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.

Ishagu is more than likely a troll account, just ignore it, and stop feeding it ammunition.

 Ishagu wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.

Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess

10-15 usrs are boring.
But 6 marine supplements arent.

10-15 usr s are boring.
Yet 50 times the same but slightly diffrently worded rule is not.

Lol go play something else if you find it all so boring.

Ahhhh, manners seem to have dropped out off favour again.
As has decent debate culture it seems.
Shame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
Ishagu is more than likely a troll account, just ignore it, and stop feeding it ammunition.

Pretty much.

But one can atleast train it to be a classy Troll and not just the run of the Mill variant.

Except they aren't crap. The game is pretty balanced, all things considering. It's popular, people are having a great time and travelling vast distances to engage. Sales continue to break records.

Some individuals on this forum might not like it, but that's their subjective opinion. Play open or narrative missions and include your own rules.

I'm not trolling. I just don't believe in ranting online about something I don't enjoy. If I wasn't having a good time I would take a break or move on to something else.

How do you move to something else, when you have money stuck in an army? You can't move on without selling the army and buying something else, and some armies seem to be unsellable.
Also what does pretty balanced all things considered mean?
How is a game with something like eldar flier lists or new IH playing vs GK or necron, anything balanced. The game is fun and balanced if the rules for your army happen to be good, but if the game was unbalanced having a good army would be fun to play too, balanced against other good armies too.


and the advice to play open or narrative is either a troll, or I don't know what. Matched play is what people play.

Don't worry about tournament net lists. If you don't like them you don't have to play them, unless your only play time occurs at highly competitive events?

This boogie-man list fear shouldn't be a real concern.

 Ishagu wrote:
Except they aren't crap. The game is pretty balanced, all things considering.

Explain why GK and necrons are so weak, then, why overheating works differently for orks and marines, why stompas are terrible, why impaler cannons are a thing, and why character targeting rules don't make sense.
Even in casual lists necrons are lacking, as they just get outgunned nowadays. Everything seems to have such high RoF and such long range, that if destroyers go down then there's nothing one can do. It doesn't help that there's only a handful of options that are actually good.

 Ishagu wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't believe in ranting online about something I don't enjoy.

And then nothing gets fixed and the game continues to be miserable for those who've spent years playing it and enjoyed it back when their armies weren't dull and lacking of options compared to certain other armies that seem to get a new thing every month. Complacency is not a virtue.

Karol wrote:
How do you move to something else, when you have money stuck in an army? You can't move on without selling the army and buying something else, and some armies seem to be unsellable.
Also what does pretty balanced all things considered mean?
How is a game with something like eldar flier lists or new IH playing vs GK or necron, anything balanced. The game is fun and balanced if the rules for your army happen to be good, but if the game was unbalanced having a good army would be fun to play too, balanced against other good armies too.


and the advice to play open or narrative is either a troll, or I don't know what. Matched play is what people play.

If you have a collection of models that you have dedicated time and effort to build and paint it can be very hard to part with them, one solution is to find an alternative game system that your collection can be used in.

For me that was One Page Rules Grim Future. A free online rule system that offers more tactical depth than the current edition of 40k, and has an elegant game design.

 Ishagu wrote:
And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.

Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess

Do you think the game would only use USRs if they did this ? Not even GW is going to do that.

Have you play other games that use USRs ? SInce none are what you seem to think of games like this.

 stonehorse wrote:
Ishagu is more than likely a troll account, just ignore it, and stop feeding it ammunition.

I am honestly curious, I think i am basically a cat >.< Got to put my hand in a jar.

 Ishagu wrote:
And yet this is the best edition and it has none.

Ignoring the citation requirement needed for "best edition", there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
And yet this is the best edition and it has none.

Ignoring the citation requirement needed for "best edition", there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

The Statline is in effect a type of USR as well, Games like this. By requirement will have to have some. This is why i am so curious. Humans are smart creatures, and often when a company spends so much trying to simplify they often make something more complicated than it is needed.

 Ishagu wrote:
And yet it's more elegant than it's been in the past.

Reducing the game to 10-15 USRs sounds so utterly, crushingly boring. Go play chess

I don't think I can take you seriously, these responses sound like they came from a cartoon character. You speak about the game as if its a fine wine, crafted by the finest hands and left to age perfectly. I've never once looked at a game of 8th edition as elegant. Not when whole armies deep struck on turn one, nor when one side is nearly tabled in one good round of shooting on first turn or when I see an imperial soup list. Elegant is actually pretty far from what I'd describe our current bloaty mess as. Unless you find a great unclean one elegant.

