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.

Even accounting for rolling a 1 on damage and that 3 damage overkills, a krak grenade has a 14.81% chance of killing a PMEQ.

Two bolt shots have a less than 3% chance.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Martel732 wrote:I think thunder hammers on infantry is stupid and unnecessary. I dont care how long its been.

You make Captain Titus of the Ultramarines sad.

Titus wasn't 1 shotting titans. Slaughtering hordes of orks and killing maybe 30 CSM in typically 1v1 and 1v2 combat is pretty reasonable. Plus if you make a mistake against a nob you get 1 shot by it. Also - if jump packs were as good as there were in "Space Marine" I don't think ASM would be avoided like the plague.

All I am saying is the parts in Space Marine where Captain Titus had a jump pack and thunder hammer were joy concentrated. To call that stupid and unnecessary makes the most awesome hero of the Ultramarines ever had sad. Like Sidonus dying sad. To hate the ability to jump like 50' into the air and smash filthy xenos with a giant maul of lightning upon returning to the ground in huge concussive blasts makes me question if said person even likes fun.

I don't think thunder hammers should 1 shot titans. I think few, or better yet, no weapon can 1 shot a titan. Of course, I support adding better or any suppression/pinning mechanics to make units less effective on the tabletop and not just outright removing them. I completely agree that jump packs should be a heck of a lot better. I have always gone for the jump pack over the bike for my Fast Attack choice and will continue to do so. Simply because the idea of leaping through the air like in Space Marine is far more visceral to me than zooming on a motorbike. Though, either should be workable depending on the player's disposition.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then do it.

A wise man once said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

So I assume you're a successful wargame creator elsewhere?

I won't say GW has great rules-they don't. But making a wargame is a hell of a lot harder than some people here seem to think.

Not to GW's standard. A good game, yes.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then do it.

A wise man once said, "If you're good at something, never do it for free."

So I assume you're a successful wargame creator elsewhere?

I won't say GW has great rules-they don't. But making a wargame is a hell of a lot harder than some people here seem to think.

I wouldn't even engage here. These guys come into every thread just to gak it up with their incessant whining.

yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.

 bullyboy wrote:
yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.

Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)

Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds

Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds

Yeah, far better...

Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?

Lemondish wrote:
I wouldn't even engage here. These guys come into every thread just to gak it up with their incessant whining.

The ignore button is a thing, just in case anyone has forgotten.

I'm laughing at people like Martel saying it' easy to write rules for and publish the most expansive miniature wargame in the world.

Go on guys, write a better set of rules. I'm willing to buy it. Either put your money where your mouth is or shut it!

Is it just me that feels a little sad not to see ATSKNF on there?

Feel like that rule and the name of it is as iconic for Space Marines as the boltgun and chainsword.

 Haanz wrote:
Is it just me that feels a little sad not to see ATSKNF on there?

Feel like that rule and the name of it is as iconic for Space Marines as the boltgun and chainsword.

Yeah I feel the same to be honest. I've always been tempted to start collecting marines, and I very nearly pulled the trigger but some Eldar wraithguard fell into my lap and I just did Craftworlds from there.

I hope the new marine codex does them some justice (of course nothing will be good enough for Dakka )

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm laughing at people like Martel saying it' easy to write rules for and publish the most expansive miniature wargame in the world.

Go on guys, write a better set of rules. I'm willing to buy it. Either put your money where your mouth is or shut it!

Not hard to make better rules than GW. If you just went and looked at their old editions, took some of the better rules and implemented them with a few balancing tweaks you would have a great 9th edition.

Most games try to slowly better their own rules each edition but GW isnt even trying. If something works perfectly in an edition and something else sucks its 50/50 on what rule will carry forward in their next iteration.

Like if terrain rules are perfect in X edition and most other things need some small tweaks to fit the good terrain rules. The obvious decision is to keep the terrain rules and then just tweak los and cover rules a bit in X+1. What does GW do? They fix the small tweaks so they would work perfectly with the old terrain rules but then also completely change how terrain works so now the terrain rules are bad and the cover and los rules suck too.

Their whoe design philosophy is built on change is good. Not "change what is bad to good".

