the point of view that favors your narrative. Massaging the data so to speak.
Eh. It's not just this statement. There's a pile of them. I don't hate you - I just think you have some very biased views, which prohibits an honest discussion.
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
"45 days late" is hyperbole and "good to terrible" is the most vauge, non-commital thing I've ever seen. It literally describes everything ever. The entirety of human history could be described as "good to terrible" yet somehow your tone implies that this is a bad thing.
No it’s not, it’s cold hard maths, and “good to terrible” was just an example my post is further up if you would like to read it.
2018/04/17 20:23:41
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Formosa wrote: Painfully learned in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th blackmage, GW has no excuse for not expecting this kind of powergaming and “the most playtested” version ever means nothing when these people clearly don’t know what they are doing, that needs to stop immediately, they need to play the most abusive lists possible and fix them as needs be, not drop an FAQ 45 days late because they have noticed something the entire (dakka) community already knows, I pay my money for a quality product, 8th is feeling less and less like a quality product and a series of badly thought out patches that COULD end up ruining the game.
game is already ruined dont worry
3rd place league tournament
03-18-2018
2nd place league tournament
06-12-2018
3rd place league
tournament
12-09-2018
3rd place league tournament
01-13-2019
1st place league tournament
01-27-2019
1st place league
tournament
02-25-2019
2018/04/17 20:24:30
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
45 days late is not cold hard math unless they said FAQ drops March 1. A March FAQ could have come out March 31st. So the FAQ was between 16-46 days late.
2018/04/17 20:25:32
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Smaller deployment zones?
2018/04/17 20:36:38
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Factually correct, there is no discussion here to be had, it was late, no narrative, no bias, just fact.
You claim (wrongly) to want honest discussion and yet you have made several personal attacks, so let’s have this honest discussion you claim to laud.
Facts: FAQ was late, by a large degree, over 40 days late from the start of March to when it dropped.
Opinion: some of the FAQ was good, some was terrible.
You can argue with the opinion, not the fact.
I apologize if you feel like I've attacked you - that's not my intention.
You're being intellectually dishonest (unintentionally) about what it means to be a FAQ released in March. We can split the difference (and hairs) at 30 days, but calling it 45 is representative of your narrative and goals.
So why am I bothering with this? Because I see a lot of arguments based on heavily skewed reasoning and I think it's hugely detrimental to a good discussion where we accomplish something that moves the game forward.
“I’m sorry for attacking you”
Tries to character attack again
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:39:05
2018/04/17 20:40:39
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
If I need to pay a bill in March, and I pay on April 1st, I'm late. But if they try to charge me for being 32 days late when they have specific terms for being 1-3 days late, that's not gonna fly. I'm one day late.
2018/04/17 20:44:14
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Smaller deployment zones?
What if someone wants to play a Green Tide? I'm sorry, but RC cars are the clear answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, in all seriousness, some kind of roving objective rules could be fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:44:36
"But If the Earth isn't flat, then how did Jabba chakka wookiee no Solo ho ho ho hoooooooo?"
2018/04/17 20:50:13
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
I would be satisfied with a slight change to the Deep Strike rules.
Instead of restricting deepstrike "during a player’s first turn" to your deployment zone change it to only affect the first player turn. So the player that goes second can react and deep strike anywhere - but it still allows the first player a chance to position.
AnFéasógMór wrote: The problem with saying "you can't shoot anything that is in its own deployment zone is it just shifts that advantage from whoever goes first to whoever goes second. Or just turns the game into "who can pick the deployment zone with the most objectives and then sit there for 5-7 rounds," which sounds like a really boring game that could be replaced by rolling a d6 once and then just spending a few hours staring at some pretty models.
Being allowed to camp objectives in your deployment zone is probably as much of a problem as anything else.
Maybe, but what's the alternative, when deployment zones are literally 66% of the table? Objective markers all clustered into a 2'×6' strip? Roaming objectives? Actual, physically roaming objective in the form of RC cars with an objective marker on them, controlled by a third player whose only job is to drive the RC cars around...hey, guys, I think I have an idea for a better game.
Smaller deployment zones?