It's a fat, bloated, confusing mess of a game where hundreds of rules do the exact same things with maybe the smallest nuance here or there but often none at all. Where they spread army rules around in codex drops, campaign supplements and even White dwarf issues. FAQS and Chapter approved, rules from individual box sets all thrown together to Frankenstein a mess of a game where even space marines have not one, but 7 books for the core chapters. Making not one book to rule them all but tons in addition to the other chapters such as BA, SW, DA.

USRs are only a good thing, and I'd say more elegant versions of the game all had them at this point. I don't see how having a zillion specially written but similar rules is somehow, elegant. More confusing maybe, bloated, yes a mess maybe but not elegant. I'll remember your wording of elegance though, I'll ask around and see if anyone thinks its so.

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Spoletta wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.

Dont they have to be 50% obscured too in cover ala vehicles to get the bonus save?

 stonehorse wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.

And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.

And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.

I forgot to say I want measurements to be from any part of the model in 8,5 edition, including from the base. So still no moving over a base, but get rid of vehicles that cannot be charged and monsters being 0,1" from your face but unable to hit you because their base is 2,1" away.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.

And i hate how they cant even attack the 2nd floor, so stupid. Image seeing my fething Trygon 3" taller than the 2nd floor claws literally touching the models and i cant attack them. Now imagine a Bio-titan taller than the building, but NOPE cant attack them b.c they are safe behind a wall that my titan was sit on and destroy the building.

It is one of the really odd things about 8th edition. For shooting we use True line of sight, but for melee models are not used to determine whether a melee happens or not , but rather it is all down to bases being within 2" of each other. That massive Tyranid bio-titan suddenly turns from a 3D model into a 2d model as far as the rules are concerned.

Keep it mostly the same in the core rules, fix some things like LOS, or ambiguous rules that slow the game down. Maybe balance the weapons (or better, keep weapons and stats OUT of the core rules).

Then delete all the current rules from the codices and redo them, because basically the vast majority of problems are from them and not the core set.

Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.

Most of the real issues come from the codices.

 stonehorse wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

there are functionally a minimum of three USRs (even if not given that specific term) in 40k at present - AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and FLY.

Monster is another one no? As they are affected by different terrain rules.

No, they are affected the same way as everyone. You are thinking about AoS, where monsters cannot claim cover, and that is true only for pitched battles.

Pretty sure Monsters can't access higher floors of ruins/buildings. They are restricted to ground level only, not a massive rule, but one that can really hinder their ability to get to grips with the enemy.

That is true for vehicles, bikes and cavalry too.

Also, that is not a general rule, but only the specific rule of a terrain element (ruins).
They are free to climb on any other terrain element.

I could say that infantry is an USR at this point, since there are terrain elements where infantry cannot climb but monsters can.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.

Most of the real issues come from the codices.

I'm always going to say 8th is too limited on mechanics (I like overly complex rules, others do not so to each their own) but I think we can all agree that the core rules for terrain is far too sparse. Makes the game with anything other than giant area terrain and huge LoS blockers feel like playing on the perverbial "Planet Bowlingball". Even then the giant area terrain has minor to negligable impact on the game while also having some very restrictive rules which can prevent the terrain from having an effect unless the entire unit is parked inside the terrain piece. Same with needing to have the entire unit behind the LoS blockers.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, fall back and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.

Most of the real issues come from the codices.

Lack of firing arcs on vehicles.
No real psychology rules.
Still no alternative activations.
Command points linked to FoC and not HQ models.
Rapid fire weapons not being less effective when moved and fired by infantry. 3re edition had it right, move and the weapon is limited to 1 shot at 12". It called upon the play to make a tactical choice. Now they can move and advance and fire at long range.
Heavy weapons being able to move and fire by infantry.
True line of sight.
Terrain being mostly pointless, unless fighting against non flying monsters, then ruins/buildings becomes a hard counter.
Random number of shots/hits/wounds.
Random charge distances.
No asymmetrical missions other than in narrative play.

Etc.

However I do agree that the biggest problems with the game come from the Codexes. Namely strategems, allowing units to fire twice or fight twice is pants on head silly. The strategems should have been capped at those that are in core rules.

Whilst I do miss firing arcs on vehicles, they wouldn't really impact the game that much. Their absence does result in some silliness, and does remove some tactical aspects, but its not that bad.

Morale isn't great, true. Flat out killing models is a bad way of doing it, and punishes large squads of expensive models.

Fair point on Command Points, it should be based on HQ units.

