Switch Theme:

8th moaners too soon?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fr
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





France

Gitdakka wrote:
 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:


(.....)
1: echoing previous posts, no wounds or no armour is only possible if the game involves little diversity. Toughness and armour are the characteristcs that define the model's physical resilience and it's ability to survive and said resilience is not dictated by one but by both woring together.

2: replacing a simple roll to wound by a whole range of special rules has got severel risks: those rules are sure to get broken at one point, because the more rules you create, the mor einteractions you create, the riskier it gets. They will be even less specific and efficient at representing the model's fictionnal capabilities. they will be a real pain to learn.

3: the wound thing could make tanks unkillable trhough dedicated weaponry if you keep them as you propose, infantry would get even more slaughtered while heavy would get some many wounds they would fall into a stupid system we're you literally need 30 shoot to kill a 30 man squad assuming they went through and the game as a whole would be a game of two opposites btween cardboard stuff and unkillable monsters, or creeps vesus heroes almost. Futhermore it keeps the stupid bolters can finish a leman russ off thing.



on your point 1. actually we have 3 stats to denote durability; toughness, save and wounds. If I would design 40k again from scratch I'm sure this could be made easier. in fact vehicles used to have armour value instead of armour save and toughness, and damage chart instead of wounds. so they had 3 stats reduced to two while still remaining differentiable in the game. you could for example now combine toughness and wounds into one stat. t1-3=1w t4=2w, t8=20w or something like that and just skip the wound roll. I dont see why it's important to have W and T seperate as the extreme values are not even used. ever seen a model with t8 and 1W? or how about T2 and 6W? No because those two stats are already combined to some extent. So why do we need them both?


I know man And I advocate that the game turn back to that system for vehicules, because it gave more depth and was actually simpler, apart from fronting designation.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in de
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?


It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 15:30:29


Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?


It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.


I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

I doubt GW is going to replace S&T or go to d10/d12 dice any time soon.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?


It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.


I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.


Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 16:41:43


Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Gitdakka wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?


It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.


I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.


Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.


Except that you could no longer have a gun with low strength and good AP (like a Disintegrator or a Hotshot Lasgun) or high strength and poor AP (like a Grotzooka or a Stormeagle Rocket), and you could no longer have a model with low toughness and powerful armor (like a terminator) or high toughness and poor armor (like an Ork Battlewagon or a Great Unclean One).

dice rolls don't add useful complexity, but different spreads within the statistical matrix do. Having models that are hard to kill because they're difficult to hit, difficult to wound, or difficult to penetrate allows for a wider variety of useful weaponry - midstrength high-ROF or high accuracy for the former, high strength for the middle, and high pen for the latter.

You need that level of spread when you're talking about a sprawling game like 40k.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
How was it simpler to have 3 different armor values for one unit and a whole damage chart and wound system dedicated to vehicles compared to the same two values you know from every unit in the game?


It was not simple, just saing the idea of less stats has already been in the game. It could be reinvented by giving all models an armor value (same for all facings) instead of toughness and wounds.

I think W and T would be better to combine than T and sv+ though.


I don't think that's the direction for the level of complexity that people want to be taking here.

Replacing T and Sv with "Strongness" and S and AP with "Murderiness" is not going to make the game more deeply tactical. Itd probably make it more balanced, just like 8th made the game more balanced than 7th was with respect to different armies appearing with powerful list builds. But it wouldn't make it more interesting.


Well not sure about that. Combing saves, T and wounds into say just wounds and save would let The game play out pretty much The same with all The unit balances. But it would reduce rolls by a third wich leaves more time for more tactical choices.

Dice rolls in themself does not add any more usefull complexity if the same end result can be reached by less. Stuff like pinning effects, moral that makes units perform unexpectedly, cover mechanics that includes flanking, I think that's what many people would want.

Also you could call The combined t and w stat toughness. No need to give it silly names.