Best example of in 8th I can think about is the ap system. They took the old fantasy way of having ap reduce instead of completely remove armor saves. But what did the old fantasy system have? 0+ and 1+ armor save so even against light ap they still got their 2+ saves. Why implement a better system but only half of it? With much more attacks reducing 2+ and 3+ saves you need to also increase the armor save on some of the supposed tough units like terminators and marines. Its so obvious and something GW themselves had as a rules system for years so their is no excuse. Took me like 30min to figure out after jumping in to 40k after a 6 year hiatus and playing a game.

Or suddenly you cant reroll thunderhammer or powerfist attacks due to how modifiers work. Probably their most misunderstood rules interaction ever. In an edition with Rerolls all over the place. Especially since they have had reroll to hit rules for decades that worked liked you would think they would work.

Any one who tries can write better rules than GW since they dont even try to write GOOD rules. Pointless to make new rules for 40k since no one will play them but to make them isnt hard. Especially if you dont do it from scratch but just improve the rules from what we already have. Could probably do it in less space than the current rules + FAQ/Errata even. Their way of having minimal core rules produces more headaches than if they were just 20-50% longer but better defined. Now we need extra documents just to clarify what they wrote in the first place instead of writing good rules from the start. This edition their whole goal was to have as little rules as possible even when just another 4-5 pages would have still made the core rules kept very short but also much more robust.

They didnt reduce the amount of rules and interactions as a whole to make the game better they just did it for PR so they could claim its easier than ever to get into it and then put all the rules in hard to get places for a normal player. Its harder than ever to read up on what other armies can do since they have no common USR or at least no common way of writing rules so its hard to get a good overview of what unit can Deepstrike etc. More units and weapons than ever even though lots of datasheets could be removed, like terminator variants or different power weapons, makes it hard to keep track of what is what and that is without getting to the stratagems. If you dont know all the stratagems your opponent have and how they interact with their traits/relics/units you could easily just lose to that out of no where.

The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.

You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.

Ah 5th ed was pretty darn solid as ruleset to be fair.

 Ratius wrote:
Ah 5th ed was pretty darn solid as ruleset to be fair.

By the end it was more imbalanced and unhinged than anything at the moment.

 Ishagu wrote:
The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.

You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.

I dont really think how successful GW is now has anything at all to do with how good their rules are. They look really nice, simple and short at a first glance which makes it look enticing to get back into the game again for veterans and make it look less of a hurdle for new players to start. Couple that with their new presence in social media and you have a reason for their current success. How good the actual rules are doesn't really factor in to it since most people don't play it for the rules. They play it for the setting and for the chance to play against others.

None of the players I have played against in this edition actually think the current rules are good. I hear "Yeah this rule/unit is stupid and should be something else" almost every game. I have played 9 different players the last 2 months and they all think there are glaring problems with GWs rule set. But we all keep playing since we like to have fun with others and think moving small models is super awesome and most of us is used to these really crappy rules. Large part of playing a game is for most people just a way to socialize with people. If GW would have competition that split the market 50/50 over night then the bad rules would likely be their downfall since then players have options. Their dominance on the market is what leads them to not have to make good rules.

Just because something sells good doesn't mean it is good. We can still get enjoyment out of something bad while wishing it were better. Just look at movies. There are a lot of bad movies that earn a lot of money because people can forgive it for being bad if it also give us something we can't really get anywhere else. Transformers movies isn't make it's money on being good movies but from people who want to see big robots fight. GW isn't making money on making good rules but on good looking models that look awesome on the tabletop.

The number of players engaging in the game at all levels of play is at a record high.
The rules aren't the only thing to credit for this of course, but the general feedback is extremely positive.

Just because you don't think something is good doesn't mean it actually isn't good. Understand that you, as someone not enjoying the current state of the game and hobby, are in a small minority. There is no incentive for GW to try to make you happy and risk upsetting the vast majority of people. Your opinion and your desires are not more valuable than those of other people. You are free to vote with your wallet if you aren't happy and that is absolutely fine, but you'd lose that vote too as sales are generally trough the roof with new kits selling out regularly and backlogs or orders throughout.

Preach

 Ishagu wrote:
The current 40k rules are the best they have probably ever been, and the success of the game is a testament to that.

You might not like them personally and that's absolutely fine. Not everyone likes the same thing, but those who dislike how things are going are a minority.

All editions have had issues....8th is no exception

However IMO it is the best edition for a number of years:

For me the absolute and sheer awfulness of 6th and 7th can not be underestimated - god awful psychic phase of tedium, lack of balance, formations and units completely breaking the game etc etc

8th at least has regular faqs, mostly works on the table and we as a group have found good fun.

It still suffers from I go you go, alpha strike's and other issues - artillery hitting anything, anywhere at no penalty or with no requirments for one

Appoclaypse does seem to have some interesting ideas that might be able to transfer over to 40k - Alternating detachments, nothing dies until the end of the turn etc.

 Ishagu wrote:
The number of players engaging in the game at all levels of play is at a record high.
The rules aren't the only thing to credit for this of course, but the general feedback is extremely positive.

Just because you don't think something is good doesn't mean it actually isn't good. Understand that you, as someone not enjoying the current state of the game and hobby, are in a small minority. There is no incentive for GW to try to make you happy and risk upsetting the vast majority of people. Your opinion and your desires are not more valuable than those of other people. You are free to vote with your wallet if you aren't happy and that is absolutely fine, but you'd lose that vote too as sales are generally trough the roof with new kits selling out regularly and backlogs or orders throughout.

But is there really a risk in losing customers if they make me happy? And how do you know that the majority of players actually think the rules are good or not just good enough that its possible to play the game. I don't want a complete make over of the game or anything. Most changes I would make to the game would be in how the rules are written so they are more clear and easily understood for all players. I'm experienced in these kinds of games and only need to read most rules once to remember how they work for years after that so I can play well with badly written rules and not get crushed in a game due to misunderstanding rules interactions. But there is no need for it to be that way. You could have the game perform 99% like how it is now but clean up the core rules, erratas, faqs and armybooks. Then do a bit of toning down the lethality of the game so more stuff can survive a turn and do something. Even if you don't balance everything even bad units would be more fun to use if they actually survive a turn or 2 and get to do something before they die. Don't see how changing those things to make me happier could ever lose GW business.

I enjoy the hobby very much and one of the reasons that I do is that I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is. I am a very competitive player playing anything else than GW games but I resigned from that over a decade ago and only play it because I think it's fun to talk with friends and pushing models around. Never in my life would I ever play the game against an AI or as a computer game with how bad the rules are. I can enjoy playing the game even though the rules suck and my one reason why it even bothers me is that it is such a waste of potential. GW has a huge opportunity to actually make well written and balanced rules if they wanted to. They obviously don't and that bothers me more than the actual state of the game.

Can you mention what is so good about the current rules and how they are written compared to earlier editions or other games? I can name a bunch of things that are bad and could change for the better without actually changing how the game is played or add 100 pages of rules text. Lets take a Transformers or Godzilla movie as an example. People don't go see them for their well written story but would the movies be worse if the story was actually well written and had god acting in them? Sure it would take a bit more effort in making them but would it really cost that much in making a better quality product? For GW it would probably be enough if they had one extra person just making sure the rules followed a codified standard of some sort and as a bonus they would have to do less FAQs and Erratas. Which might actually lead to more sold books since people wouldn't feel they were bad value like they do now that they need extra documents for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


All editions have had issues....8th is no exception

However IMO it is the best edition for a number of years:

For me the absolute and sheer awfulness of 6th and 7th can not be underestimated - god awful psychic phase of tedium, lack of balance, formations and units completely breaking the game etc etc

This might be a reason for why people let 8th get away with so much. It is much better than what came right before it but that doesn't have to mean it is the best it has ever been. I missed 6th and 7th edition and came back for 8th and it feels like it has taken so many steps backwards from where it were in 4th and early 5th edition that it somehow has regressed for me while for those that suffered through 7th it feels like its an improvement.

I wonder if those that say 8th edition has good rules have actually played many other games and learned those rules well too and compared them? Just the clear writing in Warmachine and Magic is something that could be implemented in 40k and be a direct improvement to the game without actually changing how a single rule in the game works.

