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.

 jeff white wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
The problem isn't you, it is the game system.

Don't be silly, if someones getting salty over a screening unit screening then they've got a serious problem and it's not the game.

This ^ its not different than using a pawn in chess to spot your more important pieces from being taken.

See but it is. Screens are not bubblewrap. Bubblewrap stops tanks with gretchin and charges from every direction. Layers of infantry to soak fire is similar in fxn but differs in spirit. My guess is that peeps are salty about the bubblewrap bc it gets used to cover for an overly abstract dumbed down rules set. So different from a pawn. Hvy cav can jump right over pawns. Bubble wrap paralyzes landraiders. Ridic.

You can't claim something is cheesy just because it's an (alleged) unrealistic tactic due to a poorly designed ruleset. Within the context of the rules, it's not cheesy at all. It seems very much an intended strategy in relation to the rules. If you dislike the rules, that's something different. You might think that the 8th edition rules aren't very good, but if you're playing 8th edition and someone is using this tactic it isn't cheesy, it's just an obvious and useful tactic.

So the romans didnt use aux. Troops in the front of their forces to buffer against attack? Bubblewrap is not special to 40k, putting your weakest in front to preserve your strong back or ranged combat forces is just common sense when up against a close range rush.

Like almost all things AoS or 40k, it’s very “gamey”, but it’s not cheesy. These rule sets mark a break from the older, more traditional narrative driven war games of the past, in which WFB and previous editions of 40k were firmly built on.

It’s an understandably hard thing to grasp if you’re used to games like historicals or even previous versions of GW games. I know when AoS dropped I had a hard time wrapping my head around how shooting, terrain, morale, etc.. functioned.

dosiere wrote:
Like almost all things AoS or 40k, it’s very “gamey”, but it’s not cheesy. These rule sets mark a break from the older, more traditional narrative driven war games of the past, in which WFB and previous editions of 40k were firmly built on.

It’s an understandably hard thing to grasp if you’re used to games like historicals or even previous versions of GW games. I know when AoS dropped I had a hard time wrapping my head around how shooting, terrain, morale, etc.. functioned.

I'll be honest, pretty much every historical or previous GW game I've played has included just as many if not more 'gamey' elements than 8th.

I've played a HUGE number of historical games where the rules made about as much sense as an ice machine in antarctica, such as:

-making every unit regardless of range have to "spot" the thing they're shooting at so you can have anti tank gun teams failing to see the tank barreling down the road directly at them

- bizarre morale rules with 57 different levels with unintuitive names like "Flagging, Chipper, Spent, Wavering, and Flimsy"

-rules where you would get a bonus to a die roll just for declaring something with no cost or reason not to, in particular I remember one revolutionary war game where just saying "cold steel!" when charging granted you a bonus to your melee combat roll

-The veterancy of a unit determining how easy they are to cause physical damage with using the same weapon (You become a Veteran instead of a Greenhorn I guess by getting shot a whole bunch and getting used to it?)

And as for previous editions of 40k... Yeaaah, simplifying the game in 8th has removed 'gamey' elements, not added to them. My very first game we were laughing about how nothing in the rules prevented one player from sticking his basilisks inside a fortified bunker, and dealing one wound at a time to each model in a unit of nobz, slowly ensuring each nob took exactly one bullet before any one nob died.

Player attitude and intent matters far, FAR more than game system when it comes to how realistic it actually feels or how much players get caught up in "win>fun" BS. I've played games of Car Wars where one player took the most heavily armored, safe car he could find and carefully drove around avoiding combat and racking up the "racing" points to get the win. By contrast, I've played gak games like Risk where everyone had a blast because everyone involved was just interested in goofing around and having a good time.

 vaklor4 wrote:
So the romans didnt use aux. Troops in the front of their forces to buffer against attack? Bubblewrap is not special to 40k, putting your weakest in front to preserve your strong back or ranged combat forces is just common sense when up against a close range rush.