Except that you could no longer have a gun with low strength and good AP (like a Disintegrator or a Hotshot Lasgun) or high strength and poor AP (like a Grotzooka or a Stormeagle Rocket), and you could no longer have a model with low toughness and powerful armor (like a terminator) or high toughness and poor armor (like an Ork Battlewagon or a Great Unclean One).

dice rolls don't add useful complexity, but different spreads within the statistical matrix do. Having models that are hard to kill because they're difficult to hit, difficult to wound, or difficult to penetrate allows for a wider variety of useful weaponry - midstrength high-ROF or high accuracy for the former, high strength for the middle, and high pen for the latter.

You need that level of spread when you're talking about a sprawling game like 40k.


Yes then we agree. I think just like you that the save stat is good to keep. But like i keep saying I think T and W could be combined without loosing any real diversity.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




How can you combine T and W without creating a very shallow system?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




40K needs more detail and paramaters, not less.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Martel732 wrote:
40K needs more detail and paramaters, not less.


It's fine the way it is.


 
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

Tyel wrote:
How can you combine T and W without creating a very shallow system?

This is an example i wrote conbining t and w stat. Also combing strength and damage.

old new
toughness
t1-3 1w -guardsmen
t4 2w -marines
t5 4w -bikes
t6 10w -trukks
t7 20w -rhinos
t8 30w -leman russes

armour saves remain same

ap reduce by one for all weapons to a minimum of one

strength
old new
1-3 1dmg
4-5 2dmg
6 3dmg
7 4dmg
8 5dmg
9 4+d6dmg

Units with feel no pain eq. gets 50% more wounds rounded up instead of their current rolls.
meltas are like the s9 dmg if within half range instead of their current rule

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Go to the crisis suit thead. It's not.
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.


These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.


These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?


That's the idea! It might even fix Eldar too: high evasion makes them hard to hit, but average/low T makes them easily damaged after that point.
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.


These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?


We going "old WS comparison to hit in close combat" now boyz..... I thought people complained it was too clunky or something.

Also please no to removing S vs T. It's core to the game and it's important for differentiating different units and weapons from each other to help create some sense of variety. Lack of USRs and variety of unit/weapon types really limited that in 8th and yet we are trying to go further down the simplicity rabbit hole? If you want to really trim everything down we can just turn the game into risk so it's just a roll off between plastic figs.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

Blastaar wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.


These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?


That's the idea! It might even fix Eldar too: high evasion makes them hard to hit, but average/low T makes them easily damaged after that point.


Sounds good! And also you could remove the annoying iv save on genestealers and give them high evasion instead. Could make flamers more desirable to hurt stuff with high evasion. Maybe flamers has something like +2bs rule. And tanks would have low evasion. Distance could increase evasion. Damn such a system would make so much sense! Bonus points that it does not add more rolls

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 18:36:56


Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Vankraken wrote:
Gitdakka wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
Removing saves and going to S v. T might work, actually- GW hasn't been able to figure out how to get the save/AP system quite right, and I'm not convinced it can be done without some sort of issue.
Give everything an evasion stat, and change cover to do what it actually does- keep you from getting hit in the first place- and we might have a more tactical game on our hands. Plus units like termies might actually be good.


These are some cool ideas. Should it be bs vs evasion to find out hit chance?


We going "old WS comparison to hit in close combat" now boyz..... I thought people complained it was too clunky or something.

Also please no to removing S vs T. It's core to the game and it's important for differentiating different units and weapons from each other to help create some sense of variety. Lack of USRs and variety of unit/weapon types really limited that in 8th and yet we are trying to go further down the simplicity rabbit hole? If you want to really trim everything down we can just turn the game into risk so it's just a roll off between plastic figs.


WS comparison WAS clunky, but you could certainly do an accuracy vs evasion check in the same manner as the existing S/T check.
   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.


 
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.


And your post proves an other rule of dakka. Whenever someone has an idea, a user allways joins in to tell the creator of the idea that it's just a useless pile of gak.

Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in fr
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





France

ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.


Gak in sight, raise the alert...

More seriously that was not constructive.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 20:13:29


40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in se
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Sweden

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.