What if someone wants to play a Green Tide? I'm sorry, but RC cars are the clear answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Although, in all seriousness, some kind of roving objective rules could be fun.
Ideally if your scenarios require the opponent to leave their deployment zone to not lose to the scenario, the Green Tide has less board space to cross to reach them then they do deploying farther up field.
2018/04/17 20:51:41
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
I've played roving objectives before (in 6e/7e, not 8e). It's a lot of fun, but it's not a great idea for the competitive scene. You can get hosed bad by their movements.
(we used scatter dice)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like rollaway's idea of impacting only top of 1, but I think I've said that in several places.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:52:45
2018/04/17 21:04:46
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Step one is to playtest the rules so that we actually know how the work over the course of hundreds if not thousands of collective games. Any “fixes” that we brainstorm now are meaningless emotional outcrys that will be rightly ignored by tournament organizers and GW.
2018/04/17 21:34:06
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Having it only affect the top of the first round could work, would require more of a tactical decision in deciding whether to go first or second - would you rather have a proper deep strike but have to weather an entire shooting phase at partial strength, or would you rather get to shoot first?
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
Feb 28 Formosa's Boss: I need the 'Knee Jerk Report' for March.
Formosa: Ok, boss!
March 3rd Formosa: Phew, ok, there were several knees we had to track including a torn meniscus and...
Formosa's Boss: You're fired.
Formosa: Wait what?
Formosa's Boss: The report is late.
Formosa: No it's not - it's still March!
Formosa's Boss: Yea, well, I wanted it March 1st. You're two days late. You're fired.
What a complete and utter crap show, these fools haven’t a clue on what they are doing
I'm not sure how you maintain objectivity and process changes with an open mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 23:44:29
2018/04/17 23:51:13
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
No, just no, we were told FAQ in March, that’s from the 1st until the end, then it comes half way through April, there is no arguing with this, you call it’s my “narrative and goals” I have none, it’s a fact, you can argue with opinion but you cannot argue with fact.
March is 1st to the 31st, they had 31 days to drop it, the second it hit April that entire period is written off, 31 days, FAQ drops on the 14th, so 45 days late.
And my argument isn’t heavily skewed, it’s completely on point, the studio isn’t adequately playtesting this game in the manner in which it is played in the top tournies, therefore any FAQ they release that doesn’t take this into account, that leads to some of what we have seen with the new “test” rules, they are not useing all the data available to them either otherwise big issues would have been caught much earlier, this kind of design CAN not WILL lead to 8th being a poorly designed mess.
Feb 28 Formosa's Boss: I need the 'Knee Jerk Report' for March.
Formosa: Ok, boss!
March 3rd Formosa: Phew, ok, there were several knees we had to track including a torn meniscus and...
Formosa's Boss: You're fired.
Formosa: Wait what?
Formosa's Boss: The report is late.
Formosa: No it's not - it's still March!
Formosa's Boss: Yea, well, I wanted it March 1st. You're two days late. You're fired.
What a complete and utter crap show, these fools haven’t a clue on what they are doing
I'm not sure how you maintain objectivity and process changes with an open mind.
Nice try but March is March and April is April, if my boss wanted that report in March and I gave it to him in April, yep I’d be in trouble and they would rightly say “well... you had all of March to do it”
Try whatever mental gymnastics you want to make this fit YOUR narrative, whatever way you swing it, the FAQ was late, considerably so.
2018/04/17 23:57:52
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Nice try but March is March and April is April, if my boss wanted that report in March and I gave it to him in April, yep I’d be in trouble and they would rightly say “well... you had all of March to do it”
Try whatever mental gymnastics you want to make this fit YOUR narrative, whatever way you swing it, the FAQ was late, considerably so.
I'm not attempting to say it wasn't late. Not at all.
You're calling it 45 days. They said March. You inferred March 1st.
Your boss said March, but you didn't infer March 1st. Curious.
Anyway you can have the last word after this since this is a waste of our time. Sorry for getting it started.
2018/04/21 23:27:19
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
The new rule doesn't really effect my local meta and I know it's a rule to combat specific armies in particular but it's still not the end of the world. Like, does everyone forget the scatter and you might have a chance for that unit to be completely gone? I realise it's a big issue now because people solely base their army around the alpha strike and have as much as they can in deep strike so even the rule to have only half the power level in reserve is probably enough in most cases.
