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.

I think they need to fix the CP regen/Winner of the Blood Games nonsense, the idea you can make those CP regen rolls before deployment is bust.

It's almost as if they didn't learn from 7th edition that free stuff is broken...

Ice_can wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Sounds like strategems are causing a lot of issues. They did feel like they brought the very swingy formations from 7th to 8th. This is going to be a very unpopular opinion, but I honestly think limiting to those found in the main rule book would fix the issues.

A lot of the force build schnanigans we see are to exploit a few Codex strategems (through cheap Command Points generators) that offer an advantage that cannot be countered, or at the very least is unknown due to the sheer volume of them.

That would also make armies feel bland. Armies were also designed around stratagems. Stratagems also require more strategy to play that without them it would be pretty boring now. I think the issues are smaller than what everyone is making it out to be that removing stratagems would not be the solution.

Bland?

We have faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers, and every unit in the game has at least 1 or 2 special rules at bare minimum.

It is far from bland without strategems, in a lot of ways 8th feels like as much a bloated mess that 7th was, just the location of the bloat is now in Codexes as opposed to the main rule book.

Each edition another layer of special rules are being woven into the fabric. It is getting hard to keep track of what is what.

Except almost all those faction rules, sub-faction rules, relics, Sub-faction relics, warlord traits, sub-faction warlord traits, faction psychic powers. Are just copy pasts of the same mechanic as is in 2 other codex's, they arn't unique in any way.
While a number of strategums are also shared they at least mixed with other faction or subfaction rules to allow for some different interactions.

8th edition isn't deep or complicated, it's just spamming the same mechanics with different names and the same strategums with different names for the illusion of depth.
Remove one of those variables and you'd probably be surprised how little in the game is actually unique.

Sorry I was not clear enough, I am not trying to say that 40k is deep or complex, as it is not, what I am saying is that it is a mess. Far too many special rules with no real thought given to how they interact with one another. That isn't to say special rules are not vital to highlight certain elements, but rather a game system that relies on them almost exclusively is going to get bogged down in them.

If some of the rules are shared as you say, then shouldn't there be USR built into the rules?

I understand that a lot of these rules are to add flavour, it is just looking like the system has replaced flavour with substance. A bit like add 10 sauses to a bland meal.

Maybe it is because I am getting fed up of special rules being the main selling point and way to win. A few of my friends gave up on 40k back in 5th due to what they described being out special ruled, the opponents army had more and better special rules which is what won. I feel like I am starting to join them, which is a shame as I really like the ease of finding a 40k opponent and the setting is great.

Just the way GW approach rule writing is messy.

Wayniac wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I don't think that twin link going away had much to do with it being too complex and more with "Having a lot of weapons that have baked in rerolls is cutting our design space of special rules".

In any case, something that would be nice to try, is using a kill team like CP mechanic, while keeping the current level of CPs given by detachments, which is a good thing for the game. You just make it so that the CPs are spreaded over 4+ turns instead of being frontloaded.

1 CP detachments keep giving you a single CP
Battalions give you 1 CP plus 1 CP every turn
Brigade gives you 3 CPs per turn.
All traits and relics that can generate CPs, cannot generate more than one per turn.
Instead of starting with 3CPs you automatically generate a CP per turn.

This should make things more intereseting and reduce alpha strikes.

I like this idea. It feels similar to the AOS style (which I really like) but designed for 40k.

I'd also like to see Imperium, Chaos and Aeldari not able to be used as keywords for Batle-forged (let's face it the change they already made to detachments did absolutely nothing as nobody was taking mixed detachments but mixed armies), but that I think means you can't use Harlequins or Custodes (maybe they need a special rule letting them count?) to fix soup.

While I’m interested by the idea, you’d need to scale it up considerably in order for it to work across the board.

For example, a pure Custodes army will be looking at starting with 1 CP (maybe 2 if you run a battalion and supreme command/something else). So, at best you’d be pre-game at 2CP. If you want a 2nd relic, you’d be starting at 1CP and you wouldn’t be able to start the game with 3 relics at all.

In addition to that, you’d not be able to use any other pre-game stratagems, like Victor of the Blood Games or putting stuff in deep strike. Furthermore, with only 1 CP regen per turn, you won’t be using the 3CP charge stratagem, or any of the 2CP stratagems (maybe not even the 1CP stratagems if you need a re-roll) throughout the game because you’ll only ever have that 1 CP from the regen.
A Knight army wouldn’t be able to create an Exalted Court of 3 members, with 3 relics and then still have CP left to do anything in the game.