@Klickor

But the rules are pretty clear and simple in the vast majority of instances. Anything unclear typically receives an FAQ.

Your comments such as "I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is" are frankly laughable hyperbole.

This game is not 100% balanced, but the variation in lists across tournaments is very impressive, and many factions are winning games in many different ways.
If you want mathematical perfection I suggest you seek another game or hobby. Maybe you'll find more joy in video games like StarCraft.

You want something hard to achieve, and your standards are unrealistic.Thankfully people like you are very much a minority the rest of us are enjoying the hobby whilst GW goes from strength to strength. Because of your hyperbolic statements, and the way you declare things as absolutes I can no longer take your opinion seriously, and neither should GW!

What if they changed frag nades to allow roll over?

Frag: 1S, S4 D6 damage, only usable against Infantry

Krak: 1S, S6 D3 Damage, only usable against I dunno Elites?

Melta: S9, D6, only against vehicles?

I think people are viewing 5th with some rose-colored glasses. 8th may be the best GW has vomited forth, but as I said, the bar was very low.

Pretty sure Ishagu is a GW troll or employee at this point.

"Maybe you'll find more joy in video games like StarCraft."

I know I do, but variety is important.

OMG, WATCHOUT Ishagu isn't taking you seriously anymore! A GW troll or employee I'll never meet isn't taking you seriously!

 Ishagu wrote:
@Klickor

But the rules are pretty clear and simple in the vast majority of instances. Anything unclear typically receives an FAQ.

Your comments such as "I do not take any Games Workshop game seriously due to how badly written their rules and balance is" are frankly laughable hyperbole.

This game is not 100% balanced, but the variation in lists across tournaments is very impressive, and many factions are winning games in many different ways.
If you want mathematical perfection I suggest you seek another game or hobby. Maybe you'll find more joy in video games like StarCraft.

You want something hard to achieve, and your standards are unrealistic.Thankfully people like you are very much a minority the rest of us are enjoying the hobby whilst GW goes from strength to strength. Because of your hyperbolic statements, and the way you declare things as absolutes I can no longer take your opinion seriously, and neither should GW!

The core rules are quite simple but that is because they are just a tiny part of the actual rules. Most of the rules are spread out between the different armies and how all those rules interact isnt obvious at all. Especially since everything is slightly different worded even at the times they mean the exact same thing. You can't seriously tell that the game would be worse of if those rules were worded the same in every instance or even had the same name like they used to. Having 50 different versions of "deploy anywhere 9+ inches from enemy" isnt good design at all.


It isn't hyperbole at all. I take a very casual approach to Games Workshop games because I know that there just are situation were unless you get turn 1 against certain lists on some missions/deployments/terrain you have lost unless your opponent rolls just ones and you sixes for the first turn or two. Some games can really depend on player skill and some games are decided before the first model has been moved. Not taking the game too seriously allows me to have fun anyway. I can be a sore loser in most other games since mostly its my own fault that I lost but in 40k it's often enough that it isnt my choices that decide the game that I have learned to take a step back and not get upset about it. Doesn't mean I don't try to win and have a fair game but sometimes you lose before it even gets your turn.

Played a tournament last week and got crushed so hard in game one that my opponent felt worse than I did about it. He let me kill a unit of grots so I at least got something to kill. My list didnt lose against his list due to matchup but we played on the board with the least terrain(none that blocked los to his morka/gorkanaughts and fliers due to their height) and he got turn 1 and rolled slightly above average on my exposed army and the match were decided right there. Since he won turn 1 with that terrain the whole match were pointless. It ended 39-4(itc scoring). On any other table 1 I would have stood a chance but ofc my list vs his list on that table with him getting turn 1 were probably the most predictable result of the whole tournament. Had nothing to do with either players skill and more loopsided than any match I ever had in Warmachine at a tournament. Taking the game seriously when things like that happen just spells disappointment.