Don't quote me on that but weren't Auxillia supposed to be support role in the expertise of warfare that the romans lacked?.
I remember reading somewhere that they especially hired cavalery and archers from locals that were supperior mainly because they never did develop those kinds of warfare much.
Then again the roman army system changed quite a bit overall so it is certainly difficult to nail down the excact same role for auxilia.
However if we consider Legionaires, why would they need meatshileds, when they have the best heavy infantery at that time period overall in europe, which certainly wasn't vunerable against archers or slingers.

op's meta

 SHUPPET wrote:
op's meta

I don't know, but maybee i have no issues with bubblewrap because my army is literally bubblewrap, surrounding bubblewrap and bubblewraping bubblewrap.
before you ask i play R&H, literally all choices are screen and or bubblewrap, except maybee tanks.
However i might have developped a fetish for mortar or LMG teams.
I imagine i would probably not even get a match there.

is calling your list Cheesy considered namecalling? If you call them Pussies, is that namecalling?

 everwynd wrote:
is calling your list Cheesy considered namecalling? If you call them Pussies, is that namecalling?

I dunno, but i think it's a fair response

 jeff white wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
The problem isn't you, it is the game system.

Don't be silly, if someones getting salty over a screening unit screening then they've got a serious problem and it's not the game.

This ^ its not different than using a pawn in chess to spot your more important pieces from being taken.

See but it is. Screens are not bubblewrap. Bubblewrap stops tanks with gretchin and charges from every direction. Layers of infantry to soak fire is similar in fxn but differs in spirit. My guess is that peeps are salty about the bubblewrap bc it gets used to cover for an overly abstract dumbed down rules set. So different from a pawn. Hvy cav can jump right over pawns. Bubble wrap paralyzes landraiders. Ridic.

See but it is. Screens are not bubblewrap

What? So Bublle wrapping a screening a Tank isnt the same as a screen? . Umm.... what? yes it is lol.

Hvy cav can jump right over pawns

This always has been the chase as well, units with Jump/Fly could always go over units, i remember using Jetbikes in 5th when i 1st got my DE, Reavers going over all units was amazing, or RWF's jumping over Khymeras to get a bit ahead to get closer to charge.

Bubble wrap paralyzes landraiders.

And Charing a vehicle to wrap completely around it has ALWAYS been in the game for the past 15+ yrs this is nothing new, its been in the rules that if you wrap a transport in melee and kill it the units inside. Or to stop that insanely Strong TH/SS Terminator unit from getting out (this was always something a few editions ago that happened)

Bubblewrap isn't cheesy, 4 ppm guardsmen ARE.

Martel732 wrote:
Bubblewrap isn't cheesy, 4 ppm guardsmen ARE.

Preferred IG in the day when they had squad coherency to worry about but also units had to remain within a set distance of thier platoon commander - if you care going to have seriously cheap models they need to have some brakes applied to how flexible you can be with them.

4ppm does seem a bit too cheap though, used to be the bog standard human without a gun or armour was 5ppm, given they now usually get to actually make that 5+ save where as before they did so seldom they may as well not have had it, and they now have a shot at hurting anything seeing them getting cheaper in an edition that removed blast and template effects feels wrong

4 ppm is way too cheap, especially being able to stack orders from cheapass officers that can't be targeted.

Martel732 wrote:
4 ppm is way too cheap, especially being able to stack orders from cheapass officers that can't be targeted.

Dunno about can't be targeted, players locally have that many scouts with sniper rifles I've given up spending points on characters I actually need and just go as cheap as possible now, not every army can do it but depending upon characters, especially squishy ones, is setting yourself for trouble

If they are fielding scouts with sniper rifles, you have already won. 18 ppm for them is INSANE.

Martel732 wrote:
If they are fielding scouts with sniper rifles, you have already won. 18 ppm for them is INSANE.

depends what they field alongside them and the scenario, the ability to debuff an army is pretty strong

Not really. Sniper scouts are pure trash because of their insane cost. There's not any characters I'm aware of they are cost effective against.

Martel732 wrote:
If they are fielding scouts with sniper rifles, you have already won. 18 ppm for them is INSANE.

18 PPM is if you give them Camo Cloaks. Why are you doing that?

Because with the cloaks, they at least draw some fire with -AP on it. Maybe I can draw some autocannons or disintegrators off primaris? But the click from 3+ to 2+ is well worth it vs crap like spliter and mortars. The cloak cost is not the problem, the base cost and the gun cost is too high. They should be 14 ppm total, not 18 ppm.