This also applies to every other army out there. A single battalion army with 2 single CP additional detachments would start the game with 3CP and gain 1 a turn. Hell, even a double battalion +1 detachment would still only start with 3CP and gain 2 a turn.

As it stands, this would essentially just remove stratagems from the game and go back to a “pre-codex” era where only the 3 basic stratagems exist.

Indeed i was thinking about the problem of pregame stratagems, so it would probably be necessary to score the recurring CPs at the start of the game AND at the start of each round. At least for first round you have a bit more CP.

Seeing as CPs are generated per turn, perhaps an all elite army could take a turn off from spending CP and gather for the next round. That might help to balance that fact that CP rerolling an invuln on a shield captain on a jetbike costs the same as rerolling a flak armor save on a guardsman.

Or, perhaps the general would actually have to choose between having 3 relics or having a perfectly reliable first turn of dice rolling (I know this is not a popular opinion).

This entire post is IMHO:

We need to stop the cross polination.

It's fine there are some armies more reliant on CP than others. It becomes a problem when you can get the best of both (IG CP battery I am looking at you).

So a system where you are restrictied to your warlord for generating/ using CP is the way to go.

Or heavier restrictions on allies in general (AoS has a few good ideas here).

Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.

I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.

I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...

barboggo wrote:
Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.

I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.

I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...

Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.

I expect no change to how CP batteries work. Because they don't need them. I don't expect any significant Guard changes at all. I do expect some updates to UMs, and Necrons. When the CA drops, then I expect some SLIGHT Guard changes, but mostly costs. To things like Tanks and HWs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.

I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.

I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...

Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.

I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.

barboggo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.

I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.

I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...

Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.

I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.

The bigger issue was it made the non deepstrikers turn 1 a total waste of time as they have no ability to interact with your force, Because you have no army on the board.
Or even worse they got to spend a turn smashing nurglings or scouts that where blocking them into their deployment zone. It's supposed to be a game thats fun and challenging not just fixed meta and counter meta cookie cutter that was.

The FAQ really needs sort out the Guard CP farm and Craftworld hide and seek.
CA could do with giving marines and crons some help.

Look at the nova Brackets: https://challonge.com/NOVAinvite18

Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?

Spoletta wrote:
Look at the nova Brackets: https://challonge.com/NOVAinvite18

Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?

AM/Blood angles/IK nerf incoming but damn that AM,BA is cookie cutter now, they have just swapped Dawneagles for a Castellen.

Venom spam and the DE meta seemed to turn out ok though. Or is that just because knights came out right after? I still think the DE codex is a great book.

I still think the answer to CP is every army gets the same amount of CP per player turn, 3 per player turn use offensively or defensively. plus 1 for battleforged. Bonus 1 CP for batallions or 2 for Brigade. so larger model count armies can get more cp but even low model count armies get a decent amount over the course of the game.

barboggo wrote:
Venom spam and the DE meta seemed to turn out ok though. Or is that just because knights came out right after? I still think the DE codex is a great book.

Knights seem like a hard counter to Dukari in some respects, I suspect that Drukari will bounce back once knights are less flavour of the month.
I also suspect that the Castellen knight is going to be over nerfed when it just needs Super Heavy Auxiliary detachments to not unlock strategums.

Yeah I think Druhkari will come back but definitely not as strong as their initial release since by then people will be bringing enough mass S6 to wreck their vehicles. Would be fun to see more covens and Talos spam on the table too. Their book really has so much variety.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Look at the nova Brackets: https://challonge.com/NOVAinvite18

Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?

AM/Blood angles/IK nerf incoming but damn that AM,BA is cookie cutter now, they have just swapped Dawneagles for a Castellen.

I think the big problem here is that BA aren't actually broken. Slamguinius is definitely OP, but the rest of the army is pretty mediocre. But the only way to nerf the super-Captain would be to nerf 1 or more of the stratagems/relics that go together to make him so good. There are so many moving parts there, because GW never met a rules system they couldn't add ridiculous bloat to, that I sonder what the consequences of that would be to armies not running Slamguinius. I think situations like this are another example of how soup messes with the game. CPs aren't too plentiful in a pure BA army because a lot of the army's fancy tricks are very CP-intensive. Also, as a SM Codex it has a bunch of weaknesses that mean it's a long way from top tier despite having access to one of the most broken single models in the game. Yet the only way to balance Slamguinius without messing with the whole soup system would also screw over non-broken mono-BA armies.

I think the problem at the moment is a little more subtle than with Flyrants. They were, and still are, too good for their points, but there were several tools available to GW to fix that. Now, unless they do something to deal with soup, the problems are often coming from the integration of several different lists, often taking fairly powerful but not OP elements, and combining them into one super army where the whole is about 1000% greater than the sum of its parts.

Slipspace wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Look at the nova Brackets: https://challonge.com/NOVAinvite18

Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?

AM/Blood angles/IK nerf incoming but damn that AM,BA is cookie cutter now, they have just swapped Dawneagles for a Castellen.

I think the big problem here is that BA aren't actually broken. Slamguinius is definitely OP, but the rest of the army is pretty mediocre. But the only way to nerf the super-Captain would be to nerf 1 or more of the stratagems/relics that go together to make him so good. There are so many moving parts there, because GW never met a rules system they couldn't add ridiculous bloat to, that I sonder what the consequences of that would be to armies not running Slamguinius. I think situations like this are another example of how soup messes with the game. CPs aren't too plentiful in a pure BA army because a lot of the army's fancy tricks are very CP-intensive. Also, as a SM Codex it has a bunch of weaknesses that mean it's a long way from top tier despite having access to one of the most broken single models in the game. Yet the only way to balance Slamguinius without messing with the whole soup system would also screw over non-broken mono-BA armies.

I think the problem at the moment is a little more subtle than with Flyrants. They were, and still are, too good for their points, but there were several tools available to GW to fix that. Now, unless they do something to deal with soup, the problems are often coming from the integration of several different lists, often taking fairly powerful but not OP elements, and combining them into one super army where the whole is about 1000% greater than the sum of its parts.

It woukd hard screw over a lot of other lists because for some fefthing reason a Marine LT who specialises in CC can't take a Storm shield from the armoury but Vanguard vets can.
They just need to put a 0-1 per detachment limit on slamguinius.

Slamgunius only works because of the guard CP battery. He takes up to 8 cp to work and is so op because armies have like 30 effective cp with all the re-roll shenanigans.

Nerf the CP farm and captain slammy goes from OP to good. Can't afford the CP to run more than 1 and he only works for a turn or two.

If BA captains are as ubiquitous as scouts after that then try again in CA.

bananathug wrote:
Slamgunius only works because of the guard CP battery. He takes up to 8 cp to work and is so op because armies have like 30 effective cp with all the re-roll shenanigans.

Nerf the CP farm and captain slammy goes from OP to good. Can't afford the CP to run more than 1 and he only works for a turn or two.

If BA captains are as ubiquitous as scouts after that then try again in CA.

I'm actually starting to worry that we will see points increases for scouts rather than Astra Millicheese.

Spoletta wrote:
Look at the nova Brackets: https://challonge.com/NOVAinvite18

Last time that GW was there to assist a scene like this, flyrants were triple nerfed. Do we seriously expect GW not to do something drastic again?

Is this the same Tony who has had so many problems with the rules this year or is this another person altogether?

Exact same pair, what are the odds. Well, given there are likely very few "pros" in this hobby...but still. Alex has to be like, really? This douchnozzle again?

As far as I know different dude

That is not the same person cmon guys check your gak

Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.

my fear is they'll nerf the wrong thing if they nerf anything, I mean what needs to ber nerfed are guard CP batteries, my fear is they'll nerf knights instead

Slipspace wrote:
Yeah, completely different Tony. It really isn't difficult to check this before spouting off rubbish in a forum - there like a 20-page thread about it on this very forum FFS.

Exactly this. This forum proves itself time and time again to be one of the scrubbiest places on the internet.

They will dump the whole bloated stratagem card mechanism for something called FORMATIONS...

barboggo wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

barboggo wrote:
Sounds like CP batteries are a big issue for everyone based on the discussion here.

I feel like rule of 3 and deep strike rules have both been pretty successful. Competitive players will always min-max so naturally you see plenty of units of 3 for the most competitive, undercosted units. While the deep strike rules have hurt certain armies and units quite a bit, it did also completely get rid of the "deep strike everything turn 1 into rapid fire range, alpha strike army archetype" which I think is a good thing.

I just hope they do something to make melee more viable. I've actually been quite pleased with how bloodletters and Khorne daemon princes have seen a bit of a resurgence with the knight meta. Now if only they could somehow make a pure melee Khorne army work...

Except the Deep Strike thing wasn't an issue if you brought screens. It isn't my problem you didn't bring any.

I brought screens every time. Literally everyone did. And I think that was the issue. Mandatory T1 screens was kinda boring. Nowadays you only have to T1 screen against stuff like GSC Cult Ambush, which feels a lot more fluffy and cool.

Before the deep strike change, screens weren't good enough, you needed screens with a forward deployment (IE, Scouts and Nurglings). Necrons for example just outright didn't have an option that could prevent us from getting boxed in turn one.