We'll try the rule with our gaming group, see how it goes. One way of alleviating the whole thing would be to maybe only be able to deep strike half your reserves on the first turn, or maybe they only come in on a 4+ on turn 1? Best thing to do is try it, muck about with the rule when your opponent agrees and report the feedback.
Daedalus81 wrote: There seems to be SOME need for them, but Tactical Reserves seems a little much and Battle Brothers too little to combat soup. How can they be reworded?
(Note: I still advocate trying them)
1) Shooting range halved during turn 1
OR
2) during turn 1, shooting weapons have a -1 to hit penalty per -AP of the weapon [ie -3AP = -3 to hit] they shoot with (even dark reapers and their damned ability)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/21 23:33:01
2018/04/21 23:39:37
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
2) during turn 1, shooting weapons have a -1 to hit penalty per -AP of the weapon [ie -3AP = -3 to hit] they shoot with (even dark reapers and their damned ability)
IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game because I don't understand how range works".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
boundless08 wrote: Like, does everyone forget the scatter and you might have a chance for that unit to be completely gone?
Nope, definitely not forgotten. It was a great rule and it should come back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 23:40:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/21 23:50:10
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game because I don't understand how range works".
.
IOW i have an Eldar/Astra/Tau Gunline and - surprise - i'm perfectly happy with unbalanced odds in my favor
Long-range shooting is supposed to be effective on turn 1 and faster to open fire than short-range shooting and melee. That's how range works. Putting arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions on long-range guns so they can't do anything until turn 2 or later is completely missing the point.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/04/22 02:23:35
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Yep - this talk of nerfing ranged weapons on turn 1 in nonsensical garbage. The way you fix the beta rules to make them work is pretty simple. You straight up remove the deep strike restriction they made but you leave the restriction that 50% of your armies points has to start on the board. This would make a list like 7 tyrants and 4 mawlocks impossible to run effectively but it doesn't completely destroy armies that rely on deep strike alpha.
Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)
Then when it comes to their point changes - make warlocks cost 30, Walock bikers cost 50, make shining spears cost 38, make reapers cost 42.
Notice how my suggestions don't do anything but deal with the actual problem - these aren't blanket fixes like GW is doing.
IOW, "remove shooting armies from the game because I don't understand how range works".
.
IOW i have an Eldar/Astra/Tau Gunline and - surprise - i'm perfectly happy with unbalanced odds in my favor
You fix these problems with points changes - not blanket nerfs to all shooting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/22 02:39:05
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
2018/04/22 02:52:53
Subject: Re:How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Then while were are on the subject of -1 to hit. Flat out remove -1 to hit army traits and replace them with something like "always counts as in cover" which is pretty dang good on it's own. Then put a -1 to hit penalty on any weapon that is shooting out of line of site (Basalisk, Manticore, mortar, tempest launcher, ECT)
That sounds pretty fair, indirect buff to LR's as their bs4 and T8 will become more valuable for direct line fire and surviving the enemy response. I've seen other ideas attached to this one for allowing units with vox casters to restore iLOS weaponry's BS4 as well, which could make for a fun balance point, guard player pays the points to build a vox network to improve his arty but has less points to spend on special weapons/sponsor's/units as a result, or he saves the points but takes a hit to his shooting.
It would make vox's worth taking and serve as a price increase to the average infantry squad. If nothing else it could make a good stratagem.
2018/04/22 03:48:34
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
I don't think first turn deepstrike is fun or good for the game. Deepstrike should be something you do with a few units at a tactical point in the game, not something you do with half your army so it doesn't have to get shot at.
From the indications given by the community team (and therefore likely to at some point be clarified by FAQs) strategems that allow units to redeploy still get you move out of your deployment zones, so BA, orks, and GK are still better at deepstrike than anyone else, which makes a ton of sense, they just have to allow some counterplay by starting on the board to do it.
As for the changes nerfing assault and making shooting better, you are assuming that shooting and assault deserve to be equal, and that if they aren't equal, then the game is going to be in ruins.