Gak in sight, raise the alert...

More seriously that was not constructive.


Typical day on dakka:

User1: you suck!
User2: you suck more!
User1: your rules are useless!
User2: well at least I play by the rules!
User1: beer and pretzels!
User2:... You suck! ....and so on

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/21 21:01:27


Brutal, but kunning!  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The main issue with many of these changes is not that they wouldn't work in some kind of system, but that GW already has a massive game that has to be converted, with years of established units and the way those units are expected to behave.

There is probably a game that would work with just a roll to hit roll to damage if it was designed for it, but 40k is already too complicated to go down to that while still having the game feel like 40k and the units and weapons feel like they are supposed to.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?


I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 SHUPPET wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?


I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in fr
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





France

jcd386 wrote:
The main issue with many of these changes is not that they wouldn't work in some kind of system, but that GW already has a massive game that has to be converted, with years of established units and the way those units are expected to behave.

There is probably a game that would work with just a roll to hit roll to damage if it was designed for it, but 40k is already too complicated to go down to that while still having the game feel like 40k and the units and weapons feel like they are supposed to.


To be honest they could have with the revamp they brought in 8th, but I believe they maybe wanted to simplify the rules rather than rethink them on many levels and so they didn't even consider implementing other things. Now it's true that these aren't things you can come about with and merge them into the current game, plus all what's been written is mere draft ideas. But that could be worth it, one day.

I still strongly believe GW hasn't changed it's marketing habits, but they understood they their reputation was getting worse and worse and they wanted to fix their fame as a company, rather than actually improve either the game or their attitude towards their player and shopping base, otherwise they would most likely have thought about overpricing, in particular. You can't blame them for making profit but you can bkame that the somewhat mock on you. It's a skeptical point of view but I stick to it.

40k: Necrons/Imperial Guard/ Space marines
Bolt Action: Germany/ USA
Project Z.

"The Dakka Dive Bar is the only place you'll hear what's really going on in the underhive. Sure you might not find a good amasec but they grill a mean groxburger. Just watch for ratlings being thrown through windows and you'll be alright." Ciaphas Cain, probably.  
   
Made in it
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle





Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

that is, hard to accept for who spent money buying 7 flyrants or 9 Pbc, that they cant play so much anymore at least in matched play but thank God Gw made for them the awesome narrative play they can play that and let tournament free of that ugly spam, thanks

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/23 09:43:46


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 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This thread prives what every other 'dakka redesigns a game' thread in the history of this site has proven:

No matter how many stupid decisions GW makes (rule of 3), or dumb mechanics they make(cover), they're still better than this place is at making games.

Especially when you consider that some of their worst decisions (rule of 3) are made as a direct result of community feedback.

Aren't you the guy who said taking a 6 different units is literally less list diversity than spamming one unit over and over?


I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about tbh. Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units


Please post an example of an army with a theme that has been made impossible by the rule of 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 blackmage wrote:
Seems like you're just salty your spam list was cut.

that is, hard to accept for who spent money buying 7 flyrants or 9 Pbc, that they cant play so much anymore at least in matched play but thank God Gw made for them the awesome narrative play they can play that and let tournament free of that ugly spam, thanks


Anyone who bought 7 flyrants or 9 pbc in 8th must have seen this coming. The very first GT winner of this edition got his investment in 7 storm ravens voided days after he won that event.

If you haven't caught on GW calling exterminatus on every OP spam list this edition, bad luck for you. Even if you did not expect the rule of 3, PBC and flyrant spam were going down one way or another, just like storm ravens, conscripts, brimstones and commanders before them.

One upside of the rule of 3 is that you no longer need get rid of two thirds of your army because the top spam army from last event go the axe.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/23 09:53:21


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
ITT: Themed lists are considered spam and you're too lazy to fix the problem units


ITT: nobody played themed lists back in 5th edition, when none of this "TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT FORGE A SOUP NARRATIVE LOL" nonsense existed and you were limited to three copies of any non-troops unit because of the FOC.

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. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: