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.

Tau Commander limit.

Markerlights.
Elite shooting? Yeah right.

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

Make to Tau rank progression do something that T'au players would actually care about. Rather than buff attacks like every other army in the game, try this:
Shas'la have BS5
Shas'ui have BS4
Shas'vre have BS3
Shas'el have BS2
Shas'o have BS1

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

I mean i think most off us can appreciate a wave defense or tower defense game, but i feel like we are playing a wargame, or what is supposed to be one

Not Online!!! wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
Demons getting to auto win vs grey knights because they get to resummon dead units if grey knights killed them.

This. It's not the most relevant bad rule, but its easily the most mean spirited thing GW has released this edition.

I mean i think most off us can appreciate a wave defense or tower defense game, but i feel like we are playing a wargame, or what is supposed to be one

I don't think anyone would hate the Strat if Grey Knights weren't so goddamn bad.

The way penalties and re-rolls interact. If you get -1 to hit against a target, the -1 should be applied before any re-rolls are made, not after. That is to say, you should be able to re-roll a die that failed by 1 due to the penalty.

Also, plasma weapons should only overheat on a natural roll of 1. There is no reason why a plasma cannon should be more likely to blow up when firing at a hard-to-hit target.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
3+++++++++++++++++++

Yyyep. I'm not against 3++ per se, but it should be exceedingly rare, even among characters.

Moreover, no vehicle or monster with 10 or more wounds should have an invulnerable save better than 5++, unless it is an activated ability that requires a hefty sacrifice.


.

-Guardsman- wrote:
The way penalties and re-rolls interact. If you get -1 to hit against a target, the -1 should be applied before any re-rolls are made, not after. That is to say, you should be able to re-roll a die that failed by 1 due to the penalty.

Also, plasma weapons should only overheat on a natural roll of 1. There is no reason why a plasma cannon should be more likely to blow up when firing at a hard-to-hit target.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
3+++++++++++++++++++

Yyyep. I'm not against 3++ per se, but it should be exceedingly rare, even among characters.

Moreover, no vehicle or monster with 10 or more wounds should have an invulnerable save better than 5++, unless it is an activated ability that requires a hefty sacrifice.


.

With you on both account. Both very dumb.

GW at least seems aware that a lot of rules based on specific results shouldn't be affected by modifers. Newer releases tend to include the wording, but it would be nice for a large scale fix.

 carldooley wrote:

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

alright, let me just bring my triple brigade astra militarum list and get tables but still win on points.....

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Why is it a problem outside "you can do it now"?

If you launch that many mini propelled rockets into a vehicle you would likely cause a bit of damage in the real world.

Considering how tough landraiders are meant to be I don't think they would. Even without that it's one of the many small things they changed that made the game less fluffy IMO.

 carldooley wrote:
Tau Commander limit.

Markerlights.
Elite shooting? Yeah right.

VPs and Command Points should be combined.
Want to pop all your VP/CPs on strategems? Fine. But your opponent who didn't? Won the game.

Make to Tau rank progression do something that T'au players would actually care about. Rather than buff attacks like every other army in the game, try this:
Shas'la have BS5
Shas'ui have BS4
Shas'vre have BS3
Shas'el have BS2
Shas'o have BS1

Realistically marker lights should just be automatic hits and be costed appropriately. Perhaps go back to the way they used to be buffing units BS by 1 per marker and 2 for ignore cover. Perhaps with the number of markers required for +1 to hit scaling based off power level. Like for example to give a storm surge +1 to hit probably should require 4 markers where a fire warrior squad should only be 1.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because even if you somehow are in a situation where you would shoot a landraider with boltguns over anything else (i.e. throw those shots away), you won't wound it in the vast majority of your games.

But you can which is the problem.

Why is it a problem outside "you can do it now"?

If you launch that many mini propelled rockets into a vehicle you would likely cause a bit of damage in the real world.

Considering how tough landraiders are meant to be I don't think they would. Even without that it's one of the many small things they changed that made the game less fluffy IMO.

Well seeing as this is the toughest they've been I'd say it's fine. The problems of the Land Raider come from elsewhere, NOT their durability.

Being a high cost vehicles, that can't delete other vehicles, but there are vehicles of same cost or cheaper that can delete you and which are often more resilient, is a problem of point cost.

There is no way a LR is worth the points it costs, in a world of flyers, or doctrine buffed repulsors. Even the castellan or other knights make the land raiders look very non enticiting option to take. An army has to practicaly have no other options for heavy support to take them. And even then paying so much for 4 lascannons and a hvy bolters is a lot of points.