Assault is very effective at a number of things, and has a tactical place and use, but GW doesn't owe it to you to make assault just as good as shooting units in their space combat game. I personally think that assault units should be very effective in melee but have to risk something or invest in something to actually get to the enemy. Deepstriking the first turn isn't that at all.
And even then, if you look at the number of armies that can still pull off first turn assaults... it's something like all of them, even post FAQ.
The more important thing here is that the game is fun and tactical, and for the most part I think the changes move us closer to a more enjoyable game.
All that being said, with proper terrain and missions it doesn't even look like gun lines are going to be dominating the game as much as people think they might. Many armies with fast assault elements will be able to easily tie up shooting armies, and more mobile armies or lists with lots of board control should still be able to score objectives and so on better than just a pure shooting list.
As for the 0-3 rule, it seems straight up good for the game to me. Even if all units were priced perfectly, there is always going to be an advantage to bringing a lot of the same unit because of the concept of redundancy. Points changes can minimize this to some extent, but not all the way. So forcing players to make more choices and build some variety into their lists doesn't seem like a bad thing to be either. There are still some issues, and perhaps some exceptions that should be made for armies with only a few HQs (dark eldar for example), or changes made to guard squadrons if they prove to be too effective, or to strategems like killshot, but again this all seems like a move in the right direction.
What I don't understand is what sort of people are looking at these changes and saying "but I like playing against 8 of the same unit!" or "but I want my enemy to drop on me during the first turn before I can do anything!" or though that any of the recent popular tournement winning lists looked like they might be fun to play against or seemed good for the game.
These changes are really looking like they are going to change up the meta in a good way. Armies will be more varied because of the 0-3 rule, and games should actually go past the first couple turns.
2018/04/22 04:04:51
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
While not a suggestion, here is my 2 cents about the balance.
I have spent many years playing online video games, including several MMOs, with both PvE and PvP focuses.
The big thing I have learnt about balance is that it should always, always be done around the top-tier of players.
The big thing I have learnt about dev teams/in-house play-testers, is that they simply aren't able to think about their game in the objective manner required to properly balance a game around the top 1%.
These teams have a vision in their heads about how they feel the game should be played, and it is near impossible to move away from this idea for long enough to see how the playerbase will try to abuse their systems. (Especially now that forums and Discord communities are a thing, as a hive mind of 1000+ players can run so many more options through a simulator in far less time.)
This is by no means a defence for poorly written, poorly tested rules and balance, but it is an attempt at an explanation.
Over the years, I have seen that most companies, (especially old-school ones), are painfully slow to accept flaws in their ways, and are even slower at adopting new ways of doing things.
Realistically, there needs to be some form of invitational tournament, where new rule sets can be properly torn down, digested and broken by the kinds of players who will be most affected by them.
Cos let's face it, your average casual player isn't going to notice any difference between a balanced (or as close to it as you can hope for) set of rules, and a broken mess. As long as they can roll some dice, and have a laugh with mates and beer, they are happy.
TL;DR - This is an incredibly common issue, spanning several decades and several types of gaming. In-house playtesting will never have the scope to really try to break the ruleset.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/22 04:38:13
GK - 2k Points
IK - 3k Points
Tau - 2k Points
DR:80S++G++M+B+IPw40k00#+D++A++/sWD-R++T(T)DM+
2018/04/22 04:41:27
Subject: How do we change the beta rules to make them work?
Yeah, that seemed out of left field. I never noticed a time when it was super OP or anything.
There's literally ZERO incentive to play Iron Hands. ZERO. Now it's a negative, which is impressive to be fair.
Don't make it like the problem with Iron Hands is that they don't stack FNP.
Stacking FNP was stupid, god riddance. It nerfs Iron Hands, ok, but the way to make them playable was not with that gimminick.
Yes because stacking was SUCH an issue?
It really wasn't.
It was fairly exploitable. Shield drones with a 5+ FNP followed by a 6+ FNP is strong. The iron hands do seem like they should get the old stacking FNP though, If they have two 6+ FNP it turns into a single 5+ FNP etc etc. It does not have to extend to other armies so it can stay Iron hand special thing.