Martel732 wrote:
Because with the cloaks, they at least draw some fire with -AP on it. Maybe I can draw some autocannons or disintegrators off primaris? But the click from 3+ to 2+ is well worth it vs crap like spliter and mortars. The cloak cost is not the problem, the base cost and the gun cost is too high. They should be 14 ppm total, not 18 ppm.

If this were Proposed Rules I might note that at 14ppm they'd also be paying +2pts over Eldar Rangers for +1 S/T/Sv, -1 Move, and no extra -1 to be hit in cover on an otherwise identical unit, which seems rather more fair than +6pts for the same set of changes.

If I were to guess at what was running through GW's head as to why Scouts are so much more expensive than Rangers for doing the same thing is that they overvalued the concept of an infiltrating unit with rifles (see: non-Deathwatch Reivers, who get to go many places and do squat once they get there) and then on top of that went back and overvalued the gun.

the_scotsman wrote:

-making every unit regardless of range have to "spot" the thing they're shooting at so you can have anti tank gun teams failing to see the tank barreling down the road directly at them

Essential to simulate the little fact that game boards are too clean and easy to say. In reality that tank wouldn't automatically be as obviously visible as it seems on the board.

-The veterancy of a unit determining how easy they are to cause physical damage with using the same weapon (You become a Veteran instead of a Greenhorn I guess by getting shot a whole bunch and getting used to it?)

Like what? Often that's not actually physical damage but how much damage that unit takes from shooting. Which actually would mean more guys losing their nerve. In reality most combat isn't determined by physical casualties but by morale. 40k is anomaly in that it has troops fighting way too bravely. 40k never has had sensible casualty system.

And as for previous editions of 40k... Yeaaah, simplifying the game in 8th has removed 'gamey' elements, not added to them. My very first game we were laughing about how nothing in the rules prevented one player from sticking his basilisks inside a fortified bunker, and dealing one wound at a time to each model in a unit of nobz, slowly ensuring each nob took exactly one bullet before any one nob died.

8th ed is by far most gamey and illogical ruleset GW has done for 40k.

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

-making every unit regardless of range have to "spot" the thing they're shooting at so you can have anti tank gun teams failing to see the tank barreling down the road directly at them

Essential to simulate the little fact that game boards are too clean and easy to say. In reality that tank wouldn't automatically be as obviously visible as it seems on the board.

-The veterancy of a unit determining how easy they are to cause physical damage with using the same weapon (You become a Veteran instead of a Greenhorn I guess by getting shot a whole bunch and getting used to it?)

Like what? Often that's not actually physical damage but how much damage that unit takes from shooting. Which actually would mean more guys losing their nerve. In reality most combat isn't determined by physical casualties but by morale. 40k is anomaly in that it has troops fighting way too bravely. 40k never has had sensible casualty system.

And as for previous editions of 40k... Yeaaah, simplifying the game in 8th has removed 'gamey' elements, not added to them. My very first game we were laughing about how nothing in the rules prevented one player from sticking his basilisks inside a fortified bunker, and dealing one wound at a time to each model in a unit of nobz, slowly ensuring each nob took exactly one bullet before any one nob died.

8th ed is by far most gamey and illogical ruleset GW has done for 40k.

To be fair, Marines are hyper elite super soldiers, tyranids are mindless, orks are generally too stupid confident to have fear, etc. etc. There is a myraid of fluff reasons why most ignore morale or have really high morale. And if you wipe out half of a cultist blob, USUALLY the rest run away.

 vaklor4 wrote:
So the romans didnt use aux. Troops in the front of their forces to buffer against attack? Bubblewrap is not special to 40k, putting your weakest in front to preserve your strong back or ranged combat forces is just common sense when up against a close range rush.

That is not what they did. Or do you mean post marian reform cavalery in roman armies?

And if you wipe out half of a cultist blob, USUALLY the rest run away.

See this is something I don't get in warhammer. Why would the cultists run? They know that when they die their souls go stright to their god, which in the warhammer reality are a real thing, and if they failed they will suffer more then anything any opponents can do to them. running away makes no sense in such a situation, you only would make stuff worse for yourself.

Karol wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
So the romans didnt use aux. Troops in the front of their forces to buffer against attack? Bubblewrap is not special to 40k, putting your weakest in front to preserve your strong back or ranged combat forces is just common sense when up against a close range rush.