The landraider's job has never been shooting stuff, it's driving a bunch of terminators or veterans safely up the field and then have them charge out of the assault ramp into your enemy's face to cause mayhem there.

It's not hard to guess why that doesn't work anymore. Battlewagons are dead for the same reason.

 Jidmah wrote:
The landraider's job has never been shooting stuff, it's driving a bunch of terminators or veterans safely up the field and then have them charge out of the assault ramp into your enemy's face to cause mayhem there.

It's not hard to guess why that doesn't work anymore. Battlewagons are dead for the same reason.

Not to mention the NEW vehicle getting Assault Vehicles rules, except it does help assault!

Vehicles should never be able to be tied down in combat by infantry.

It's a fair trade-off for no longer being able to throw grenades into hatches.

I played 8th twice so far and am reluctant to do so again. There are a lot of issues with this edition but one of the major ones are poor terrain & LOS rules. As long as a tiny speck of a model is visible it is fair game to be shot. Pathetic.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

That's not a problem in real life though (unless you had your heart set on a game with BCB)

True line of sight needs to die. As has been said already it invalidates most terrain...horrible rule.

Also falling back from melee is way too easy.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

That's not a problem in real life though (unless you had your heart set on a game with BCB)

It shows a lack of care or ability when left unfixed, as well as leaves open the rules and makes it harder to put rules on top that affect it.

one of the points of simplifying the rules is so its easier to fix things like this.

Worst rule invulnerable saves. Totally defeats the purpose of the new ap system.

Then feel no pain, just give them more wounds or better saves.

Then rerolls. Why even roll if the dice does not count?

Then terrain rules aka "house rules every game"

Then tactical objective cards. What is even the goal of the armies in the games? Feels too random.

Worst rules:

Character auras - Bye-bye death blobs, oh, wait...
Character targeting rules - Don't like death blobs? Too bad, now you can't rid of them, because there is a dude hidden somewhere in front of the fully exposed commander.
Invulnerable saves - They are everywhere...
IGOUGO - Killteam is so much more fun...

The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole 'Let's have 3+ different save systems, with poorly though-out interactions between them" thing is bad.
Basically, invulnerable save are almost irrelevant unless they are almost as good as the armor save, and then it's AP that's useless.
Maybe converting all invulnerable save into feel no pain-like save would be better?

Perhaps Invulnerable saves should only ever be ln lieu of normal armour saves, rather than something to compliment them?

As in, a model should only ever have an armour save *or* an invulnerable save - never both.

And No invulnerable save should exceed 4++ (5++ should be the norm).

Terminators can easily get 3++ saves with their stormshields and they already have 2+ armor but nobody has seriously considered them remotely close to Op in I don't know how long. Careful planning of who should and shouldn't have access to these types of saves is important. Unfortunately GW doesn't do their homework or have any coherent design doctrine to follow so they end up making pants on head choices with unit profiles.

Also what's wrong with having both armor and invuln? Armor is your maximum protection while the invuln is the minimum protection regardless of how much penetration the enemy attack has. It generally means that you shouldnt waste your AP-4 stuff on something with a 3+ invuln save. The problem might be when everything has invulns that those strong AP weapons lose their merit but that is an entirely different issue.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

 Vankraken wrote:

Also what's wrong with having both armor and invuln? Armor is your maximum protection while the invuln is the minimum protection regardless of how much penetration the enemy attack has. It generally means that you shouldnt waste your AP-4 stuff on something with a 3+ invuln save.

But this is the whole issue - so many units with good armour also have good invulnerable saves. So the extra AP on Meltas and similar weapons is worthless 99% of the time.

Units with good armour *should* be vulnerable to these weapons. That's the whole point of those weapons existing in the first place.

I'm not sure if it's a rule, per se, but having separate shooting and close combat phases is irksome.

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

 stonehorse wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Assault Weapons.

Even if it's clear how they're [probably] supposed to work, the rule shouldn't have been left broken for three years and counting.

You know, I could forgive this only because it provides a sort of litmus test. It's obvious to everyone how it's meant to work, so anyone who tries to argue otherwise is blatantly stating they are TFG and you should avoid them like the plague. Should it be fixed? Absolutely, but it existing is a great way to figure out who is the scumbag.

That said though I would laugh my ass off if someone tried to pull that in the final round of a major tournament, on stream, just to show that things are fundamentally broken due to piss poor rules.

I must have missed something, what is making the assault weapon rule so badly written? As far as I know it is that a model can move and advance, then fire the assault weapon with no penelty for advancing. Is the rule written in a way that makes it idiotic?

RAW you cannot select a unit to fire if it has Advanced. Nothing in the Assault weapon rule changes that.