The Rapid Fire changes aren't new though, are they? Wasn't that introduced in 5th ed?

Heavy weapons being moved by infantry isn't too bad. It doesn't really result in any nonsense. What is nonsensical is that vehicles and monsters can't move and shoot without penalty. That's counter intuitive.

True line of sight isn't new, and it isn't that bad. It just needs clarification on what's considered a valid target.

Terrain is mostly for blocking TLOS now...but yeah, it could use some more rules. 4th ed had nice terrain rules.

Random number of shots is a codex problem, not a core problem

Yeah, random charge distances are a little too swingy. It should probably just be movement + D6, or maybe just double movement, like how WHFB used to do it.

Aye, a few of the changes that I personally think are bad happened in the change from 3rd to 4th. However 8th edition still has them so it is still a valid critique of the edition.

I will wish you a merry christmas

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, the 8th ed core rules are mostly fine. Its only really the character, flying and inability for monsters to punch things in buildings that are the problems.

Most of the real issues come from the codices.

Actually the core rules are the issue with the codexs as well, the core rules are that bare bones and bland they have had to use supplements and the codexs to add to the core rules to fix them.

As for the USR stuff they were a bigger loss than I expected as it seems the rules have become limited to +x/-x, re-roll x, exploding 6’s and that has limited them quite a lot.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I have no wishlist as it'll be more of the same. GW hasn't changed what it's always been it just put on a better pant suit and practices to smile more. If there is ever a 9th it'll just be more of the same. Promises of change with soon to be all over us bloat and madness after maybe initial stages of hope. 8th was my believe them moment and they are squandering it with how it's falling into predictable patterns once more.

Very much this. I had high hopes for 8th when it cam out (after our group basically stopped playing in 6th/7th). Now the rules are such a bloated mess again we have lost all momentum.

FWIW though I can't help thinking what might fix it (even though it is never likely to be implemented).

All updates and revisions free and online (never going to happen, books are so much cheaper to make than models, especially releasing the same old codex with 5 new units in it for another £30...)
PUT THE MATCHED PLAY POINTS COSTS ON THE UNIT RULES IN THE MODEL BOXES!!! I can't stress enough how much annoyance this has caused me for models not yet in the relevant codex.
Alternating unit activation (not a fix for 8th specific problems, just something I like and would fix alpha strike better than current options)
Intrinsic multiplayer rules for multiple sides (this would not really take that much effort)
Some sort of way in which the effectiveness of a unit has a linear relationship with the resource cost for your army. A bit radical I know. I call this bold new project "Balance".
Fix some of the stupidities about movement/melee so you don't get units that cannot be charged because they are in a building with no room to move up, or the model stood on a 1.2" barrel immune to any melee except for units without a base (as based units are only 0.1" high...)

I think these things always run into "I think this is integral to 40k!" and "I think the game needs this like a hole in a head."

I can understand people disliking the FAQ induced bloat of 8th - and the growing number of books - but at the same time I do like the fact GW are adding and updating points and rules as problems develop, rather than going "that's the situation, take it or leave it for 2-4 years." Going digital would seem to be the solution but I can understand that being a reasonable barrier to entry for new players.

At the same time... I struggle with the idea USRs would represent an improvement. I remember 7th, and I can't say that was a better edition.

I guess from a certain logical standpoint its silly to have essentially the same rule on the tabletop have lots of differently named iterations - but it doesn't really bother me.

I'm not convinced having the rules written out on the datasheet is harder to look up compared with keeping 50 pages of rules in your head. Just what does Zealot, Crusader, Shrouded, Stealth, Monstrous Flying Creature etc etc "mean".

Wouldn't rules in the box confuse new players, specially if the bought units had been the target of an errata or FAQ. Not to mention how big the rules would have to be, if they came for something like new primaris, every marine chapter that cant ake them would have to get rules for them, maybe even DW should get the rules too.

Nah, a 30-50$ book every 2 months and then a big rules update seson pass style update every 6 months. That would be the perfect way of dealing with stuff.

Or put the rules online for a monthly abo. Normal one would get the rules for a faction. the De lux would give rules with better rules like re-rolls etc. Buying the rules in 6-12 month mega packs could give better doctrins etc. the add something like a administratum support box. For 1$ per day, 3 times a day , unless you are delux then you can get more of them with a discount on the support boxs, you could roll and get anything between an example of how to pain some unit, part of an art of an up coming model, or even a rule for a unit your faction doesn't have. And if you got the same rewards 5 times while scrolling over it the icon would glitter.