That is not what they did. Or do you mean post marian reform cavalery in roman armies?

And if you wipe out half of a cultist blob, USUALLY the rest run away.

See this is something I don't get in warhammer. Why would the cultists run? They know that when they die their souls go stright to their god, which in the warhammer reality are a real thing, and if they failed they will suffer more then anything any opponents can do to them. running away makes no sense in such a situation, you only would make stuff worse for yourself.

That's not always the case. In an entry in the Chaos Marines Codex, a Cultist realizes as he lays dying that the cult leader was just using him as a pawn. Cultists are just men and women, not a clergy. A lot of them probably weren't even brain washed. Look at Pawns of Chaos, an older 40k book. The cultists there were just farmers and peasents who worshipped the chaos gods as any other, not realizing their evil ways.

Also, I'm speaking late era rome, when roman armies were barely Romans.

Martel732 wrote:
If they are fielding scouts with sniper rifles, you have already won. 18 ppm for them is INSANE.

A much more realistic scenario is facing Thousand Sons. They have plenty of spells for blowing up characters.

There's degrees. If your army has like 150 models for 750 points that no one can chew through bubble wrapping 1250 points of actual units that's jut a bit boring IMO. But 50 guys is perfectly reasonable to me.

I don't get why this is a debate...unless you are buying really cheap cheese, bubble wrap is plastic...Admiringly I have had some really cheap cheese that tastes like plastic but...come on

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because with the cloaks, they at least draw some fire with -AP on it. Maybe I can draw some autocannons or disintegrators off primaris? But the click from 3+ to 2+ is well worth it vs crap like spliter and mortars. The cloak cost is not the problem, the base cost and the gun cost is too high. They should be 14 ppm total, not 18 ppm.

If this were Proposed Rules I might note that at 14ppm they'd also be paying +2pts over Eldar Rangers for +1 S/T/Sv, -1 Move, and no extra -1 to be hit in cover on an otherwise identical unit, which seems rather more fair than +6pts for the same set of changes.

If I were to guess at what was running through GW's head as to why Scouts are so much more expensive than Rangers for doing the same thing is that they overvalued the concept of an infiltrating unit with rifles (see: non-Deathwatch Reivers, who get to go many places and do squat once they get there) and then on top of that went back and overvalued the gun.

Rangers were 20ppm in Index: Xenos 1.

They probably just really overvalued the S4 AP- sniper rifles originally, then dropped the points on Eldar Rangers to a reasonable level, and then forgot to comparatively drop the points on sniper scouts.

 Destroyer_742 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because with the cloaks, they at least draw some fire with -AP on it. Maybe I can draw some autocannons or disintegrators off primaris? But the click from 3+ to 2+ is well worth it vs crap like spliter and mortars. The cloak cost is not the problem, the base cost and the gun cost is too high. They should be 14 ppm total, not 18 ppm.

If this were Proposed Rules I might note that at 14ppm they'd also be paying +2pts over Eldar Rangers for +1 S/T/Sv, -1 Move, and no extra -1 to be hit in cover on an otherwise identical unit, which seems rather more fair than +6pts for the same set of changes.

If I were to guess at what was running through GW's head as to why Scouts are so much more expensive than Rangers for doing the same thing is that they overvalued the concept of an infiltrating unit with rifles (see: non-Deathwatch Reivers, who get to go many places and do squat once they get there) and then on top of that went back and overvalued the gun.

Rangers were 20ppm in Index: Xenos 1.

They probably just really overvalued the S4 AP- sniper rifles originally, then dropped the points on Eldar Rangers to a reasonable level, and then forgot to comparatively drop the points on sniper scouts.

I'm half convinced that a lot of the index prices for Eldar and Tau were a bit of a PR stunt. "Switch over to 8th! Look how much we nerfed the CRAP out of everything you hated in 7th! Scatterbikes, Eldar in general, Riptides, Centurions, Grav, Screamerstar units are all toast!"

Yes, and sadly in cheesehammer 40k it's necessary, and always will be as long as they stubbornly try to make the turn structure work. No matter what balance will swing wildly back and forth unless they rewrite the rules to alternative activation, which they won't.