I do not seek perfect balance. But I do wish more units were better. Do you know what my first 8th edition game looked like? I had a land raider with assault terminators, a predator, 3 tactical squads, MM attack bike, Assault marines, company veterans, company champion and some special characters. I met a medium hard UM list with G-man and got the worst beating I have ever had in a table top game. I had done a lot of research before so I knew the all the rules etc and had read about how bad some of the stuff I was fielding were but before actually playing a game in 8th I had no real experience to compare to so didnt think it was so bad. Luckily I'm not like some of my friends and quit on the spot and continue playing what ever I were playing before, after getting so trashed with my favorite army. Now a few months and tournaments later I don't think I could have done much better if I played that first match again. The internal balance is right now is so bad that there isnt much you can do if you have the wrong models. You will just lose. With a better rule set that isnt so much in favor of alpha striking and better internal balance you can make the game much less loopsided from how it can be right now. Going from 90/10 to 70/30 as a worst case scenario should be possible and really improve the experience of some games. It usually isnt fun for the victor in those games either.

We see a lot of different lists win and that is good but it also hides a deeper problem with the game. The game is bloated with too many options and gw has shown they can't balance them at all. Some units in each book are good and with allies you can win a big tournament including any force in it. But only perhaps the best 500points of units from a certain codex in a 2k imperial soup list were the other 1500pts are a good Astra Militarum List. But taking mainly units from the mid or bottom part of the internal ranking for a marine list for example is just gonna get you a bunch of boring games.

What I want isnt hard at all to achieve and I dont think I am using very hyperbolic statements. And if my standards are unrealistic then I must say I actually feel sorry for you and your narrowmindedness. My standards isnt unreachable since they are more or less what most other companies that make games put out. If almost every other game company with much smaller budgets and experiences can reach them why cant GW? If they just reached the same level as their competition I would shut up.

I miss Krak being "Don't let a single Tac squad hang out near your vehicles".

I miss Melta being "This squad is a serious threat to even your heavy things".

It was part of what made Marines a shooty army with a CC threat.

Bharring wrote:
I miss Krak being "Don't let a single Tac squad hang out near your vehicles".

I miss Melta being "This squad is a serious threat to even your heavy things".

It was part of what made Marines a shooty army with a CC threat.

How long was that rule being misinterpreted? Since 5th? 6th?

 Stux wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.

Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)

Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds

Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds

Yeah, far better...

Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?

Funnily enough what started this whole strand of the conversation was me complaining that Frag Grenades weren't any better than the Bolt Rifle against T7 where most of the tanks are sitting, which is the one profile you really want some extra hitting power against.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I miss Krak being "Don't let a single Tac squad hang out near your vehicles".

I miss Melta being "This squad is a serious threat to even your heavy things".

It was part of what made Marines a shooty army with a CC threat.

How long was that rule being misinterpreted? Since 5th? 6th?

Using a single Melta Bomb on a tank in CC in 6th certainly wasn't "misinterpreted".

Neither was having 4 guys attack with basic weapons while one guy sticks a Krak up the tailpipe. S6 on an AV10 rear was not exactly a longshot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 6th, a 5-man squad vs a rear-armor AV10 tank:

If they maneuvered for rear armor shooting:
4x2x(2/3)(1/6) boltguns = 16/9 HP
1x1x(2/3)(1/6) glance = 1/9 HP
1x1x(2/3)(1/3) pen = 2/9 HP + pen effect
So that's a little more than 2 HP in shooting, plus a ~22% chance of a pen effect.

Then you Charge it. CC attacks instead of Boltguns, and again one Krak. So slightly higher damage (hit better, glance/pen on the same).

A naked 5-man Tac squad averaged 4 HP and nearly a 50/50 of a pen on most tanks in the game if they could shoot rear armor then charge. And most tanks had rear armor AV10 and 3 HP.

How is that "misinterpreted"?

I meant all guys using krak grenades.

That's certainly debatable, but Tacs didn't need more than 1 Krak grenade to threaten most things. To reliably kill, sure, but we're talking about a solo, min, naked basic troop squad.

Tacs were still really bad in 6th/7th, though. I'm not sure this is the gold standard. Maybe they were better off than now. Who knows at this point? Rapid fire turning off assaulting was really dumb.